The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 John Derbyshire ArchiveBlogview
After Charlottesville
The Retreat Of Law—And Law Schools
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
A peaceful torchlight parade--unlike Ferguson and Baltimore, nothing was set on fire.
A peaceful torchlight parade--unlike Ferguson and Baltimore, nothing was set on fire.
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

One problem underlying our present discontents—a problem that looms larger and larger in my mind the more I think about it—is what I think of as the retreat of law. Case in point: the August 11/12 protests in Charlottesville should never have been allowed to get so violent. There were a few hundred protestors on each side. The torchlight parade on Friday night drew (I think) about a hundred Alt Rightists. There were more on the scene Saturday, perhaps four or five hundred. Counter-protestors were about the same in numbers.

Only some proportion on each side were up for a fight, though. What proportion is hard to say, but we’re probably talking merely dozens.

City and State Police and National Guard numbers were at least equal to the total number of demonstrators—I heard a thousand law enforcement officers altogether. If you subtract out the suit-and-tie Alt Righters, and the love-the-world church types and cat ladies on the other side, the numbers inclined to fight were way outnumbered by law enforcement.

So why wasn’t the law enforced? Why weren’t the streets of Charlottesville made safe for ordinary citizens? If I’m right about the fighting element numbering dozens, why weren’t there dozens of arrests?

The question arises even more starkly in the subsequent destruction of a monument to Confederate soldiers in Durham. The whole thing was filmed at leisure as it progressed, with no police anywhere in sight.

Watching the jeering crowd kicking and stomping and spitting on that fallen statue of a Confederate soldier, I’m sure some of you were thinking the same thing I was thinking: How gratifying it would been if that fallen statue had sprung to life! What fun it would have been to watch these gentry-Liberal snowflakes, lifestyle pansies, and pampered Affirmative-Action toy poodles running screaming in terror from an actual Confederate rifleman!

Although, judging by the amount of morbid obesity on display there outside the County Courthouse, Johnny Reb would have had a target-rich environment to practice his marksmanship on.

Some eight people have already been charged in connection with the Durham vandalism, the charges ranging from misdemeanor defacing a public monument to felony riot, the perps identified from video footage. [4 more Durham Confederate statue protesters arrested; 8 total facing charges, By Lauren Haviland, CBS North Carolina: August 17, 2017]

That’s nice, I guess—but where was law enforcement while the riot was going on? Why didn’t the city of Durham act to protect its property?

The answer in both cases: there are whole large areas of our public life where we just don’t do law enforcement any more.

As Charlottesville and Durham illustrate, that certainly includes street-level police work by municipal and state level cops. These foot soldiers of everyday law enforcement know that in the age of smartphone cameras and Black Lives Matter agitators, their careers and even their liberty are in peril any time they confront a black malefactor. Better to stay in the donut house as much as possible.

This is commonly known as the Ferguson Effect. But in a season when naming things after people is much under discussion, though, I think it would be more apt to call it the Obama-Holder-Lynch Effect.

And police report to local politicians who are always looking to leverage incidents like Charlottesville and Durham to their own advantage. Their attitude: when AntiFas and Alt Rightists square off, best just let ’em go at it. The pols can be confident the Main Stream Media will report it as “a white supremacist riot,” whatever the actual details, so public obloquy is directed at the Alt Right, not at the pols.

If they were to enforce the law, some black heads might be broken. Police brutality! Hands up don’t shoot!

You know the script. From the point of view of a mayor, governor, or police chief, no action is the right action.

What I’m calling the retreat of law goes much deeper than just weak policing, though. Our entire Constitutional structure of law and law enforcement, the very underpinning of our social order, has been allowed to crumble and decay.

The common American understanding was, that the people elect representatives, who form legislatures and enact laws. Executive powers at municipal, state, and federal level then enforce those laws. Where disputes about interpretation arise, judges settle those disputes.

That’s all out of kilter now. Consider this: A hundred years ago the long public debate about whether women should have the right to vote was framed as a Constitutional Amendment and offered to the states for ratification. The states ratified it and it became law.

We would never go to so much trouble nowadays. As we saw with same-sex marriage two years ago, Supreme Court justices just meditate a while, then find some new right lurking there in the Constitution somewhere, unnoticed by anyone for two hundred years.

What need for laws and legislators? What need to consult the citizenry? Why, some of them haven’t even been to law school!

Likewise with war. Our Constitution reserves the right to declare war to Congress, the national legislature. But Congress last exercised that right in 1942 (against Bulgaria, I think it was). Been a long, peaceful 75 years, hasn’t it?

Or take Affirmative Action. The 1964 Civil Rights Act declared among its purposes: “to prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs.” But well-nigh all institutions of higher education take federal assistance; well-nigh all of them practice racial preferences in admissions.

And then of course there is immigration. We have lots of laws governing immigration. Those laws are so feebly enforced, we have millions—probably tens of millions — of foreigners living illegally in our country. They actually form a massive, well-financed political lobby. Congressmen agitate on their behalf . [Rep. Gutiérrez arrested at White House immigration protest, By Rafael Bernal, The Hill, August 15, 2017] State politicians offer them cut-price college tuition. So-called “Sanctuary Cities” turn a blind eye to their misdemeanors.

Laws? Law enforcement? Feugh!

The law is in retreat, has been for decades.

ORDER IT NOW

POSTSCRIPT: I don’t actually pretend to know that much about the law, being myself one of those clueless wretches who never went to law school. When obliged to apologize for my ignorance I summon the spirit of King Charles the First of England. That monarch said at his trial:

I do not know the forms of law; I do know law and reason, though I am no lawyer professed: but I know as much law as any gentleman in England.

In a nation of free citizens, the essential principles of law should be accessible to any citizen not an imbecile. We would just have lawyers to sort out the details.

But here’s an ominous story from modern Lawschoolland. My esteemed friend, Professor Amy Wax, who teaches at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, and Professor Larry Alexander of the University of San Diego School of Law, recently published an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer: Paying the price for breakdown of the country’s bourgeois culture, August 9, 2017.

It’s strictly Culturist, in the sense given in Chapter Seven of We Are Doomed: no hint of race realism, of the notion that there might be innate statistical differences between the races that prevent them having equal social outcomes.

All these two law professors are saying, though very eloquently and clearly, is that we don’t sufficiently promote and enforce the bourgeois norms that give most citizens their best shot at a happy and useful life, and that help to keep a society stable and reasonably harmonious:

[The country’s bourgeois culture] laid out the script we all were supposed to follow: Get married before you have children and strive to stay married for their sake. Get the education you need for gainful employment, work hard, and avoid idleness. Go the extra mile for your employer or client. Be a patriot, ready to serve the country. Be neighborly, civic-minded, and charitable. Avoid coarse language in public. Be respectful of authority. Eschew substance abuse and crime.

You might think that’s pretty bland stuff. On the University of Pennsylvania campus, though, it had the snowflakes running for their safe spaces.[ Campus is abuzz over Penn Law professor Amy Wax’s controversial op-ed, which called for return of ‘bourgeois’ cultural values, By Natalie Kahn, Daily Pennsylvanian, August 13, 2017]

From the comment thread: “This is revisionist racist thinking triggered by Trump empowering redneck right wing ideology.” Wow!

Another commenter responded with the single word: “Troubling.”

But Professor Wax doubled down in an interview with the college newspaper:

I don’t shrink from the word, “superior.” Everyone wants to come to the countries that exemplify these values. Everyone wants to go to countries ruled by white Europeans.

To keep on the Culturist straight and narrow, Professor Wax later qualified that with

Bourgeois values aren’t just for white people. The irony is: bourgeois values can help minorities get ahead.

‘Not all cultures are created equal’ says Penn Law professor in op-ed

By Dan Spinelli, August 10, 2017

You can imagine the reaction to that.

“Just when you thought the Ivy League elitist culture couldn’t get more racist or out of touch,” sighed one commenter. Commenter Rich Rubin · said “You should be ashamed for promulgating such racist tripe.” Yet another, signing himself Jvr Gzz, channeled Susan Sontag:

Somebody should tell this lady that anglo-protestant culture is the worst ever as it has led to planet heating, wrecked the planet, and guaranteed the 6th extinction. The worst culture in the history of humanity.[ Original comment ]

Hey, at least he stuck to the Culturist line.

Several commenters wondered why Professor Wax hasn’t been fired. (Answer: She has tenure—UNLIKE THE EDITORIAL COLLECTIV E OF VDARE.COM—DONATE WHILE YOU CAN!!!!)

So that’s the kind of reaction you get nowadays in a top law school for stating the obvious.

I prefer Charles I—despite (or maybe because of) the fact that he was beheaded.

2010-12-24dl[1] John Derbyshire [email him] writes an incredible amount on all sorts of subjects for all kinds of outlets. (This no longer includes National Review, whose editors had some kind of tantrum and fired him. ) He is the author of We Are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism and several other books. He has had two books published by VDARE.com com:FROM THE DISSIDENT RIGHT (also available in Kindle) and FROM THE DISSIDENT RIGHT II: ESSAYS 2013.

(Republished from VDare.com by permission of author or representative)
 
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Anon7 says:

    The black mayor of Baltimore has retreated to the point that she simply ordered the removal of four monuments in the dark of night, without debate or due process:

    Confederate Monuments List

    One of the monuments was not of a Confederate soldier or official, but of an unpopular Supreme Court Chief Justice.

    Roger B. Taney Monument
    Baltimore Sun
    Mount Vernon Place north of Washington Monument

    Erected in 1887, the sculpture of Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, a Maryland native, is a copy of one at Maryland’s State House by renowned sculptor William Henry Rinehart and commissioned by William Thompson Walters, whose art collection became what’s now the Walters Art Museum. Unlike the other monuments reviewed by the commission, the Taney statue makes no overt references to the Confederacy. However, Taney’s authorship of the Dred Scott decision, which ruled that Congress couldn’t regulate slavery and that blacks weren’t citizens, has caused him to be linked with the Confederate cause.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /jderbyshire/after-charlottesville/#comment-1979921
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. Sam McGowan says: • Website

    From what I’ve been able to determine, those there for the rally knew from past experience that they were going to be opposed by Antifas anarchists throwing bottles and firing off Mace so they armed themselves and brought shields and wore helmets (most of the ones I’ve seen in the videos look like rock-climbing helmets and everyday hard hats with a sprinkling of military-style helmets thrown in. Antifas is a group of very, very bad actors, as this article points out. https://www.ammoland.com/2017/06/antifa-osint-profile-violent-leftist-group-part-1/#axzz4qWePG5wJ

    As for why the police did nothing, I strongly suspect they were under orders not to do anything so there would be enough sporadic violence so they could declare an unlawful assembly and shut the rally down before it started. Virginia and Charlottesville are in the hands of radical leftists who most likely are allied with Antifas and the other radicals. Bear in mind that New Jersey has declared Antifas to be a terrorist organization but you’ll never see that in Virginia as long as Democrats control the state house.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    The police are merely the violent tools of the political filth.
    They have nothing to do with law and order.
  3. yyrvjh says:

    The juxtaposition of sane writers like Derb with the paranoid schizophrenic columnists and commenters makes Unz.com a unique place on the Internet. You want diversity, THIS is diversity. Never a dull day here!

    Read More
  4. segundo says:

    Nice to see Professor Wax standing up for bourgeois norms. Such norms are the only way our present civilization can survive and are definitely the way for NAMs to climb the ladder.

