Musings Archive

Hating Uppity Serfs

Posted July 5, 2024 By John C Wright

Part of an ongoing discussion.

Rudolph Harrier remarks:

The left views the default state of affairs as being that dems will never be prosecuted for anything. There doesn’t need to be a decision to keep Hillary or Biden from being prosecuted for misuse of classified information, or to keep Biden from being impeached for his blatantly corrupt political dealings. They are on the left, so the law of the universe is that they will not be prosecuted. Therefore any decision that keeps someone from being punished can only benefit the Republicans, since laws are only meant to punish Republicans.

My Comment:

The single most disorienting and disturbing interview I ever witnessed was one where Michael Knowles of DailyWire and Sen Ted Cruz interviewed podcaster Eric Weinstein.

I am not familiar with the man, but judging from the comments left in the comments box, Weinstein has impressive credentials, and a reputation for genius level intellect among Leftists.
See at about 27.10

During the discussion, genius Weinstein expressed the opinion that the Left could afford to allow democracy to operate, and let the right gain control over the congress and White House for short periods, as long as the Left retained control over the courts.

He described this as a “balance of power” and a “Mexican stand off.” The courts were to be an “upper class, cerebral thing, counter to our populist instincts.”

He then said the nasty personal attacks — to this day still called Borking — against conservative candidate for Justice were the Left’s reaction to this, and, from his tone, a rightful reaction.

I do not recall if he said so directly, but the gist of his comments was this, or, at least, this is what I took away from his comments:

There is an unwritten social contract between the enlightened elite and the unwashed masses in our democracy. The unwashed masses were allowed to vote for representatives and leaders, using their mob powers to seek out their own self interest, and maintain a social order that they were too unwise to see benefitted the rich.

The enlightened elite were to control the court system, especially the High Court, and use its constitutional authority to overrule representatives and leaders whenever the unwise mob ventured into areas that were self destructive or destructive of the rights of minorities.

He did not say so directly, but I assume here he means, for example, outlawing Jim Crow laws, enacting forced bussing, outlawing contraception, outlawing abortion, or outlawing traditional marriage (which does not allow sodomites to wed each other), all were said to be against Constitutional principles which the unwashed mob was not trustworthy to protect.

The genius further implied (or so I interpreted him) that the appointment of conservative justices by the GOP violated the unspoken agreement ruling the nation since FDR’s administration.

The compromise was broken: Trump, by carrying out the will of the people who elected him (some of which voted GOP solely and only in hope of having a conservative majority on the bench) had betrayed the agreement between Dem and GOP, and undid the harmony between elite and unwashed.

The genius explained the most smug and unfair idea imaginable: that the Supreme Court belonged to the Left as their exclusive and rightful possession and property, and the Trump was a trespasser and thief for daring to rob the Left of the justices to which the social contract entitled them.

Got that? The legal and constitutional process to which all parties were avowed to uphold and obey, and which the GOP follows religiously, the Left regards as not applying to them, not even remotely, not even as a hypothetical.

It literally would never occur to the Left that the laws which require the Right to treat Leftist candidates with respect, not to commit fraud and perjury to unseat them, do not apply to the Left.

When Knowles and Cruz ignored and dismissed this absurd argument, the man’s face grew haughty and sullen like a spoiled child. It was pathetic to see. He was not willing to admit that Borking only ever occurred on the Left. The GOP denial of hearings to confirm Garland, for example, involved no personal attacks.

I was truly aghast at the sullen pride sinking into the man’s pudgy features. It was the face of a slaveowner offended and an uppity slave.

He thought he owned us, owned our laws, and that we had no right to vote for leaders who would appoint justices to uphold the Constitution. He thought we have no right to rule ourselves. The elite are meant to rule us.

It was a sick thing to see, and I felt beslimed and disgusted to have seen it.

If you saw the same video, no doubt this man would not look any worse to you than Peter Strzok, Peter Strzok, or Nancy Pelosi. They clearly have demons behind their eyes.

