A federal court rules male-only draft unconstitutional.
This is a terrible decision.
It may weaken the military physically, which is fine, but it will wound us intellectually.
For women to fight wars is a perversion of natural law. Presumably, men sacrifice their lives to protect women and children, not thrust them into battle. Two wrongs, or three — conscription, war, and feminism — don’t make a right.
They don’t have hate crimes in Chicago.
The only ones allowed to kill black people there are other black people.
I’m proud to live in so progressive a country.
There is a Russian idiom: “с жиру беситься” used to describe people so saturated with wealth and worldly pleasures that out of sheer boredom they demand more and more perverse entertainments.
American socialism, as manifested in the Green New Deal, may be exactly this phenomenon.
It’s a novelty (to the ignorant) and, though disgusting and insane, appeals to the corrupt appetites of those who no longer find satisfaction in normal things.
Case in point: “The Green New Deal… is an exciting idea for many liberals… that could be realized, experts say, with extensive sacrifices that people are only starting to understand,” says the New York Times.
In short, the pervs have found a sick “new” ideology with which to rape people, and demand sacrifices from us to appease their lust.
Mass vaccinations are beloved by the left, because they call for sacrifices from individuals allegedly for the “greater good.”
It does not matter whether they work or are justified. It does not matter how many eggs are broken or even whether the omelet is made.
Like the conservatives of old, they demand that we all fall in line and dutifully obey the authorities.
Unlike us wretches, the authorities, blessed by the leftists, know exactly what’s good for us. They have angelic intentions and vastly superior knowledge. Don’t you believe in science?
What is fueling Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s push for “universal child care, paid for by tax on ultra-millionaires”?
Does she sense some perverse lust within the middle class for loot? (She knows well that a regular American hates taxes, except when they are paid by people other than him, such as “the rich.” Then he loves taxes.)
Is it stagnating living standards due to her own party’s economic government interventionism?
Is it some wish to “liberate” mothers from taking care of their kids who will then become essentially wards of the state — which they already do when they enter government schools, but which will now occur at a much younger age?
If it’s the last of these, then let us learn from Mises:
To take away a woman’s children and put them in an institution is to take away part of her life; and children are deprived of the most far-reaching influences when they are torn from the bosom of the family.
Only recently Freud, with the insight of genius, has shown how deep are the impressions which the parental home leaves on the child.
From the parents the child learns to love, and so comes to possess the forces which enable it to grow up into a healthy human being. (Socialism, 105)
Economically, one “unintended” consequence of her wealth tax — which is not really a tax but outright confiscation and expropriation of existing fortunes — is that it reduces the incentive for the presently poor people to struggle to become rich. It breeds laziness and apathy which harms both them and society they would otherwise have benefited on their way from rags to riches.
It’s just another slick but failed socialist scheme.
The use of the label “democratic socialism” may be interpreted as an attempt to disavow political tyranny but retain economic command and control.
This is hopeless. Here’s Mises, for example:
As soon as the economic freedom which the market economy grants to its members is removed, all political liberties and bills of rights become humbug.
Habeas corpus and trial by jury are a sham if, under the pretext of economic expediency, the authority has full power to relegate every citizen it dislikes to the arctic or to a desert and to assign him “hard labor” for life.
Freedom of the press is a mere blind if the authority controls all printing offices and paper plants. And so are all the other rights of men. (HA, 287)
Rothbard notes:
In short, a person does not have a “right to freedom of speech”; what he does have is the right to hire a hall and address the people who enter the premises.
He does not have a “right to freedom of the press”; what he does have is the right to write or publish a pamphlet, and to sell that pamphlet to those who are willing to buy it (or to give it away to those who are willing to accept it).
Thus, what he has in each of these cases is property rights, including the right of free contract and transfer which form a part of such rights of ownership. (EoL, 113-4)
Socialism, by abolishing private property rights, immediately and reliably does away with the (metaphorical, according to Rothbard) right to freedom of speech and press.
It is thus totalitarian by its very essence.
Lew Rockwell has a wonderful interview with Tucker Carlson.
What they [the left] care about is evading personal responsibility for the disasters they’ve created. …
Trump’s main gift is being able to smell what’s true, the obvious truth, and say it out loud or ask a question about it. …
They won’t engage because they don’t have an answer. Their answer is, shut up, Racist. So Trump’s main threat to them is he’s the one guy who doesn’t care if you say, shut up, Racist.
He says, yes, whatever, what’s the answer? And that quality of his, above any other, is why they hate him.
The upshot is that ideologically, the tech elite — the bosses much more than engineers — are overwhelmingly on the far left. These guys have considerable public influence.
It’s perfectly libertarian to acknowledge that they got their money justly and even benefited society exceedingly greatly in their capacity as entrepreneurs, but —
also argue that their current support for left-wing and neocon causes is disturbing, anti-social, and dangerous.
In their capacity as sponsors and enablers of evil ideologues and smear factories (though again not as businessmen serving their customers), Google etc. brass are our enemies.
There is a more subtle argument that complements the last point. The federal government has enormous resources and, being surrounded by our somewhat free market, is a customer of Google as much as any private individual.
As a result, Google, even in simply serving its customers, as befits any business, is also by that very fact serving the state and doing in part what the state wants it to do.
Hence, the ideas that animate politicians and bureaucrats can seep into Google’s own policies. We should watch out for that.
Poor Bill Maher.
He created the very culture in which he will very soon be hounded and destroyed just for making jokes.
He is the American equivalent of some socialist comedian, if there can be such a thing, who ridiculed “capitalist pigs,” only to realize with horror that when socialism came, he became among the first to be liquidated.
Gays infect everyone like a putrid fever. For the health of the Catholic Church, the clergy must be bled.
One suggestion is that a gay priest who is outed must be quickly defrocked and excommunicated for lying and gaining ordination unlawfully.
On the other hand, if it’s true that 80% of the Vatican officialdom are gay, then no reform is likely possible.
There is another possibility. Gays may seek ordination in the Catholic Church precisely because they hate the Church and seek to discredit it. Frank Bruni continues:
I’m supposed to cheer, right? I’m an openly gay man. I’m a sometime church critic.
Hooray for the exposure of hypocrisy in high places and the affirmation that some of our tormentors have tortured motives.
Thank heaven for the challenge to their moral authority.
Bruni thus admits that he’d like the Church to lose its moral authority. He does not appreciate being called out as a sinner. He wants his poison to be happily approved by all. No “torment” for Bruni — God forbid someone opines that there is something wrong with it, after all!
It should be obvious that the proposition “Homosexuality is a vice” cannot be proven false by observing that the person uttering it is himself gay. “Murder is wrong” remains true even if asserted by a murderer.
In fact, if gays themselves condemn homosexuality, this sends a powerful message that not even people whose minds may be clouded by sin need to make intellectual errors. “The cardinals most accepting of gays, [the book’s author] said, are those who are probably straight.”
The crucified repentant criminal said,
And indeed, we have been condemned justly, for the sentence we received corresponds to our crimes, but this man has done nothing criminal. (Lk 23:41)
Thieves today cannot argue that the moral prohibition of theft has been “challenged,” because the person voicing approval of this rule in the Bible himself was guilty of stealing.
Hypocrisy is indeed a tribute that vice pays to virtue.