    Read More
  5. What’s the point of chiding Prof. Wax for “culturism”? She’s right. Success with bourgeois values is not guaranteed and may show “disparate impact”, but they are are like writing, agriculture, or cooking your food instead of eating it raw, available to anyone who wishes to learn and make the effort. The Japanese, who are neither Anglo-Saxon, White nor Protestant, could sign under every precept of bourgeois culture listed in Prof. Wax’s one-paragraph condensation (not that they needed to borrow them from the West along with science and technology). So could Koreans and most of the Chinese (except perhaps going-the-extra-mile bit).

    Read More
  6. “The country’s bourgeois culture] laid out the script we all were supposed to follow: Get married before you have children and strive to stay married for their sake. Get the education you need for gainful employment, work hard, and avoid idleness. Go the extra mile for your employer or client. Be a patriot, ready to serve the country. Be neighborly, civic-minded, and charitable. Avoid coarse language in public. Be respectful of authority. Eschew substance substance abuse and crime.
    You might think that’s pretty bland stuff.”

    You might think that’s bland, but in essence that was the American Myth for most of the 20th century. In the middle nineteen fifties the myth began to unravel when the boomers reached sufficient numbers to be targeted for separation from the mainstream mythology. They constituted a potential very lucrative major market. Enter bubble-gum pop: an entry vehicle for what would follow. Bye bye “Your Hit Parade”. Hello Sex, drugs and Rock and Roll.
    Forward flash to 2017 and that pretty bland stuff still looks like pretty bland stuff. So if Myth America was too bland to be true, how do we set about replacing it with something more realistic. In China when the Mao mythology was threatened the Red Guard raised holy hell and lives were ruined. Apparently our Red Guard is now beginning to stir.

    http://robertmagill.wordpress.com

    Read More
  7. GummyBar says:

    May I suggest an acronym – rather than the Obama-Holder-Lynch Effect, change the order to the Holder-Obama-Lynch Effect. HOLE just seems much more appropriate.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    I'm tempted to build upon that HOLE by prefixing it with an acronym that starts with Senate, House, Intelligence-Community ... the only thing that fails me is an appropriate body to supply the "T".
    , @Maus
    LOL. As in donut HOLE. Time passes and it disappears into the coffee. One hour closer to end of watch and ultimately that sweet pension check.
  8. unit472 says:

    Bourgeois values and even commonsense are for losers. I give you ‘Johnny Baddass’ a rapper who declared staring at the sun during a solar eclipse never hurt anyone because ‘our’ ancestors didn’t have welders glasses and they didn’t go blind!

    Well Mr. Baddass DID stare at the sun to prove his point and has now cancelled his next three ‘concerts. Of course he could just be working on his repertoire of Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles songs.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Liberty Mike
    Yes, Johnny Badass' ode to the man who is The Sunshine of [his] Life.
    , @Che Guava
    That is truly dark comedy, double meaning intended. Tragic fool.

    I had an acquaintance when on travels who stared at the Sun after we drank kava together (I was indoors at the time so couldn't say 'Don't!'), he didn't go blind, but did get an extra blind spot. Would guess the light cloud spared him worse.

    Links on your tale would be nice.

    Nice article by Mr. Derbyshire.
    , @Expletive Deleted
    Us normal Druids used to watch its reflection in a bowl of water, or some more appealing liquid. Mainly because it made the calculation of angles and such easier, being usually quite level, at least until early in the next morning. Didn't work at Stonehenge, obviously, due to the perpetual fog in the Island. But a curragh to France was always available. Staring up is for peasants, too much like hard work, and undignified.
    , @NoseytheDuke
    You've been had! I too saw pictures of DT "staring" at the sun but later when I caught the same thing on video it was quite clear that he momentarily glanced at dear old Sol Invictus and then merely for a fraction of a second on a couple of occasions. Glancing and staring are two quite different actions.

    It really is a mistake to accept anything that Big Media reports, especially regarding Trump.
  9. Tipsy says:

    The “American Rule” in law essentially states that any plaintiff who loses a court case is not obliged to pay for the defendant’s legal expenses. This rule, which is unique to American Jurisprudence, was made to work in the past because of our cooperative high-trust society.

    Now that we no longer have a cooperative high-trust society, the American rule is used as a means of punitive lawfare by those who would game the system.

    We should revert to the more robust loser-pays system that the rest of the world has. And if it hits blue-state left wing lawyers and their clients disproportionately hard, then so be it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Comms
    Start an amicus brief, and circulate it through Unz Review and similar outlets. Follow up with petitions to Congress and ballot measure signature drives.
    Then await nothing. Congress is full of lawyers and they raise campaign money from other lawyers. Nothing will happen.
    , @Liberty Mike
    The American Rule is so riddled with exceptions that it can hardly be regarded as a rule. To wit, there are literally hundreds of statutes that provide for reasonable attorney's fees to a victorious plaintiff in the following types of cases:

    (1) civil rights

    (2) anti-trust

    (3) consumer protection

    (4) anti-SLAPP

    (5) employment discrimination

    (6) misclassification of employment status

    (7) failure to pay overtime

    (8) failure to pay wages

    (9) violation of tenants' quiet enjoyment

    (10) housing discrimination


    Additionally, the courts can whack parties who file frivolous lawsuits, motions, and other pleadings and it happens frequently: SEE RULE 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as well as the state analogues.

    Where the system is acutely unfair is an actions against the government and government actors. The taxpayers should not have to shell out the dough to pay the legal costs of cities, counties, municipalities, states, and the federal government and the public sector actors who are sued in their individual capacity.

    After all, if the rule of law is to mean anything, the king and his men should be made to pay in any action brought against them. If they had to bear this burden, perhaps they would be less tempted to make so many laws and regulations .
    , @RadicalCenter
    Inclined to agree with you strongly on the principle here, but let me quibble about the degree.

    Making a plaintiff pay whenever he loses a lawsuit may be going too far. That rule would deter people with colorable, arguable claims - with a good faith and objectively reasonable belief that their claims had merit - from bringing suit at all.

    The happy medium could be a rule that a plaintiff must pay the defendant's attorneys fees and costs when the court determines that the plaintiff's claims lacked substantial justification.

    There is a similar rule in the area of Social Security disability law. The agency doesn't necessarily pay every time someone successfully appeals the denial of disability benefits. Rather, the agency pays the claimant's fees/costs only if the court dtermines that the agency's position was not merely wrong or unpersuasive but substantially unjustified.
  10. I’m sure some of you were thinking the same thing I was thinking: How gratifying it would been if that fallen statue had sprung to life!

    Hmm … that appears to be a large hollow gunmetal container that happens to be shaped like a man. I wonder what the Provisionals would do, if mobs of bluenoses were in the habit of surrounding and kicking seven bells out of memorials to their Volunteers?

    Read More
  11. Tiny Duck says:

    PLEASE get out of yalls echo chamber

    Read the following:

    Leonard Pitts
    verysmartbrothas
    Marie Lu
    Sabaa Tahir

    Read things that challenge your world view and then get back to me

    Read More
    • Troll: Che Guava
    • Replies: @Clyde
    verysmartbrothas.com thank you pimping them again. Their clock boy level genius is the same what wuz built the Pyramids and Sphinx.
    , @fish

    Tiny never lost his head, even when he was giving head. Hey Tiny...take a walk on the wild side!

    - Leonard Pitts
     
  12. Comms says:
    @Tipsy
    The "American Rule" in law essentially states that any plaintiff who loses a court case is not obliged to pay for the defendant's legal expenses. This rule, which is unique to American Jurisprudence, was made to work in the past because of our cooperative high-trust society.

    Now that we no longer have a cooperative high-trust society, the American rule is used as a means of punitive lawfare by those who would game the system.

    We should revert to the more robust loser-pays system that the rest of the world has. And if it hits blue-state left wing lawyers and their clients disproportionately hard, then so be it.

    Start an amicus brief, and circulate it through Unz Review and similar outlets. Follow up with petitions to Congress and ballot measure signature drives.
    Then await nothing. Congress is full of lawyers and they raise campaign money from other lawyers. Nothing will happen.

    Read More
  13. while the author pens forth his vitriol at pansies, snowflakes, and cat ladies – who oppose ignorant, bigoted, racist, yahoos – i’ll bet he sends peace on earth goodwill toward men christmas cards to his children, whom i hope don’t take after their father.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    It is commendable that one so misguided and misleading should be brief. But, being brief, could you not even approach JD's literary and accuracy standards? He did *not* express himself vitriolically ("pens forth his vitriol" were your words) about pansies, snowflakes and cat ladies. Indeed cat ladies got quite an indulgent and sympathetic mention while the others ("gentry-Liberal snowflakes" and "lifestyle pansies") were merely sent up in scornful terms implying that they impressed him as poseurs without substance.
  14. KenH says:

    The answer in both cases: there are whole large areas of our public life where we just don’t do law enforcement any more.

    American “justice” will now be dispensed according to race, gender, sexual orientation and political orientation and not necessarily in that order. So, for example, a rally of homosexuals will be protected from a mob of anti-homosexual counter protesters. Blacks espousing the dispossession and genocide of whites will be accorded police protection but whites who defend civil war monuments and oppose immigration policies making them a minority will be forced to fend for themselves and if they are forced to use lethal force to protect their persons then they will be arrested on charges of “domestic tear-izm”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rod1963

    but whites who defend civil war monuments and oppose immigration policies making them a minority will be forced to fend for themselves and if they are forced to use lethal force to protect their persons then they will be arrested on charges of “domestic tear-izm”.
     
    And then whites will rightly view the police as much of a threat as some inner city savage and they will be dealt with accordingly if the police are stupid enough to alienate the only group that doesn't want them dead and who has the means to do so.

    The point is the Left/ruling class/monied elite will eventually push the whites into a corner where they find they have no other recourse than to drop all restraints - moral and legal and deal forcefully with their enemies in the only language they understand - lethal force.
    , @Avalanche
    You left out immigration status!!
  15. Here in Australia our government is about to waste somewhere in excess of a hundred million dollars in a non-binding plebiscite to see if the general public would approve of same-sex marriages. It was right and just for the matter to be decided by the judiciary since equal rights should mean equal rights.

    In fact I don’t understand why monogamy isn’t encouraged when promiscuity among gays has been a problem for all in the past. American taxpayers got a break by having the matter dealt with by the supremes. As a straight male myself, I couldn’t give a rodent’s patootie about gay marriage except to say that they should have the right to form a partnership with whomever they choose. Gays getting married doesn’t affect my marriage or anyone else’s.

    Policing throughout the west has become politicised and militarised to a degree that it no longer serves the interests of the people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    14 million people on the Electoral Roll are sent a return envelope with a Tick Yes or No ballot in it.
    Returned ballots get counted by a machine.

    How that can cost ''in excess of $100,000,000.00'' beats me.

    , @RightSideUp
    Quick and Garran commentary on the Constitution

    "According to the law of England a marriage is a union between a man and
    a woman on the same basis as that on which the institution is recognized
    throughout Christendom, and its essence is that it is (1) a voluntary union,
    (2) for life, (3) of one man and one woman, (4) to the exclusion of all
    others. (Bethell v. Hildyard, 38 Ch. D. 220.)"

    They left out: (5) None of the above
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Just to give the prequel to non Australians. the govrrnment did make an election promise to hold a referendum or plebiscite on same sex marriage which was perhaps a somewhat expensive way of appeasing conservatives on the Liberal Nstional side of politics who knew a bill in Parliament to allow same sex marrage, voted on according to conscience, would pass. The Senate blocked the plebiscite or made it clear that it would block it but some sort of equivalent is now going ahead under the auspices of the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

    I tried - not very hard because I almost despair of all our politicians - to persuade them that our PM had an opportunity to wrong foot the Opposition and Greens by saying that he would try to resolve the issue by throwing to a joint parliamentary committee the whole question of whether the Marriage power should remain in our 1901 federal constitution (when women arguably still needed financial protection and there wasn't much of a welfare state to look after deserted mothers of pre pill families) and if so, for what purposes.