But to me, he looked worse than they. They do not say aloud they thing they own us.

Weinstein did.

Be the first to comment

Cargo Cult Remake

Posted July 3, 2024 By John C Wright

This was remarkably insightful from the immortal Sargon of Akkad:

Read the remainder of this entry »

Be the first to comment

Not Tired of Winning Yet CLXX

Posted July 1, 2024 By John C Wright

In Trump v. United States, the court holds that a former president has absolute immunity for his core constitutional powers.

The High Court language is clear enough to speak for itself. Allow me simply to quote:

A federal grand jury indicted former President Donald J. Trump on four counts for conduct that occurred during his Presidency following the November 2020 election. The indictment alleged that after losing that election, Trump conspired to overturn it by spreading knowingly false claims of election fraud to obstruct the collecting, counting, and certifying of the election results. Trump moved to dismiss the indictment based on Presidential immunity, arguing that a President has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions performed within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities, and that the indictment’s allegations fell within the core of his official duties. The District Court denied Trump’s motion to dismiss, holding that former Presidents do not possess federal criminal immunity for any acts. The D. C. Circuit affirmed. Both the District Court and the D. C. Circuit declined to decide whether the indicted conduct involved official acts.

Held: Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts. Pp. 5–43. (a) This case is the first criminal prosecution in our Nation’s history of a former President for actions taken during his Presidency. Determining whether and under what circumstances such a prosecution may proceed requires careful assessment of the scope of Presidential power under the Constitution. The nature of that power requires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office. At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. As for his remaining official actions, he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity. Pp. 5–15.

The whole opinion is available behind the link above.

No comment is needed from me. The case is self explanatory to anyone familiar with even the basic principles of constitutional law, or, for that matter, basic common sense. That is had to go all the way to the Supreme Court when any District Court  or even any 1st year Law Student could have reached this result is a sad sign of the sick corruption rotting the minds and souls of our society.

Be the first to comment

Knights and Knaves

Posted July 1, 2024 By John C Wright

The most recent talking point from the Enemy is to say that, while Biden was unable to speak, think or function on the debate stage, at least he told the truth, while everything Trump said was lies.

Everything? I watched the whole debate. Trump is not an articulate speaker, and at times he is vague, but I heard not a single lie from him.

The problem I have is this:

Anyone debunk Biden’s lies quite easily, and quote sources. Even Snopes, of all places, lists the “Fine People on Both Sides” hoax as a lie. Shame on them for not being man enough to do the same for the  “Trump said Injecting Bleach cures COVID” hoax, nor the “Losers and Suckers” hoax. )

But I can find no definitive list supporting the claims of Trump lying which quote sources.  I cannot even find a good list of what the lies are alleged to be.

Boasts are not lies, nor is speaking off the cuff, nor are jokes, nor are exaggerations, since none of theses are meant to deceive, nor have the power to deceive anyone but a child.

The  following list is the closest I can find:

Read the remainder of this entry »

Be the first to comment

CNN Defeats Biden

Posted June 28, 2024 By John C Wright

I saw the strange spectacle of the Trump-Biden debate on CNN last night, and while I am happy that Trump has now has no foreseeable chance of being defeated by Biden, I am unhappy that neither I, nor any political commentator whom I noticed, foresaw that CNN and the cabal directing the DNC would undermine and backstab Biden.

The moderators of the debate, Trump-haters suffering terminal stage-four Trump Derangement Syndrome, maintained evenhanded decorum, ask balanced questions of both sides, and, more to the point, neither fake-factchecked Trump nor favored Biden. It was literally the last thing I expected.

Read the remainder of this entry »

Be the first to comment

Thought for Today

Posted June 25, 2024 By John C Wright

Why are conservative women consistently prettier than radical women?

My theory: there is a natural reason and a supernatural reason.

Conservative women are happier and healthier.