    Why should gays have their property disputes sorted out in special federal courts (none of which existed until the 1960s!)? Why shouldn't the federal and state governments look only to protecting children?
    , @Anonymous

    As a straight male myself, I couldn’t give a rodent’s patootie about gay marriage except to say that they should have the right to form a partnership with whomever they choose. Gays getting married doesn’t affect my marriage or anyone else’s.
     
    Your health insurance rates are going to increase. Married people have better health and life expectancy than singles and the rates reflect this. However homosexuals, married or not, have very high rates of illness. It will be politically unacceptable to charge married gays more than married straights and so the straights will end up paying more.
    , @Bill Jones
    Two sodomites shacking up does not constitute a marriage.
    , @TWS
    Welcome fellow straight person.
  16. wayfarer says:

    Roving Joker Roasts Fragile Snowflakes!

    Warning: This Video Is Not Politically Correct. If You’re Easily Triggered, Make Sure to View It Within a Safe Space.

    Read More
  17. Rod1963 says:

    Civilization is a fragile thing, especially ours which already very frayed around the edges. When we let vandals and thugs have run of town squares because the political class approves of it is pulling at the very core of our civil society.

    Luckily it’s mostly relegated for the time being in cities that are liberal controlled. In Phoenix where the left has little sway, Anti-fa and the BLM types could only muster a few hundred paid goons who only managed to get hit with rubber bullets and pepper spray from the police.

    However given the total silence of the Left’s political leaders in regards to this is worrisome. This implies consent for violence which is very bad. It’s clear they are either suicidal or insane. And their followers are no better.

    In Neil Postman’s graduation speech these obese freaks clearly chose to be Visigoths and not Athenians.

    And just imagine the response today if someone gave Postman’s speech on a college campus today

    https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2009/06/athenians-and-visigoths-neil-postmans-graduation-speech/

    Read More
  18. Rod1963 says:
    @KenH

    The answer in both cases: there are whole large areas of our public life where we just don’t do law enforcement any more.
     
    American "justice" will now be dispensed according to race, gender, sexual orientation and political orientation and not necessarily in that order. So, for example, a rally of homosexuals will be protected from a mob of anti-homosexual counter protesters. Blacks espousing the dispossession and genocide of whites will be accorded police protection but whites who defend civil war monuments and oppose immigration policies making them a minority will be forced to fend for themselves and if they are forced to use lethal force to protect their persons then they will be arrested on charges of "domestic tear-izm".

    but whites who defend civil war monuments and oppose immigration policies making them a minority will be forced to fend for themselves and if they are forced to use lethal force to protect their persons then they will be arrested on charges of “domestic tear-izm”.

    And then whites will rightly view the police as much of a threat as some inner city savage and they will be dealt with accordingly if the police are stupid enough to alienate the only group that doesn’t want them dead and who has the means to do so.

    The point is the Left/ruling class/monied elite will eventually push the whites into a corner where they find they have no other recourse than to drop all restraints – moral and legal and deal forcefully with their enemies in the only language they understand – lethal force.

    Read More
    • Replies: @KenH
    You are right that the white people the police are refusing to protect from antifa and leftist violence are the very people that were standing with them against BLMa nd generally support them. Very bad move on their part.

    When the police have to contend with angry mobs of blacks and angry whites they won't stand a chance. At that point they will probably beg the National Guard and DHS and for support.
  19. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @NoseytheDuke
    Here in Australia our government is about to waste somewhere in excess of a hundred million dollars in a non-binding plebiscite to see if the general public would approve of same-sex marriages. It was right and just for the matter to be decided by the judiciary since equal rights should mean equal rights.

    In fact I don't understand why monogamy isn't encouraged when promiscuity among gays has been a problem for all in the past. American taxpayers got a break by having the matter dealt with by the supremes. As a straight male myself, I couldn't give a rodent's patootie about gay marriage except to say that they should have the right to form a partnership with whomever they choose. Gays getting married doesn't affect my marriage or anyone else's.

    Policing throughout the west has become politicised and militarised to a degree that it no longer serves the interests of the people.

    14 million people on the Electoral Roll are sent a return envelope with a Tick Yes or No ballot in it.
    Returned ballots get counted by a machine.

    How that can cost ”in excess of $100,000,000.00” beats me.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    I suppose in a nation where the CEO of the Post Office get a payout of ten million plus, nothing should surprise us.
  20. Clyde says:
    @Tiny Duck
    PLEASE get out of yalls echo chamber

    Read the following:

    Leonard Pitts
    verysmartbrothas
    Marie Lu
    Sabaa Tahir


    Read things that challenge your world view and then get back to me

    verysmartbrothas.com thank you pimping them again. Their clock boy level genius is the same what wuz built the Pyramids and Sphinx.

    Read More
  21. @NoseytheDuke
    Here in Australia our government is about to waste somewhere in excess of a hundred million dollars in a non-binding plebiscite to see if the general public would approve of same-sex marriages. It was right and just for the matter to be decided by the judiciary since equal rights should mean equal rights.

    In fact I don't understand why monogamy isn't encouraged when promiscuity among gays has been a problem for all in the past. American taxpayers got a break by having the matter dealt with by the supremes. As a straight male myself, I couldn't give a rodent's patootie about gay marriage except to say that they should have the right to form a partnership with whomever they choose. Gays getting married doesn't affect my marriage or anyone else's.

    Policing throughout the west has become politicised and militarised to a degree that it no longer serves the interests of the people.

    Quick and Garran commentary on the Constitution

    “According to the law of England a marriage is a union between a man and
    a woman on the same basis as that on which the institution is recognized
    throughout Christendom, and its essence is that it is (1) a voluntary union,
    (2) for life, (3) of one man and one woman, (4) to the exclusion of all
    others. (Bethell v. Hildyard, 38 Ch. D. 220.)”

    They left out: (5) None of the above

    Read More
  22. Brabantian says: • Website

    AP – Associated Press – partly bans use of term ‘alt-right’, unless negativity & slurs are appended … because the term is a ‘disguise for racism’

    Steven R. Swartz, Associated Press chairman, also Hearst president & CEO … leads the restriction of the use of the term ‘alt right’ by his quasi-monopolistic Associated Press news agency

    From AP’s new guidelines -

    “Whenever ‘alt-right’ is used in a story, include a definition: an offshoot of conservatism mixing racism, white nationalism and populism, or, more simply, a white nationalist movement.”

    Instructions are to only use the phrase “when quoting speech or when describing somebody as so-called or self-described alt-right”

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/news-agency-bans-use-of-phrase-altright-after-charlottesville-violence-a3613361.html

    Read More
  23. @GummyBar
    May I suggest an acronym - rather than the Obama-Holder-Lynch Effect, change the order to the Holder-Obama-Lynch Effect. HOLE just seems much more appropriate.

    I’m tempted to build upon that HOLE by prefixing it with an acronym that starts with Senate, House, Intelligence-Community … the only thing that fails me is an appropriate body to supply the “T”.

    Read More
  24. @unit472
    Bourgeois values and even commonsense are for losers. I give you 'Johnny Baddass' a rapper who declared staring at the sun during a solar eclipse never hurt anyone because 'our' ancestors didn't have welders glasses and they didn't go blind!

    Well Mr. Baddass DID stare at the sun to prove his point and has now cancelled his next three 'concerts. Of course he could just be working on his repertoire of Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles songs.

    Yes, Johnny Badass’ ode to the man who is The Sunshine of [his] Life.

    Read More
  25. Che Guava says:
    @unit472
    Bourgeois values and even commonsense are for losers. I give you 'Johnny Baddass' a rapper who declared staring at the sun during a solar eclipse never hurt anyone because 'our' ancestors didn't have welders glasses and they didn't go blind!

    Well Mr. Baddass DID stare at the sun to prove his point and has now cancelled his next three 'concerts. Of course he could just be working on his repertoire of Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles songs.

    That is truly dark comedy, double meaning intended. Tragic fool.

    I had an acquaintance when on travels who stared at the Sun after we drank kava together (I was indoors at the time so couldn’t say ‘Don’t!’), he didn’t go blind, but did get an extra blind spot. Would guess the light cloud spared him worse.

    Links on your tale would be nice.

    Nice article by Mr. Derbyshire.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob

    Links on your tale would be nice.
     
    http://nypost.com/2017/08/24/rapper-who-stared-at-eclipse-abruptly-cancels-concerts/

    You're welcome.
  26. @Tipsy
    The "American Rule" in law essentially states that any plaintiff who loses a court case is not obliged to pay for the defendant's legal expenses. This rule, which is unique to American Jurisprudence, was made to work in the past because of our cooperative high-trust society.

    Now that we no longer have a cooperative high-trust society, the American rule is used as a means of punitive lawfare by those who would game the system.

    We should revert to the more robust loser-pays system that the rest of the world has. And if it hits blue-state left wing lawyers and their clients disproportionately hard, then so be it.

    The American Rule is so riddled with exceptions that it can hardly be regarded as a rule. To wit, there are literally hundreds of statutes that provide for reasonable attorney’s fees to a victorious plaintiff in the following types of cases:

    (1) civil rights

    (2) anti-trust

    (3) consumer protection

    (4) anti-SLAPP

    (5) employment discrimination

    (6) misclassification of employment status

    (7) failure to pay overtime

    (8) failure to pay wages

    (9) violation of tenants’ quiet enjoyment

    (10) housing discrimination

    Additionally, the courts can whack parties who file frivolous lawsuits, motions, and other pleadings and it happens frequently: SEE RULE 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as well as the state analogues.

    Where the system is acutely unfair is an actions against the government and government actors. The taxpayers should not have to shell out the dough to pay the legal costs of cities, counties, municipalities, states, and the federal government and the public sector actors who are sued in their individual capacity.

    After all, if the rule of law is to mean anything, the king and his men should be made to pay in any action brought against them. If they had to bear this burden, perhaps they would be less tempted to make so many laws and regulations .

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Your proposal as stated does not I think allow for the very rich suing the state or its servants with no regard for costs.

    Question. In all those cases you cite where plaintiffs can recover costs, can successful defendants also recover from the losung party?

    , @The Alarmist
    Loser pays does make it difficult to start class-action suits in the U.K. and Europe. You pretty much have to find lawyers willing to work on spec, and they aren't easy to find because, unlike the US where you can pass the Bar and be licensed without a job, in the U.K. a part of getting your "licence" is practical training, so you are kept somewhat busy on billable cases.
    , @Eagle Eye
    What is missing is a general system for the losing plaintiff to pay the prevailing defendant's attorney fees.

    This can be a useful deterrent to marginal cases.

    There are exceptional rules where the plaintiff does risk having to pay the defendant's legal fees. A good example are the anti-SLAPP laws in California and some other states.

    Under anti-SLAPP laws, a lawsuit arising out of a defendant's public speech acts can be struck unless the plaintiff can prove, right then and there, that he would clearly win the action, WITHOUT pre-trial "discovery" etc. In other words, to survive an anti-SLAPP motion by the defendant, the plaintiff must show that he has an open-and-shut case with all the evidence lined up.
  27. @Lawrence Fitton
    while the author pens forth his vitriol at pansies, snowflakes, and cat ladies - who oppose ignorant, bigoted, racist, yahoos - i'll bet he sends peace on earth goodwill toward men christmas cards to his children, whom i hope don't take after their father.

    It is commendable that one so misguided and misleading should be brief. But, being brief, could you not even approach JD’s literary and accuracy standards? He did *not* express himself vitriolically (“pens forth his vitriol” were your words) about pansies, snowflakes and cat ladies. Indeed cat ladies got quite an indulgent and sympathetic mention while the others (“gentry-Liberal snowflakes” and “lifestyle pansies”) were merely sent up in scornful terms implying that they impressed him as poseurs without substance.

    Read More
    • Replies: @yeah
    But then, the ultra left, the warrior-type progressives, always respond to counter arguments by accusing the other side of "penning vitriol", "spewing venom" and the like; and when somewhat heavier ammunition seems required, they hurl barrages of "racist", "bigot", "homophobe", "Nazi", and what have you. "End of discussion, the other side's case demolished", they congratulate themselves. These are curious 'munitions, these charges of "bigot" etc.; they are used all the time, in any argument, at all opponents, and often fired in unison. Accuracy in aim and direction of fire, the facts surrounding the issue, and the competence of those firing the volleys seem not to matter one bit.
  28. @Liberty Mike
    The American Rule is so riddled with exceptions that it can hardly be regarded as a rule. To wit, there are literally hundreds of statutes that provide for reasonable attorney's fees to a victorious plaintiff in the following types of cases:

    (1) civil rights

    (2) anti-trust

    (3) consumer protection

    (4) anti-SLAPP

    (5) employment discrimination

    (6) misclassification of employment status

    (7) failure to pay overtime

    (8) failure to pay wages

    (9) violation of tenants' quiet enjoyment

    (10) housing discrimination


    Additionally, the courts can whack parties who file frivolous lawsuits, motions, and other pleadings and it happens frequently: SEE RULE 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as well as the state analogues.

    Where the system is acutely unfair is an actions against the government and government actors. The taxpayers should not have to shell out the dough to pay the legal costs of cities, counties, municipalities, states, and the federal government and the public sector actors who are sued in their individual capacity.

    After all, if the rule of law is to mean anything, the king and his men should be made to pay in any action brought against them. If they had to bear this burden, perhaps they would be less tempted to make so many laws and regulations .

    Your proposal as stated does not I think allow for the very rich suing the state or its servants with no regard for costs.

    Question. In all those cases you cite where plaintiffs can recover costs, can successful defendants also recover from the losung party?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Liberty Mike
    Most of what I wrote is just describing the landscape as it is. The last two paragraphs are my views.

    As to your question, only if what the plaintiffs put forward is frivolous or brought in bad faith and, of course, in areas where anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation) statutes apply.

    Basically, I think its a mixed bag. Of course, there are lots of ridiculous cases that are filed - but if you are a conscientious lawyer (I know, oxymoron ), you will or should hesitate about filing any lawsuit which lacks a factual basis or you think is bogus.
  29. What I found odd about the Wax/Alexander article was that the values they promote prevailed, in their view, only from “the late 1940s to the mid-1960s”, less than 20 years. What values prevailed before then? Why did they disappear? Why are the values deemed to have existed during that short period superior to those which existed before or since? In the newspaper interview, Professor Wax goes on to say that “Anglo-Protestant cultural norms are superior”. No Irish need apply! No Scots either. No Catholics of any kind, no Orthodox Christians, no Jews and (of course!) no Muslims, not even if they are “white Europeans” from Bosnia or Albania, for example. To say nothing of “smart Asians”! Thus, long before anyone gets around to passing moral judgment on the professors’ ideas, they have to be dismissed as just plain silly and illogical!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    That the American norm is, or was, that of the Anglo-Protestants is simply a historical fact. That all the other groups you mention to a large extent adopted those norms is what we used to call assimilation or the melting pot.

    These "American norms" were of course influenced by the many other groups you mention, and others. But their root and basis is, or, again, was, Anglo-Protestant.

    To argue otherwise is to ignore historical fact. Much like arguing that most great writers, artists and thinkers have been male. The facts don't change because you or I don't like them.

    We can deny the facts and denounce those who state them, but they don't cease to be facts. And reality bites.
    , @anarchyst
    At the risk of giving offense, (which is not my intent), Protestantism is both a blessing and a curse. The positive aspects of Protestantism include the abolition of "indulgences" (bribes to assure that heaven is in one's afterlife) and other excesses of the Catholic Church were positive benefits to Protestantism. Add to that, the elimination of "usury" prohibitions (which has had mixed results), which made modern capitalism possible.
    The negative aspects of Protestantism are the (false) admission that "good works" are of no consequence and that faith in Jesus Christ is all that is needed to insure "salvation".
    Here is but one example:
    A low-life criminal, ne-er-do-well, or a financial "hit man" who takes advantage of others by unscrupulous behavior, stealing, committing acts of violence, cheating people out of their money, etc. can, on their deathbeds proclaim their faith in Jesus Christ, and all is automatically "forgiven", despite being scoundrels all of their lives--the Protestant view of "salvation".
    While...
    A truly good person, a non-Christian, who has performed good works throughout his lifetime, without expectation of renumeration or reward, merely because "it is the right thing to do", is automatically condemned because he may not have a belief in Jesus Christ.
    While...
    A Roman Catholic who has lived a chaste and honest life who DOES believe that "good works" are to be done because "it is the right thing to do", also without expectation of renumeration or reward, is condemned for not believing that salvation through Jesus Christ comes unconditionally and "without strings attached".
    I am of the firm belief that a person's actions in this life will affect the person's "spiritual soul" in the next life, regardless of religious affiliation or beliefs.
    Let's not forget that it was Catholics who established the first modern-day universities, hospitals, and other great benefits to all mankind...that exist to this day.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    See what, for now, are #53 and #54 - replies to anarchyst and Logan.
  30. @Liberty Mike
    The American Rule is so riddled with exceptions that it can hardly be regarded as a rule. To wit, there are literally hundreds of statutes that provide for reasonable attorney's fees to a victorious plaintiff in the following types of cases:

    (1) civil rights

    (2) anti-trust

    (3) consumer protection

    (4) anti-SLAPP

    (5) employment discrimination

    (6) misclassification of employment status

    (7) failure to pay overtime

    (8) failure to pay wages

    (9) violation of tenants' quiet enjoyment

    (10) housing discrimination


    Additionally, the courts can whack parties who file frivolous lawsuits, motions, and other pleadings and it happens frequently: SEE RULE 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as well as the state analogues.

    Where the system is acutely unfair is an actions against the government and government actors. The taxpayers should not have to shell out the dough to pay the legal costs of cities, counties, municipalities, states, and the federal government and the public sector actors who are sued in their individual capacity.

    After all, if the rule of law is to mean anything, the king and his men should be made to pay in any action brought against them. If they had to bear this burden, perhaps they would be less tempted to make so many laws and regulations .

    Loser pays does make it difficult to start class-action suits in the U.K. and Europe. You pretty much have to find lawyers willing to work on spec, and they aren’t easy to find because, unlike the US where you can pass the Bar and be licensed without a job, in the U.K. a part of getting your “licence” is practical training, so you are kept somewhat busy on billable cases.

    Read More
  31. wayfarer says:

    Outnumbered Ten to One, a Group of Olympia Washington Street Kids Take on Marxist Antifa Rioters.

    Read More
  32. @anon
    14 million people on the Electoral Roll are sent a return envelope with a Tick Yes or No ballot in it.
    Returned ballots get counted by a machine.

    How that can cost ''in excess of $100,000,000.00'' beats me.

    I suppose in a nation where the CEO of the Post Office get a payout of ten million plus, nothing should surprise us.

    Read More
  33. Joe Hide says:

    Good article. Easy to understand. Powerful point made. Keep them coming!

    Read More
  34. @Wizard of Oz
    Your proposal as stated does not I think allow for the very rich suing the state or its servants with no regard for costs.

    Question. In all those cases you cite where plaintiffs can recover costs, can successful defendants also recover from the losung party?

    Most of what I wrote is just describing the landscape as it is. The last two paragraphs are my views.

    As to your question, only if what the plaintiffs put forward is frivolous or brought in bad faith and, of course, in areas where anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation) statutes apply.

    Basically, I think its a mixed bag. Of course, there are lots of ridiculous cases that are filed – but if you are a conscientious lawyer (I know, oxymoron ), you will or should hesitate about filing any lawsuit which lacks a factual basis or you think is bogus.

    Read More
  35. Logan says:

    “Likewise with war. Our Constitution reserves the right to declare war to Congress, the national legislature. But Congress last exercised that right in 1942 (against Bulgaria, I think it was).”

    Historically, John, this is misleading.

    Our country has been engaged in military action some hundreds of times, with the number varying depending on what you decide counts as “military action.”

    I’m not sure how many times Congress has formally declared war, but I’m pretty sure it’s <10.

    Even our bloodiest war was never declared formally.

    All the military activities since 9/11 are arguably legalized by Congress having passed, nearly unanimously, an Authorization to Use Military Force, which they (foolishly, IMO) passed without a sunset clause. This is, of course, the functional equivalent of a declaration of war, without using the form.

    My point is that if military action is unconstitutional without a formal declaration of war by Congress, then perhaps every single one of our presidents has acted unconstitutionally, including Washington, Adams and Jefferson.

    Read More
  36. Logan says:
    @Michael Kenny
    What I found odd about the Wax/Alexander article was that the values they promote prevailed, in their view, only from “the late 1940s to the mid-1960s”, less than 20 years. What values prevailed before then? Why did they disappear? Why are the values deemed to have existed during that short period superior to those which existed before or since? In the newspaper interview, Professor Wax goes on to say that “Anglo-Protestant cultural norms are superior”. No Irish need apply! No Scots either. No Catholics of any kind, no Orthodox Christians, no Jews and (of course!) no Muslims, not even if they are “white Europeans” from Bosnia or Albania, for example. To say nothing of “smart Asians”! Thus, long before anyone gets around to passing moral judgment on the professors’ ideas, they have to be dismissed as just plain silly and illogical!

    That the American norm is, or was, that of the Anglo-Protestants is simply a historical fact. That all the other groups you mention to a large extent adopted those norms is what we used to call assimilation or the melting pot.

    These “American norms” were of course influenced by the many other groups you mention, and others. But their root and basis is, or, again, was, Anglo-Protestant.

    To argue otherwise is to ignore historical fact. Much like arguing that most great writers, artists and thinkers have been male. The facts don’t change because you or I don’t like them.

    We can deny the facts and denounce those who state them, but they don’t cease to be facts. And reality bites.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    I agree and add what I have laboriously thumbed out in answer to anarchyst at what is atvpresent #53. The English and Scots with their literacy encouraged by translation of the Bible, maybe the advantages pointed to by Greg Clark, snd much less disruption than the 30 Years War led the way towards the good things of modern civilusation and, despite slavery, and after fear of witchcraft abated America was part of it.
  37. anarchyst says:
    @Michael Kenny
    What I found odd about the Wax/Alexander article was that the values they promote prevailed, in their view, only from “the late 1940s to the mid-1960s”, less than 20 years. What values prevailed before then? Why did they disappear? Why are the values deemed to have existed during that short period superior to those which existed before or since? In the newspaper interview, Professor Wax goes on to say that “Anglo-Protestant cultural norms are superior”. No Irish need apply! No Scots either. No Catholics of any kind, no Orthodox Christians, no Jews and (of course!) no Muslims, not even if they are “white Europeans” from Bosnia or Albania, for example. To say nothing of “smart Asians”! Thus, long before anyone gets around to passing moral judgment on the professors’ ideas, they have to be dismissed as just plain silly and illogical!