Killing one’s own child in the womb, witchcraft, sexually mutilating children and grooming them for homo-pederasty causes self-hatred in women. They overeat, pierce themselves, tattoo their flesh, stain or shave their hair in purple half-bald spectacles.
All this betrays self loathing. They love ugliness. You serve the Devil, you may start to look like the Devil.
Be the first to comment

Star Wars THE ACOLYTE or, Witches in Space

Posted June 7, 2024 By John C Wright

Star Wars is dead to me. At one time, it was my favorite franchise, more cherished to me than Star Trek or Babylon Five. Now? I cannot even provoke a sense of contempt for it.

It reminds me of going into an art museum, seeing paintings by Dutch Masters or Pre-Raphaelites, and then going into the modern art wing, and seeing a toilet, or a crucifix in a urine jar.

But, for those of you still able to give a tinker’s damn, the Dark Herald of Arkhaven has a review:

Okay, I now know why they launched this thing during Pride month.  It was no happy coincidence that the gayest Star Wars ever was let loose in the wild during June.

This review will cover the first three episodes of the Acolyte. The first two were available for streaming last night and the third was made available to me by means I’m not going to discuss in public. 

I’ll start with the third episode because the first two are overloaded with mystery boxes that are packed with so much foreshadowing the story is more comprehensible if I just jump ahead. The episode opens on the Planet of the Space Lesbians.  The protagonist and antagonist are introduced as a set of young identical twins (girls naturally because there are no men at all on this idyllic world). The Space Lesbians are powerful Wiccans who have secret knowledge of the Force.  The Force is actually, quite literally, female.  It comes from motherhood. They have two mothers, one who was their birth mother and the one that knocked her up using the Force.  I’m grateful they couldn’t get away with showing the conception because I have a horrible feeling it would have involved scissoring and force lightning 

There is a lecture held on the womanly power of the Force. It’s not a “force” at all as that is far too masculine of a concept, it is in fact a thread that sews the cosmos together and it can be tugged upon to accomplish certain… This is all Wicca stuff, if you’ve ever become acquainted with that neopagan Marxist bullshit of a “religion” you’ll recognize the concepts pretty quickly. 

Read the whole thing here:

Read the remainder of this entry »

Be the first to comment

Harrison Butker speaks True

Posted May 27, 2024 By John C Wright

Harrison Butker speaks out. He shows immense grace and wisdom under pressure. This is why the Christian church is all one needs to live wisely and well, if we obey Christ and do what He says. I was impressed with how simply directly and clearly he spoke.

God prosper him

For the record, here is his bio line from Twitter:

Christus Regnat! Husband & Father #7 @chiefs 3x Super Bowl Champion.

Note that he puts Christ first, then family, and only then his athletic career.

Be the first to comment

Gulag Archipelago by Solzhenitsyn

Posted May 27, 2024 By John C Wright

GULAG ARCHIPELAGO by Solzhenitsyn, published in the West in 1973, reaches its Golden Anniversary of 50 years. Gary Saul Morson writing in the New Criterion pens an ode to the work and the writer, so deeply despised by the Left in the West, who put paid to their fool’s gold.

Required reading for Memorial Day, to recall what demonic vision of dystopia all soldiers in the Twentieth Century died to curtail and turn back.

It is also required reading for those of us who hope to live to see the day when the Soviet and Red Chinese genocides, lies, mass expropriations,  slave-camps, human butchery, and sadistic atrocities are condemned in the West with equal hatred and fervor as are Nazi ones.

Historical note: GULag is an acronym for the Russian term Glavnoye Upravleniye ispravitelno-trudovyh Lagerey (Главное Управление Исправительно-трудовых Лагерей), or “Chief Administration of Corrective Labor Camps.”

Morson lauds Solzhenitsyn’s work and titles his column as the Masterpiece for Our Time.