    At the risk of giving offense, (which is not my intent), Protestantism is both a blessing and a curse. The positive aspects of Protestantism include the abolition of “indulgences” (bribes to assure that heaven is in one’s afterlife) and other excesses of the Catholic Church were positive benefits to Protestantism. Add to that, the elimination of “usury” prohibitions (which has had mixed results), which made modern capitalism possible.
    The negative aspects of Protestantism are the (false) admission that “good works” are of no consequence and that faith in Jesus Christ is all that is needed to insure “salvation”.
    Here is but one example:
    A low-life criminal, ne-er-do-well, or a financial “hit man” who takes advantage of others by unscrupulous behavior, stealing, committing acts of violence, cheating people out of their money, etc. can, on their deathbeds proclaim their faith in Jesus Christ, and all is automatically “forgiven”, despite being scoundrels all of their lives–the Protestant view of “salvation”.
    While…
    A truly good person, a non-Christian, who has performed good works throughout his lifetime, without expectation of renumeration or reward, merely because “it is the right thing to do”, is automatically condemned because he may not have a belief in Jesus Christ.
    While…
    A Roman Catholic who has lived a chaste and honest life who DOES believe that “good works” are to be done because “it is the right thing to do”, also without expectation of renumeration or reward, is condemned for not believing that salvation through Jesus Christ comes unconditionally and “without strings attached”.
    I am of the firm belief that a person’s actions in this life will affect the person’s “spiritual soul” in the next life, regardless of religious affiliation or beliefs.
    Let’s not forget that it was Catholics who established the first modern-day universities, hospitals, and other great benefits to all mankind…that exist to this day.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chris Mallory

    A low-life criminal, ne-er-do-well, or a financial “hit man” who takes advantage of others by unscrupulous behavior, stealing, committing acts of violence, cheating people out of their money, etc. can, on their deathbeds proclaim their faith in Jesus Christ, and all is automatically “forgiven”, despite being scoundrels all of their lives–the Protestant view of “salvation”.
     
    You mean like the thief on the cross? He did nothing but proclaim his faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and Christ assured the thief that he would be with Christ in Heaven.

    A truly good person, a non-Christian, who has performed good works throughout his lifetime, without expectation of renumeration or reward, merely because “it is the right thing to do”, is automatically condemned because he may not have a belief in Jesus Christ.
     
    This is the position supported by the Holy Scripture, after all, our righteousness is as filthy rags and no man comes to the Father but by the Son.

    A Roman Catholic who has lived a chaste and honest life who DOES believe that “good works” are to be done because “it is the right thing to do”, also without expectation of renumeration or reward, is condemned for not believing that salvation through Jesus Christ comes unconditionally and “without strings attached”.
     
    Ephesians 2:
    8 For it is by grace you have been saved through faith, and this not from yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.

    Can't get much clearer than that.

    Catholics are pagans, not Christians.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Coming from the Anglican tradition which is both Catholic and Protestant (and well represented in 18th century America) I recall learning that those illogical Calvinist and Calvinistic Prods were enjoined to strive mightily for worldly success and esteem for good Christian living in order to assure themselves they were amongst the Elect (no last minute confessions were of any use).

    As I intend to note elsewhere the, or anyway a major, contribution of Protestantism, despite the witchburning Puritans, and including of course the Scots, was its combination of emphasis on literacy for the masses and its being a major part of the sweeping away of unreasoned reliance on dogmatic authority. It didn't just support der Geist des Kapitalismus but facilitated the Scientific Revolution beginning while Galileo was still under house arrest.

  38. @Tipsy
    The "American Rule" in law essentially states that any plaintiff who loses a court case is not obliged to pay for the defendant's legal expenses. This rule, which is unique to American Jurisprudence, was made to work in the past because of our cooperative high-trust society.

    Now that we no longer have a cooperative high-trust society, the American rule is used as a means of punitive lawfare by those who would game the system.

    We should revert to the more robust loser-pays system that the rest of the world has. And if it hits blue-state left wing lawyers and their clients disproportionately hard, then so be it.

    Inclined to agree with you strongly on the principle here, but let me quibble about the degree.

    Making a plaintiff pay whenever he loses a lawsuit may be going too far. That rule would deter people with colorable, arguable claims – with a good faith and objectively reasonable belief that their claims had merit – from bringing suit at all.

    The happy medium could be a rule that a plaintiff must pay the defendant’s attorneys fees and costs when the court determines that the plaintiff’s claims lacked substantial justification.

    There is a similar rule in the area of Social Security disability law. The agency doesn’t necessarily pay every time someone successfully appeals the denial of disability benefits. Rather, the agency pays the claimant’s fees/costs only if the court dtermines that the agency’s position was not merely wrong or unpersuasive but substantially unjustified.

    Read More
  39. @anarchyst
    At the risk of giving offense, (which is not my intent), Protestantism is both a blessing and a curse. The positive aspects of Protestantism include the abolition of "indulgences" (bribes to assure that heaven is in one's afterlife) and other excesses of the Catholic Church were positive benefits to Protestantism. Add to that, the elimination of "usury" prohibitions (which has had mixed results), which made modern capitalism possible.
    The negative aspects of Protestantism are the (false) admission that "good works" are of no consequence and that faith in Jesus Christ is all that is needed to insure "salvation".
    Here is but one example:
    A low-life criminal, ne-er-do-well, or a financial "hit man" who takes advantage of others by unscrupulous behavior, stealing, committing acts of violence, cheating people out of their money, etc. can, on their deathbeds proclaim their faith in Jesus Christ, and all is automatically "forgiven", despite being scoundrels all of their lives--the Protestant view of "salvation".
    While...
    A truly good person, a non-Christian, who has performed good works throughout his lifetime, without expectation of renumeration or reward, merely because "it is the right thing to do", is automatically condemned because he may not have a belief in Jesus Christ.
    While...
    A Roman Catholic who has lived a chaste and honest life who DOES believe that "good works" are to be done because "it is the right thing to do", also without expectation of renumeration or reward, is condemned for not believing that salvation through Jesus Christ comes unconditionally and "without strings attached".
    I am of the firm belief that a person's actions in this life will affect the person's "spiritual soul" in the next life, regardless of religious affiliation or beliefs.
    Let's not forget that it was Catholics who established the first modern-day universities, hospitals, and other great benefits to all mankind...that exist to this day.

    A low-life criminal, ne-er-do-well, or a financial “hit man” who takes advantage of others by unscrupulous behavior, stealing, committing acts of violence, cheating people out of their money, etc. can, on their deathbeds proclaim their faith in Jesus Christ, and all is automatically “forgiven”, despite being scoundrels all of their lives–the Protestant view of “salvation”.

    You mean like the thief on the cross? He did nothing but proclaim his faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and Christ assured the thief that he would be with Christ in Heaven.

    A truly good person, a non-Christian, who has performed good works throughout his lifetime, without expectation of renumeration or reward, merely because “it is the right thing to do”, is automatically condemned because he may not have a belief in Jesus Christ.

    This is the position supported by the Holy Scripture, after all, our righteousness is as filthy rags and no man comes to the Father but by the Son.

    A Roman Catholic who has lived a chaste and honest life who DOES believe that “good works” are to be done because “it is the right thing to do”, also without expectation of renumeration or reward, is condemned for not believing that salvation through Jesus Christ comes unconditionally and “without strings attached”.

    Ephesians 2:
    8 For it is by grace you have been saved through faith, and this not from yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.

    Can’t get much clearer than that.

    Catholics are pagans, not Christians.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Delinquent Snail
    And both groups are delusional.

    Most Christian holidays are just "re-skinned" pagan holidays. Christmas was placed on the winter solstice, you even bring a tree into your home and decorate it. Whats that have to do with jesus?

    Easter is a fertility holiday. Rabbits breed like, well, rabbits, and you hunt for eggs. Whats jesus have to do with that?

    The Christian religion is a direct result of a roman emperor trying to keep his fractured empire together. He gathered all the prominent Christian leaders together and they sorted out was what the "official" version of Christendom. They discarded texts that didnt fit into their narrative. Then they perverted it further with Catholicism, saying an "elected official was the voice of god on earth". Nevermind that elected official was usually who ever had the most political pull at the time.

    Then there was the church of england. A certian king was excommunicated and instead of having his heavily religious peasants rise up and overthrow him, he declared the start of a new chapter in christian history, "the church of england".

    Then, people came to the New World to get away from the stagnant religion of fear (among other reasons) and a new version of Christianity sprang up, which arguably, was even more demanding and fear inspiring.


    Its all just a tool for control. Whats a better way to keep the "unwashed masses" in line then to scare them with "eternal suffering" if they dont follow the rules?

    If you disagree, think about the 160 other gods humans have worshipped in the last 4000 years. Every group had a "hell", or a place for people that didnt follow the rules of society, and most had a "reward" for those that did. Every group thought they had it right, norse, hindu, egyptian... And then the culture dies out (usually) and those gods are looked at as myths of a separate time. Modern religion is the same.
  40. nickels says:

    I’m reading Paul Craig Roberts ‘The New Color Line’. I recommend it as essential reading to understand how the courts adopting the Marxist concepts of Gunnar Myrdal’s ‘American Dilemna’ (which E Michael Jones argues was actually written by the CIA) to undermine democracy in Brown vs Board and beyond.
    Basically the argument is that democracy itself is incapable of producing a moral outcome, so it is the imperative of the small circle of judges and the sociological elite to save democracy and the people from itself by forming a kritarchy.
    The book goes case by case showing the path of destruction through both the constitution and democracy in the 70′s through the 90′s, and how the judgemenets were rendered along these Marxist lines.

    Highly recommended for the legal analysis.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jake
    I haven't read Jones on the CIA writing The American Dilemma. And as the CIA was founded after that book was published, it is impossible. But I can believe that the CIA's precursors would have lended a strong helping hand to Myrdal. And I have no doubt the people who created the CIA (which served the old northeastern WASP Elite power base 100%) were behind the Brown case and decision, as well the war waged to destroy the South starting in the 1950s.

    The same crowd also used blacks to destroy Catholic neighborhoods across the north.

    WASPs have always allied with Jews against the vast majority of white Christians, and as soon as they encountered blacks, WASP Elites began using blacks as tools and weapons with which to batter the whites they wished to utterly subdue.
  41. @The Alarmist
    I'm tempted to build upon that HOLE by prefixing it with an acronym that starts with Senate, House, Intelligence-Community ... the only thing that fails me is an appropriate body to supply the "T".

    Community has a “t” at the end

    SHItHOLE works

    Read More
  42. @unit472
    Bourgeois values and even commonsense are for losers. I give you 'Johnny Baddass' a rapper who declared staring at the sun during a solar eclipse never hurt anyone because 'our' ancestors didn't have welders glasses and they didn't go blind!

    Well Mr. Baddass DID stare at the sun to prove his point and has now cancelled his next three 'concerts. Of course he could just be working on his repertoire of Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles songs.

    Us normal Druids used to watch its reflection in a bowl of water, or some more appealing liquid. Mainly because it made the calculation of angles and such easier, being usually quite level, at least until early in the next morning. Didn’t work at Stonehenge, obviously, due to the perpetual fog in the Island. But a curragh to France was always available. Staring up is for peasants, too much like hard work, and undignified.

    Read More
  43. Maus says:
    @GummyBar
    May I suggest an acronym - rather than the Obama-Holder-Lynch Effect, change the order to the Holder-Obama-Lynch Effect. HOLE just seems much more appropriate.

    LOL. As in donut HOLE. Time passes and it disappears into the coffee. One hour closer to end of watch and ultimately that sweet pension check.

    Read More
  44. joefour says:

    Here’s a link to a report on Charlottesville by folks from the League of the South who were there…

    http://leagueofthesouth.com/league-of-the-south-statement-on-charlottesville/

    The League’s conclusion…”…it was a set-up.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jake
    Of course it was a set-up. The WASP Elites and the Jewish BFFs, who now are the senior partners in the alliance, are damned determined to render us into serfs.
  45. Eagle Eye says:
    @Liberty Mike
    The American Rule is so riddled with exceptions that it can hardly be regarded as a rule. To wit, there are literally hundreds of statutes that provide for reasonable attorney's fees to a victorious plaintiff in the following types of cases:

    (1) civil rights

    (2) anti-trust

    (3) consumer protection

    (4) anti-SLAPP

    (5) employment discrimination

    (6) misclassification of employment status

    (7) failure to pay overtime

    (8) failure to pay wages

    (9) violation of tenants' quiet enjoyment

    (10) housing discrimination


    Additionally, the courts can whack parties who file frivolous lawsuits, motions, and other pleadings and it happens frequently: SEE RULE 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as well as the state analogues.

    Where the system is acutely unfair is an actions against the government and government actors. The taxpayers should not have to shell out the dough to pay the legal costs of cities, counties, municipalities, states, and the federal government and the public sector actors who are sued in their individual capacity.

    After all, if the rule of law is to mean anything, the king and his men should be made to pay in any action brought against them. If they had to bear this burden, perhaps they would be less tempted to make so many laws and regulations .

    What is missing is a general system for the losing plaintiff to pay the prevailing defendant’s attorney fees.

    This can be a useful deterrent to marginal cases.

    There are exceptional rules where the plaintiff does risk having to pay the defendant’s legal fees. A good example are the anti-SLAPP laws in California and some other states.

    Under anti-SLAPP laws, a lawsuit arising out of a defendant’s public speech acts can be struck unless the plaintiff can prove, right then and there, that he would clearly win the action, WITHOUT pre-trial “discovery” etc. In other words, to survive an anti-SLAPP motion by the defendant, the plaintiff must show that he has an open-and-shut case with all the evidence lined up.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    "Under anti-SLAPP laws, a lawsuit arising out of a defendant’s public speech acts can be struck unless the plaintiff can prove, right then and there, that he would clearly win the action, WITHOUT pre-trial “discovery” etc. In other words, to survive an anti-SLAPP motion by the defendant, the plaintiff must show that he has an open-and-shut case with all the evidence lined up."

    Right. This is, of course, why Mark Steyn just entered his sixth year of an anti-SLAPP hearing.
  46. Jake says:
    @nickels
    I'm reading Paul Craig Roberts 'The New Color Line'. I recommend it as essential reading to understand how the courts adopting the Marxist concepts of Gunnar Myrdal's 'American Dilemna' (which E Michael Jones argues was actually written by the CIA) to undermine democracy in Brown vs Board and beyond.
    Basically the argument is that democracy itself is incapable of producing a moral outcome, so it is the imperative of the small circle of judges and the sociological elite to save democracy and the people from itself by forming a kritarchy.
    The book goes case by case showing the path of destruction through both the constitution and democracy in the 70's through the 90's, and how the judgemenets were rendered along these Marxist lines.

    Highly recommended for the legal analysis.

    I haven’t read Jones on the CIA writing The American Dilemma. And as the CIA was founded after that book was published, it is impossible. But I can believe that the CIA’s precursors would have lended a strong helping hand to Myrdal. And I have no doubt the people who created the CIA (which served the old northeastern WASP Elite power base 100%) were behind the Brown case and decision, as well the war waged to destroy the South starting in the 1950s.

    The same crowd also used blacks to destroy Catholic neighborhoods across the north.

    WASPs have always allied with Jews against the vast majority of white Christians, and as soon as they encountered blacks, WASP Elites began using blacks as tools and weapons with which to batter the whites they wished to utterly subdue.

    Read More
    • Replies: @nickels
    Yes, the OSS at the time, I believe.
    This was early in 'Slaughter of the Cities'.
    I think Myrdal went home sick before the book was finished, I forget the exact circumstances that led to the EMJ conclusion.
    But basically the intelligence service was funding the book because the harmonious relations were important either for the war effort and the industrial labor, or for the ability to propagandize to the Soviets what a harmonious society the had created in American democracy.
    I don't have the materials in front of me so I can't pin down the details exactly, sorry for the vagueness.

    The war on European ethnics and Catholics is the main subject of 'Slaughter of Cities'.

  47. Jake says:
    @joefour
    Here's a link to a report on Charlottesville by folks from the League of the South who were there...

    http://leagueofthesouth.com/league-of-the-south-statement-on-charlottesville/

    The League's conclusion..."...it was a set-up."

    Of course it was a set-up. The WASP Elites and the Jewish BFFs, who now are the senior partners in the alliance, are damned determined to render us into serfs.

    Read More
  48. nickels says:
    @Jake
    I haven't read Jones on the CIA writing The American Dilemma. And as the CIA was founded after that book was published, it is impossible. But I can believe that the CIA's precursors would have lended a strong helping hand to Myrdal. And I have no doubt the people who created the CIA (which served the old northeastern WASP Elite power base 100%) were behind the Brown case and decision, as well the war waged to destroy the South starting in the 1950s.

    The same crowd also used blacks to destroy Catholic neighborhoods across the north.

    WASPs have always allied with Jews against the vast majority of white Christians, and as soon as they encountered blacks, WASP Elites began using blacks as tools and weapons with which to batter the whites they wished to utterly subdue.

    Yes, the OSS at the time, I believe.
    This was early in ‘Slaughter of the Cities’.
    I think Myrdal went home sick before the book was finished, I forget the exact circumstances that led to the EMJ conclusion.
    But basically the intelligence service was funding the book because the harmonious relations were important either for the war effort and the industrial labor, or for the ability to propagandize to the Soviets what a harmonious society the had created in American democracy.
    I don’t have the materials in front of me so I can’t pin down the details exactly, sorry for the vagueness.

    The war on European ethnics and Catholics is the main subject of ‘Slaughter of Cities’.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jake
    All 3 of the reasons you list were more than plausible. I would assume they were all central to the plans to promote the Numinous Negro and destroy the white South and 'ethnic' Catholic neighborhoods.

    WASP culture began by wishing to exterminate (at least culturally) and/or en-serf 2 groups of people: Catholic and Celts. The Anglo-Saxon Puritans were happy to ally with Jews to succeed at those goals.

    So anybody who thinks that the WASP Elites of 1860 or 1930 were above waging culture war to destroy the majority of the whites they ruled is ignorant of history.
  49. @The Alarmist
    I'm tempted to build upon that HOLE by prefixing it with an acronym that starts with Senate, House, Intelligence-Community ... the only thing that fails me is an appropriate body to supply the "T".

    Tyranny?

    Read More
  50. Biff says:

    The law is written by and for white elite privilege and capital, and who also happen to own the Federal Reserve(the money).
    And when they want you, they will come get you.

    https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229

    Read More
  51. KenH says:
    @Rod1963

    but whites who defend civil war monuments and oppose immigration policies making them a minority will be forced to fend for themselves and if they are forced to use lethal force to protect their persons then they will be arrested on charges of “domestic tear-izm”.
     
    And then whites will rightly view the police as much of a threat as some inner city savage and they will be dealt with accordingly if the police are stupid enough to alienate the only group that doesn't want them dead and who has the means to do so.

    The point is the Left/ruling class/monied elite will eventually push the whites into a corner where they find they have no other recourse than to drop all restraints - moral and legal and deal forcefully with their enemies in the only language they understand - lethal force.

    You are right that the white people the police are refusing to protect from antifa and leftist violence are the very people that were standing with them against BLMa nd generally support them. Very bad move on their part.

    When the police have to contend with angry mobs of blacks and angry whites they won’t stand a chance. At that point they will probably beg the National Guard and DHS and for support.

    Read More
  52. @anarchyst
    At the risk of giving offense, (which is not my intent), Protestantism is both a blessing and a curse. The positive aspects of Protestantism include the abolition of "indulgences" (bribes to assure that heaven is in one's afterlife) and other excesses of the Catholic Church were positive benefits to Protestantism. Add to that, the elimination of "usury" prohibitions (which has had mixed results), which made modern capitalism possible.
    The negative aspects of Protestantism are the (false) admission that "good works" are of no consequence and that faith in Jesus Christ is all that is needed to insure "salvation".
    Here is but one example:
    A low-life criminal, ne-er-do-well, or a financial "hit man" who takes advantage of others by unscrupulous behavior, stealing, committing acts of violence, cheating people out of their money, etc. can, on their deathbeds proclaim their faith in Jesus Christ, and all is automatically "forgiven", despite being scoundrels all of their lives--the Protestant view of "salvation".
    While...
    A truly good person, a non-Christian, who has performed good works throughout his lifetime, without expectation of renumeration or reward, merely because "it is the right thing to do", is automatically condemned because he may not have a belief in Jesus Christ.
    While...
    A Roman Catholic who has lived a chaste and honest life who DOES believe that "good works" are to be done because "it is the right thing to do", also without expectation of renumeration or reward, is condemned for not believing that salvation through Jesus Christ comes unconditionally and "without strings attached".
    I am of the firm belief that a person's actions in this life will affect the person's "spiritual soul" in the next life, regardless of religious affiliation or beliefs.
    Let's not forget that it was Catholics who established the first modern-day universities, hospitals, and other great benefits to all mankind...that exist to this day.

    Coming from the Anglican tradition which is both Catholic and Protestant (and well represented in 18th century America) I recall learning that those illogical Calvinist and Calvinistic Prods were enjoined to strive mightily for worldly success and esteem for good Christian living in order to assure themselves they were amongst the Elect (no last minute confessions were of any use).

    As I intend to note elsewhere the, or anyway a major, contribution of Protestantism, despite the witchburning Puritans, and including of course the Scots, was its combination of emphasis on literacy for the masses and its being a major part of the sweeping away of unreasoned reliance on dogmatic authority. It didn’t just support der Geist des Kapitalismus but facilitated the Scientific Revolution beginning while Galileo was still under house arrest.

    Read More
  53. yeah says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    It is commendable that one so misguided and misleading should be brief. But, being brief, could you not even approach JD's literary and accuracy standards? He did *not* express himself vitriolically ("pens forth his vitriol" were your words) about pansies, snowflakes and cat ladies. Indeed cat ladies got quite an indulgent and sympathetic mention while the others ("gentry-Liberal snowflakes" and "lifestyle pansies") were merely sent up in scornful terms implying that they impressed him as poseurs without substance.

    But then, the ultra left, the warrior-type progressives, always respond to counter arguments by accusing the other side of “penning vitriol”, “spewing venom” and the like; and when somewhat heavier ammunition seems required, they hurl barrages of “racist”, “bigot”, “homophobe”, “Nazi”, and what have you. “End of discussion, the other side’s case demolished”, they congratulate themselves. These are curious ‘munitions, these charges of “bigot” etc.; they are used all the time, in any argument, at all opponents, and often fired in unison. Accuracy in aim and direction of fire, the facts surrounding the issue, and the competence of those firing the volleys seem not to matter one bit.

    Read More
  54. @Logan
    That the American norm is, or was, that of the Anglo-Protestants is simply a historical fact. That all the other groups you mention to a large extent adopted those norms is what we used to call assimilation or the melting pot.

    These "American norms" were of course influenced by the many other groups you mention, and others. But their root and basis is, or, again, was, Anglo-Protestant.

    To argue otherwise is to ignore historical fact. Much like arguing that most great writers, artists and thinkers have been male. The facts don't change because you or I don't like them.

    We can deny the facts and denounce those who state them, but they don't cease to be facts. And reality bites.

    I agree and add what I have laboriously thumbed out in answer to anarchyst at what is atvpresent #53. The English and Scots with their literacy encouraged by translation of the Bible, maybe the advantages pointed to by Greg Clark, snd much less disruption than the 30 Years War led the way towards the good things of modern civilusation and, despite slavery, and after fear of witchcraft abated America was part of it.