The column reads, in part

Western intellectuals usually supposed that Russian dissidents might suffer the sort of punishment that in their own countries is reserved for dangerous criminals. At worst, Westerners pictured conditions like those in tsarist Russia, long considered the model of an oppressive state. That is why Solzhenitsyn devotes so many passages to contrasting what passed for tyranny in nineteenth-century Russia with ordinary Soviet conditions.

Begin with numbers. Solzhenitsyn instructs: from 1876 to 1904—a period of mass strikes, peasant revolts, and terrorism claiming the lives of Tsar Alexander II and other top officials—“486 people were executed; in other words, about seventeen people per year for the whole country,” a figure that includes “ordinary, nonpolitical criminals!” During the 1905 revolution and its suppression, “executions rocketed upward, astounding Russian imaginations, calling forth tears from Tolstoy and indignation from [the writer Vladimir] Korolenko, and many, many others: from 1905 through 1908 2,200 persons were executed,” a number contemporaries described as an “epidemic of executions.”

By contrast, Soviet judicial killings—whether by shooting, forced starvation, or hard labor at forty degrees below zero—numbered in the tens of millions. Crucially, condemnation did not require individual guilt. As early as 1918, Solzhenitsyn points out, the Cheka (secret police) leader M. I. Latsis instructed revolutionary tribunals dispensing summary justice to disregard personal guilt or innocence and just ascertain the prisoner’s class origin: this “must determine the fate of the accused. That is the meaning of the Red Terror.”

On this basis, over five million peasants (classed as “kulaks,” supposedly better off than their neighbors) were forcibly exiled to completely unsettled wastelands with no food or tools, where they were left to die. The same punishment later befell whole nationalities deemed potentially disloyal (such as ethnic Germans, Chechens, and Crimean Tatars) or dangerous because of the possibility of receiving subversive support from a foreign power (as in the case of Koreans and Poles). “The liquidation of the kulaks as a class” was followed by the deliberate starvation of millions of peasants. All food for a large area of what is now Ukraine was requisitioned, and even fishing in the rivers was prohibited, so that over the next few months inhabitants starved to death. Idealistic young Bolsheviks from the capital enforced the famine. In total, Stalin’s war on the countryside claimed more than ten million lives. As Solzhenitsyn makes clear, this crime is not nearly as well known among intellectuals as the Great Purges, which claimed fewer victims, because many purge victims were themselves intellectuals.

Arrests also took place by quotas assigned to local secret-police offices, which, if they knew what was good for them, petitioned to arrest still more. After World War II, captured Russian soldiers in German slave-labor camps were promptly transferred to Russian ones, as was anyone who had seen something of the Western world. Even soldiers who had fought their way out of German encirclement were arrested as traitors, simply because they had been behind German lines. Still more shocking, the Allies—who could not imagine why people would not want to return to their homeland—forcibly repatriated, often at bayonet point, over a million fugitives, some of whom committed suicide rather than face what they knew awaited them.

By all means, read the whole thing Masterpiece for Our Time.

Be the first to comment

Chesterton, the Terror, the Empire

Posted May 25, 2024 By John C Wright

Our own Bellomy observes: “Belloc’s love of the French Revolution always strikes you as utterly bizarre whenever you come across it.”

My comment: agreed. All idols have feet of clay, all mortals have flaws.

It is bizarre likewise to hear GK Chesterton mention in passing how glorious it is to attack policemen, or to hear other leftover ideas gathered up in his socialist youth.

But we must recall that the French Revolution was the only alternative to the corrupt plutocratic monarchy, with a weak king and a strong aristocratic class running de facto monopolies at the time in England, with a history of looting Catholic monasteries, and enclosing, that is, stealing, public lands and common greens and converting them to private, that is, aristocratic, ownership.

If a man of letters misliked the lack of liberty found in Imperial Britain of his day, no other vision of how free men should live was easily available, aside from the fatheaded daydreams of the French Revolutionaries. We now can see these writers as gnostic lunatics belonging to the same esoteric antichrist tradition as the communists and feminists, but at the time the snake-camouflage had not been pierced.