    Read More
  55. @Michael Kenny
    What I found odd about the Wax/Alexander article was that the values they promote prevailed, in their view, only from “the late 1940s to the mid-1960s”, less than 20 years. What values prevailed before then? Why did they disappear? Why are the values deemed to have existed during that short period superior to those which existed before or since? In the newspaper interview, Professor Wax goes on to say that “Anglo-Protestant cultural norms are superior”. No Irish need apply! No Scots either. No Catholics of any kind, no Orthodox Christians, no Jews and (of course!) no Muslims, not even if they are “white Europeans” from Bosnia or Albania, for example. To say nothing of “smart Asians”! Thus, long before anyone gets around to passing moral judgment on the professors’ ideas, they have to be dismissed as just plain silly and illogical!

    See what, for now, are #53 and #54 – replies to anarchyst and Logan.

    Read More
  56. @Chris Mallory

    A low-life criminal, ne-er-do-well, or a financial “hit man” who takes advantage of others by unscrupulous behavior, stealing, committing acts of violence, cheating people out of their money, etc. can, on their deathbeds proclaim their faith in Jesus Christ, and all is automatically “forgiven”, despite being scoundrels all of their lives–the Protestant view of “salvation”.
     
    You mean like the thief on the cross? He did nothing but proclaim his faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and Christ assured the thief that he would be with Christ in Heaven.

    A truly good person, a non-Christian, who has performed good works throughout his lifetime, without expectation of renumeration or reward, merely because “it is the right thing to do”, is automatically condemned because he may not have a belief in Jesus Christ.
     
    This is the position supported by the Holy Scripture, after all, our righteousness is as filthy rags and no man comes to the Father but by the Son.

    A Roman Catholic who has lived a chaste and honest life who DOES believe that “good works” are to be done because “it is the right thing to do”, also without expectation of renumeration or reward, is condemned for not believing that salvation through Jesus Christ comes unconditionally and “without strings attached”.
     
    Ephesians 2:
    8 For it is by grace you have been saved through faith, and this not from yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.

    Can't get much clearer than that.

    Catholics are pagans, not Christians.

    And both groups are delusional.

    Most Christian holidays are just “re-skinned” pagan holidays. Christmas was placed on the winter solstice, you even bring a tree into your home and decorate it. Whats that have to do with jesus?

    Easter is a fertility holiday. Rabbits breed like, well, rabbits, and you hunt for eggs. Whats jesus have to do with that?

    The Christian religion is a direct result of a roman emperor trying to keep his fractured empire together. He gathered all the prominent Christian leaders together and they sorted out was what the “official” version of Christendom. They discarded texts that didnt fit into their narrative. Then they perverted it further with Catholicism, saying an “elected official was the voice of god on earth”. Nevermind that elected official was usually who ever had the most political pull at the time.

    Then there was the church of england. A certian king was excommunicated and instead of having his heavily religious peasants rise up and overthrow him, he declared the start of a new chapter in christian history, “the church of england”.

    Then, people came to the New World to get away from the stagnant religion of fear (among other reasons) and a new version of Christianity sprang up, which arguably, was even more demanding and fear inspiring.

    Its all just a tool for control. Whats a better way to keep the “unwashed masses” in line then to scare them with “eternal suffering” if they dont follow the rules?

    If you disagree, think about the 160 other gods humans have worshipped in the last 4000 years. Every group had a “hell”, or a place for people that didnt follow the rules of society, and most had a “reward” for those that did. Every group thought they had it right, norse, hindu, egyptian… And then the culture dies out (usually) and those gods are looked at as myths of a separate time. Modern religion is the same.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    "Its all just a tool for control. Whats a better way to keep the “unwashed masses” in line then to scare them with “eternal suffering” if they dont follow the rules?"

    So, you have a better suggestion?
  57. @Che Guava
    That is truly dark comedy, double meaning intended. Tragic fool.

    I had an acquaintance when on travels who stared at the Sun after we drank kava together (I was indoors at the time so couldn't say 'Don't!'), he didn't go blind, but did get an extra blind spot. Would guess the light cloud spared him worse.

    Links on your tale would be nice.

    Nice article by Mr. Derbyshire.
    Read More
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    Thanks. What a fool.
    , @Delinquent Snail
    Im glad it happened. I hope lots of ignorant fools followed his lead.

    It will have a 2 fold effect:
    1) less crime, cant rob people if you are blind, and when they do, it will be at a lower proficiency, meaning they will get caught quicker.

    2) all these new blind people will help spur engineers and researchers to develope bionic eyes, which would be a boon for everyone. (not saying those poeple want to help criminals, they will just see the fact that there are more blind people and want to make a difference)
  58. @unit472
    Bourgeois values and even commonsense are for losers. I give you 'Johnny Baddass' a rapper who declared staring at the sun during a solar eclipse never hurt anyone because 'our' ancestors didn't have welders glasses and they didn't go blind!

    Well Mr. Baddass DID stare at the sun to prove his point and has now cancelled his next three 'concerts. Of course he could just be working on his repertoire of Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles songs.

    You’ve been had! I too saw pictures of DT “staring” at the sun but later when I caught the same thing on video it was quite clear that he momentarily glanced at dear old Sol Invictus and then merely for a fraction of a second on a couple of occasions. Glancing and staring are two quite different actions.

    It really is a mistake to accept anything that Big Media reports, especially regarding Trump.

    Read More
  59. “Bourgeois norms” died with the demise of the “American Dream.” Derbyshire futilely expects the former without the latter.

    Read More
  60. Jake says:
    @nickels
    Yes, the OSS at the time, I believe.
    This was early in 'Slaughter of the Cities'.
    I think Myrdal went home sick before the book was finished, I forget the exact circumstances that led to the EMJ conclusion.
    But basically the intelligence service was funding the book because the harmonious relations were important either for the war effort and the industrial labor, or for the ability to propagandize to the Soviets what a harmonious society the had created in American democracy.
    I don't have the materials in front of me so I can't pin down the details exactly, sorry for the vagueness.

    The war on European ethnics and Catholics is the main subject of 'Slaughter of Cities'.

    All 3 of the reasons you list were more than plausible. I would assume they were all central to the plans to promote the Numinous Negro and destroy the white South and ‘ethnic’ Catholic neighborhoods.

    WASP culture began by wishing to exterminate (at least culturally) and/or en-serf 2 groups of people: Catholic and Celts. The Anglo-Saxon Puritans were happy to ally with Jews to succeed at those goals.

    So anybody who thinks that the WASP Elites of 1860 or 1930 were above waging culture war to destroy the majority of the whites they ruled is ignorant of history.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    The Anglo-Saxon Puritans were happy to ally with Jews to succeed at those goals.

    The Jewish population in colonial America and in early modern England was inconsequentially small.
  61. fish says:
    @Tiny Duck
    PLEASE get out of yalls echo chamber

    Read the following:

    Leonard Pitts
    verysmartbrothas
    Marie Lu
    Sabaa Tahir


    Read things that challenge your world view and then get back to me

    Tiny never lost his head, even when he was giving head. Hey Tiny…take a walk on the wild side!

    - Leonard Pitts

    Read More
  62. @NoseytheDuke
    Here in Australia our government is about to waste somewhere in excess of a hundred million dollars in a non-binding plebiscite to see if the general public would approve of same-sex marriages. It was right and just for the matter to be decided by the judiciary since equal rights should mean equal rights.

    In fact I don't understand why monogamy isn't encouraged when promiscuity among gays has been a problem for all in the past. American taxpayers got a break by having the matter dealt with by the supremes. As a straight male myself, I couldn't give a rodent's patootie about gay marriage except to say that they should have the right to form a partnership with whomever they choose. Gays getting married doesn't affect my marriage or anyone else's.

    Policing throughout the west has become politicised and militarised to a degree that it no longer serves the interests of the people.

    Just to give the prequel to non Australians. the govrrnment did make an election promise to hold a referendum or plebiscite on same sex marriage which was perhaps a somewhat expensive way of appeasing conservatives on the Liberal Nstional side of politics who knew a bill in Parliament to allow same sex marrage, voted on according to conscience, would pass. The Senate blocked the plebiscite or made it clear that it would block it but some sort of equivalent is now going ahead under the auspices of the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

    I tried – not very hard because I almost despair of all our politicians – to persuade them that our PM had an opportunity to wrong foot the Opposition and Greens by saying that he would try to resolve the issue by throwing to a joint parliamentary committee the whole question of whether the Marriage power should remain in our 1901 federal constitution (when women arguably still needed financial protection and there wasn’t much of a welfare state to look after deserted mothers of pre pill families) and if so, for what purposes.

    Why should gays have their property disputes sorted out in special federal courts (none of which existed until the 1960s!)? Why shouldn’t the federal and state governments look only to protecting children?

    Read More
  63. Logan says:
    @Eagle Eye
    What is missing is a general system for the losing plaintiff to pay the prevailing defendant's attorney fees.

    This can be a useful deterrent to marginal cases.

    There are exceptional rules where the plaintiff does risk having to pay the defendant's legal fees. A good example are the anti-SLAPP laws in California and some other states.

    Under anti-SLAPP laws, a lawsuit arising out of a defendant's public speech acts can be struck unless the plaintiff can prove, right then and there, that he would clearly win the action, WITHOUT pre-trial "discovery" etc. In other words, to survive an anti-SLAPP motion by the defendant, the plaintiff must show that he has an open-and-shut case with all the evidence lined up.

    “Under anti-SLAPP laws, a lawsuit arising out of a defendant’s public speech acts can be struck unless the plaintiff can prove, right then and there, that he would clearly win the action, WITHOUT pre-trial “discovery” etc. In other words, to survive an anti-SLAPP motion by the defendant, the plaintiff must show that he has an open-and-shut case with all the evidence lined up.”

    Right. This is, of course, why Mark Steyn just entered his sixth year of an anti-SLAPP hearing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Eagle Eye

    Right. This is, of course, why Mark Steyn just entered his sixth year of an anti-SLAPP hearing.
     
    Mark Steyn's case has been stuck in "state" court in DC with judges who are place men of the Democrat machine. The "judges" were instructed to drag out Mark Steyn's case because it would upset the massive and hugely profitable "global warming" scam.

    Note that I did not expressly include DC among the "states" that have effective anti-SLAPP statutes.

    A good example are the anti-SLAPP laws in California and some other states.
     
    NOTE RE "GLOBAL WARMING": It is hard to say whether global warming is a real, progressive phenomenon in 2017. If - as the warmists claim - mankind is producing too much CO2 and ruining the planet in the process, the only question is: WHERE DO YOU WANT THE NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS? Also, how about birth control for Africans?
  64. Logan says:
    @Delinquent Snail
    And both groups are delusional.

    Most Christian holidays are just "re-skinned" pagan holidays. Christmas was placed on the winter solstice, you even bring a tree into your home and decorate it. Whats that have to do with jesus?

    Easter is a fertility holiday. Rabbits breed like, well, rabbits, and you hunt for eggs. Whats jesus have to do with that?

    The Christian religion is a direct result of a roman emperor trying to keep his fractured empire together. He gathered all the prominent Christian leaders together and they sorted out was what the "official" version of Christendom. They discarded texts that didnt fit into their narrative. Then they perverted it further with Catholicism, saying an "elected official was the voice of god on earth". Nevermind that elected official was usually who ever had the most political pull at the time.

    Then there was the church of england. A certian king was excommunicated and instead of having his heavily religious peasants rise up and overthrow him, he declared the start of a new chapter in christian history, "the church of england".

    Then, people came to the New World to get away from the stagnant religion of fear (among other reasons) and a new version of Christianity sprang up, which arguably, was even more demanding and fear inspiring.


    Its all just a tool for control. Whats a better way to keep the "unwashed masses" in line then to scare them with "eternal suffering" if they dont follow the rules?

    If you disagree, think about the 160 other gods humans have worshipped in the last 4000 years. Every group had a "hell", or a place for people that didnt follow the rules of society, and most had a "reward" for those that did. Every group thought they had it right, norse, hindu, egyptian... And then the culture dies out (usually) and those gods are looked at as myths of a separate time. Modern religion is the same.

    “Its all just a tool for control. Whats a better way to keep the “unwashed masses” in line then to scare them with “eternal suffering” if they dont follow the rules?”

    So, you have a better suggestion?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Delinquent Snail
    The more intelligent a population, the less crime, poverty, and it usually has a better social cohesion.

    There are a couple northern european nations that are great examples.
  65. The whole affair was theater. The “alt” right are plants. The antifa are payrolled. It is hypernormalism wag the dog theater. We are being played.

    Read More
  66. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @NoseytheDuke
    Here in Australia our government is about to waste somewhere in excess of a hundred million dollars in a non-binding plebiscite to see if the general public would approve of same-sex marriages. It was right and just for the matter to be decided by the judiciary since equal rights should mean equal rights.

    In fact I don't understand why monogamy isn't encouraged when promiscuity among gays has been a problem for all in the past. American taxpayers got a break by having the matter dealt with by the supremes. As a straight male myself, I couldn't give a rodent's patootie about gay marriage except to say that they should have the right to form a partnership with whomever they choose. Gays getting married doesn't affect my marriage or anyone else's.

    Policing throughout the west has become politicised and militarised to a degree that it no longer serves the interests of the people.

    As a straight male myself, I couldn’t give a rodent’s patootie about gay marriage except to say that they should have the right to form a partnership with whomever they choose. Gays getting married doesn’t affect my marriage or anyone else’s.

    Your health insurance rates are going to increase. Married people have better health and life expectancy than singles and the rates reflect this. However homosexuals, married or not, have very high rates of illness. It will be politically unacceptable to charge married gays more than married straights and so the straights will end up paying more.

    Read More
  67. Che Guava says:
    @Jim Don Bob

    Links on your tale would be nice.
     
    http://nypost.com/2017/08/24/rapper-who-stared-at-eclipse-abruptly-cancels-concerts/

    You're welcome.

    Thanks. What a fool.

    Read More
  68. @Logan
    "Its all just a tool for control. Whats a better way to keep the “unwashed masses” in line then to scare them with “eternal suffering” if they dont follow the rules?"

    So, you have a better suggestion?

    The more intelligent a population, the less crime, poverty, and it usually has a better social cohesion.

    There are a couple northern european nations that are great examples.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    I assume you're speaking of the Scandinavian countries. Would like to note that till the last century or so they were rather poor, especially Norway, and that they used to be extremely violent. You may have heard of the Vikings.

    For all three of these countries, their modern prosperity is built on a long development of Protestant middle-class values in the population. These lingered even after the religious belief went away.

    And they're now in the process of importing people to destroy their societies.

    To quote Big Bang Theory, "Are you sure they're smart?"
  69. @Jim Don Bob

    Links on your tale would be nice.
     
    http://nypost.com/2017/08/24/rapper-who-stared-at-eclipse-abruptly-cancels-concerts/

    You're welcome.

    Im glad it happened. I hope lots of ignorant fools followed his lead.

    It will have a 2 fold effect:
    1) less crime, cant rob people if you are blind, and when they do, it will be at a lower proficiency, meaning they will get caught quicker.

    2) all these new blind people will help spur engineers and researchers to develope bionic eyes, which would be a boon for everyone. (not saying those poeple want to help criminals, they will just see the fact that there are more blind people and want to make a difference)

    Read More
  70. Art Deco says:
    @Jake
    All 3 of the reasons you list were more than plausible. I would assume they were all central to the plans to promote the Numinous Negro and destroy the white South and 'ethnic' Catholic neighborhoods.

    WASP culture began by wishing to exterminate (at least culturally) and/or en-serf 2 groups of people: Catholic and Celts. The Anglo-Saxon Puritans were happy to ally with Jews to succeed at those goals.

    So anybody who thinks that the WASP Elites of 1860 or 1930 were above waging culture war to destroy the majority of the whites they ruled is ignorant of history.

    The Anglo-Saxon Puritans were happy to ally with Jews to succeed at those goals.

    The Jewish population in colonial America and in early modern England was inconsequentially small.

    Read More
  71. @Art Deco
    The Anglo-Saxon Puritans were happy to ally with Jews to succeed at those goals.

    The Jewish population in colonial America and in early modern England was inconsequentially small.

    And you’re an inconsequential cuck.

    Read More
  72. Logan says:
    @Delinquent Snail
    The more intelligent a population, the less crime, poverty, and it usually has a better social cohesion.

    There are a couple northern european nations that are great examples.

    I assume you’re speaking of the Scandinavian countries. Would like to note that till the last century or so they were rather poor, especially Norway, and that they used to be extremely violent. You may have heard of the Vikings.

    For all three of these countries, their modern prosperity is built on a long development of Protestant middle-class values in the population. These lingered even after the religious belief went away.

    And they’re now in the process of importing people to destroy their societies.

    To quote Big Bang Theory, “Are you sure they’re smart?”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Delinquent Snail
    I am refering to the former viking countries. Poor according to what standard? As compared to their neighbors to the more temperate south? Or poor on a more global scale? Im sure they did have less wealth, and smaller populations, then their southern neighbors, but surely they were more wealthy then huge swaths of earth at the time.

    You are right, those values instilled in the middle class did help bring on the current (well, untill recently) uptick in their prosperity.

    Its not just those three nations that are mass importing people that are destroying their societies. Its a strange affliction thats gotten ahold of nearly every (previously) white majority country.
  73. @Logan
    I assume you're speaking of the Scandinavian countries. Would like to note that till the last century or so they were rather poor, especially Norway, and that they used to be extremely violent. You may have heard of the Vikings.

    For all three of these countries, their modern prosperity is built on a long development of Protestant middle-class values in the population. These lingered even after the religious belief went away.

    And they're now in the process of importing people to destroy their societies.

    To quote Big Bang Theory, "Are you sure they're smart?"

    I am refering to the former viking countries. Poor according to what standard? As compared to their neighbors to the more temperate south? Or poor on a more global scale? Im sure they did have less wealth, and smaller populations, then their southern neighbors, but surely they were more wealthy then huge swaths of earth at the time.

    You are right, those values instilled in the middle class did help bring on the current (well, untill recently) uptick in their prosperity.

    Its not just those three nations that are mass importing people that are destroying their societies. Its a strange affliction thats gotten ahold of nearly every (previously) white majority country.

    Read More
  74. woodNfish says:

    Actually Derbyshire, the reason there was violent clash in Charlottesville is because that is what the governor, mayor, the chief of police and his thug pig-cops wanted. They intentionally removed the barriers between the two groups in order to violently shut down a legally permitted demonstration by Unite the Right. It was a criminal conspiracy by the Left.

    Read More
  75. Eagle Eye says:
    @Logan
    "Under anti-SLAPP laws, a lawsuit arising out of a defendant’s public speech acts can be struck unless the plaintiff can prove, right then and there, that he would clearly win the action, WITHOUT pre-trial “discovery” etc. In other words, to survive an anti-SLAPP motion by the defendant, the plaintiff must show that he has an open-and-shut case with all the evidence lined up."

    Right. This is, of course, why Mark Steyn just entered his sixth year of an anti-SLAPP hearing.

    Right. This is, of course, why Mark Steyn just entered his sixth year of an anti-SLAPP hearing.

    Mark Steyn’s case has been stuck in “state” court in DC with judges who are place men of the Democrat machine. The “judges” were instructed to drag out Mark Steyn’s case because it would upset the massive and hugely profitable “global warming” scam.

    Note that I did not expressly include DC among the “states” that have effective anti-SLAPP statutes.

    A good example are the anti-SLAPP laws in California and some other states.

    NOTE RE “GLOBAL WARMING”: It is hard to say whether global warming is a real, progressive phenomenon in 2017. If – as the warmists claim – mankind is producing too much CO2 and ruining the planet in the process, the only question is: WHERE DO YOU WANT THE NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS? Also, how about birth control for Africans?

    Read More
  76. @Sam McGowan
    From what I've been able to determine, those there for the rally knew from past experience that they were going to be opposed by Antifas anarchists throwing bottles and firing off Mace so they armed themselves and brought shields and wore helmets (most of the ones I've seen in the videos look like rock-climbing helmets and everyday hard hats with a sprinkling of military-style helmets thrown in. Antifas is a group of very, very bad actors, as this article points out. https://www.ammoland.com/2017/06/antifa-osint-profile-violent-leftist-group-part-1/#axzz4qWePG5wJ

    As for why the police did nothing, I strongly suspect they were under orders not to do anything so there would be enough sporadic violence so they could declare an unlawful assembly and shut the rally down before it started. Virginia and Charlottesville are in the hands of radical leftists who most likely are allied with Antifas and the other radicals. Bear in mind that New Jersey has declared Antifas to be a terrorist organization but you'll never see that in Virginia as long as Democrats control the state house.

    The police are merely the violent tools of the political filth.
    They have nothing to do with law and order.

    Read More
  77. @NoseytheDuke
    Here in Australia our government is about to waste somewhere in excess of a hundred million dollars in a non-binding plebiscite to see if the general public would approve of same-sex marriages. It was right and just for the matter to be decided by the judiciary since equal rights should mean equal rights.

    In fact I don't understand why monogamy isn't encouraged when promiscuity among gays has been a problem for all in the past. American taxpayers got a break by having the matter dealt with by the supremes. As a straight male myself, I couldn't give a rodent's patootie about gay marriage except to say that they should have the right to form a partnership with whomever they choose. Gays getting married doesn't affect my marriage or anyone else's.

    Policing throughout the west has become politicised and militarised to a degree that it no longer serves the interests of the people.

    Two sodomites shacking up does not constitute a marriage.

    Read More
  78. TWS says:
    @NoseytheDuke
    Here in Australia our government is about to waste somewhere in excess of a hundred million dollars in a non-binding plebiscite to see if the general public would approve of same-sex marriages. It was right and just for the matter to be decided by the judiciary since equal rights should mean equal rights.

    In fact I don't understand why monogamy isn't encouraged when promiscuity among gays has been a problem for all in the past. American taxpayers got a break by having the matter dealt with by the supremes. As a straight male myself, I couldn't give a rodent's patootie about gay marriage except to say that they should have the right to form a partnership with whomever they choose. Gays getting married doesn't affect my marriage or anyone else's.

    Policing throughout the west has become politicised and militarised to a degree that it no longer serves the interests of the people.

    Welcome fellow straight person.

    Read More
  79. Avalanche says:
    @KenH

    The answer in both cases: there are whole large areas of our public life where we just don’t do law enforcement any more.
     
    American "justice" will now be dispensed according to race, gender, sexual orientation and political orientation and not necessarily in that order. So, for example, a rally of homosexuals will be protected from a mob of anti-homosexual counter protesters. Blacks espousing the dispossession and genocide of whites will be accorded police protection but whites who defend civil war monuments and oppose immigration policies making them a minority will be forced to fend for themselves and if they are forced to use lethal force to protect their persons then they will be arrested on charges of "domestic tear-izm".

    You left out immigration status!!

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All John Derbyshire Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Limbaugh and company certainly entertain. But a steady diet of ideological comfort food is no substitute for hearty intellectual fare.
Once as a colonial project, now as a moral playground, the ancient continent remains the object of Great Power maneuvering