Read the remainder of this entry »

Be the first to comment

Sincerely Insincere Belief

Posted May 21, 2024 By John C Wright

A reader with the cervine yet canine name of Rudolph Harrier notes:

“when you are talking with a leftist their initial statements rarely have anything to do with their beliefs (to the extent that they have beliefs at all.) “

My comment:

Yes, and a thousand times yes.

In my household there is an argument I call “the eternal argument” because I see no way it can ever be resolved. Let me lay out the two sides without mentioning which side I favor.

One side says that the Leftists do not mean anything said, not a word, not a syllable, not even the jot above the lowercase j .

The other side says that they do mean what is said, because they act on what is said.

Read the remainder of this entry »

Be the first to comment

The Art of Arguing in Bad Faith

Posted May 19, 2024 By John C Wright

Much confusion surrounding modern public debate is dispelled once we realize that one side argues in bad faith.

This is not done by accident nor oversight. Bad faith in debate is a core dogma of the partisans currently dominating all world institutions, the groves of academia, the bullpens of the media, the halls of power and the boardrooms of industry.

To be sure, all sides of any argument may have partisans who disregard courtesy, logic, and honesty in their zeal. True enough. But one side in the modern public debate adheres to a philosophy that condemns bad faith arguments as illegitimate.

Only one has standards, which, alas, they occasionally betray. The other side has hypocrisy. By definition, a standard only applied to enemies, and never to oneself, is not a standard, hence cannot be betrayed.

The other side promotes bad faith arguments as their special province, justified by necessity and history, et cetera and ad nauseum. Factual correctness is optional. Political correctness justifies all.

Which side? Surely this too clear to bear repeating.

They have called themselves Leftists or Progressives, or even, ironically enough, Liberals, but they change their names frequently.

Such name changes are done for rhetorical reasons, as propagandistic rebranding, and is another example of debate in bad faith.

For the purposes of this column, let them be called Woke, despite that this term, like all their terms for themselves, is misleading or downright deceptive. Awake is the one thing they are not.

Read the remainder of this entry »

Be the first to comment

Men as Livestock

Posted May 17, 2024 By John C Wright

The managerial bureaucracy and civil service currently sets the agenda for major politicians, for the UN and the EU and the WEF, and all national and international organizations attempting to install a New World Order.

This New World Order regards men as fungible, interchangeable, merely resources to be used for given purposes. We are livestock to them.

If the population is aging in one nation, and new and younger workers are needed to pay for their pensions, merely importing a goodly number of units of people is regarded as prudent by the New World Order bureaucrats.

The fact that the migrants have different language, religion, worldview, different values, virtues, vices and cultural identity than do the native born is irrelevant to the bureaucrats.

To them, human life is numbers in a ledger.

Read the remainder of this entry »

Be the first to comment

Tolerance and Intolerance

Posted May 7, 2024 By John C Wright

We hear much ado about tolerance and intolerance these days, as if the first were an unalloyed good, regardless of degree or context, and the second an unalloyed evil.

In fact, treating tolerance as an unalloyed good, since it allows alike harmless as well as harmful differences of thought, word and deed to coexist in society, encourages the harmful, and destines the harmless to dismissal, perhaps destruction, is itself an unalloyed evil. There is no good side to it.

The main effort of the Cult of Toleration is to legalize sexual immorality, then to normalize, then to celebrate it, then to mandate it.

Read the remainder of this entry »

Be the first to comment

Reminder: The Woke Will Never Wake

Posted April 30, 2024 By John C Wright

Will the Woke ever wake up?

No. Leftwing philosophy is designed with one end in mind: never to wake up.

Leftwing philosophy has several components: political correctness, multiculturalism, subjectivism, wokeness, feminism, critical gender theory, collectivism, theosophist mysticism.

Read the remainder of this entry »

Be the first to comment