No Kings! If these people really thought about what they are pushing, they would abandon their desire for anyone to be (s)elected President, as it is certain that whoever sits in the Oval Office acts as a king–pushing laws, writing “executive orders”, finagling more revenue to spend, fomenting wars to increase their power, etc.

However, the “king thing” doesn’t stop with the president. Every single person, from the top dog down to the most local level who tries to impose his or her will on everyone else, is a wannabe king. There are an incredible amount of people in this world who want to rule, to make their word law, to use force and the threat of violence to show how strong and tough they are. Everywhere, there are would-be kings and most of them have been placed in their position by the “lower-downs” who decided that “our” king is better than “their” king.

Yes, that’s right. No Kings mean no kings–except the ones we want to rule over us and every political faction promotes this. So, liberals and progressives are comfortable with Democrat kings, but conservatives and Christians prefer to submit to Republican ones. The reality is, though, that no matter which king or whose king is on top, the rights, freedoms, and liberties of the average American continue to be eroded, degraded, and removed.

There is only one philosophy which is true to the No Kings concept–anarchy. True-blue unbridled anarchy in which every person is his own sovereign, being respected as such AND respecting the absolute sovereignty of all others.

No kings! No kings at all!! I agree with that sentiment and, unlike the “protesters” and hypocrites, I try to be consistent with it.

————————————————

Note: I wrote this as a Letter to the Editor and had it published in numerous local venues. It contains some very minor editing.

“Well, a shot rang out and then the cries,
And he went down, but to my surprise,
He came back up with a fist and blood all over his ear.”

My apologies to Johnny Cash.

“…Netanyahu was compelled to explicitly deny that his government killed Kirk during a September 11 interview with NewsMax.”

“Never believe anything until it is officially denied.” — Francis Claud Cockburn

That may be true, but what does it have to do with the thrust of my argument?

While I won’t comment on the “whites/kulaks” issue, I also agree (and have been saying for years) that the US today does resemble Tsarist Russia just before the communists took over in 1917. So many people think that America is the New Roman Empire, slowly rotting away while living it up, but my opinion is that our future will probably follow the same path as that experienced much closer to our own time, just over 100 years ago.

We tend to forget or overlook that those individuals who exercise violence (murder, mayhem, destruction) on others due to political opinions and differences are following the myriad examples set by their own governments and leaders before them.

As an example of this, Donald Trump and his goon squad killed eleven crew members of a small boat (fishing? drug-running?) off the coast of Venezuela on September 2, by using a Hellfire missile. Like the murders of Charlie Kirk and Iryna Zarutska, these men were “completely obliterated” without warning, without justification, and without mercy, simply on Trump’s say-so. Supposedly, according to the White House narrative, the boat was filled with violent rapists and murderers from the notorious Tren de Aragua gang, all of whom answered to the head honcho himself, Nicholas Maduro, who has a $50 million bounty placed on his head by the US State Dept.

The US Navy could have stopped the boat, searched it, and arrested the crew if drugs were found, but it did not. Instead, it was just blown out of the water–for no reason except that Trump ordered it done. This fact alone makes him a murderer as much as those who killed Kirk and Zarutska.

Why are we surprised and shocked when individual citizens do exactly the same thing as government officials? Where is the “white-hot outrage” over Trump’s despicable action? Where are the conservative calls to hold him to accountability and to a higher moral standard? Where are the condemnations from those who call themselves Christian?

Oh, yes, I forgot. Trump is one of “us” as was Charlie Kirk, so while we feel grief and pain at Kirk’s loss, we celebrate and applaud Trump’s action. This is nothing more than rank hypocrisy and, lest anyone think I am taking sides, I will say that it is rampant and occurs everywhere, across the entire spectrum of religious politics. It stinks to high heaven.

A murder is a murder is a murder, no matter who is the perpetrator.

I’m willing to bet that some people in Venezuela are calling for Maduro to make the deceased fishermen(?) national heroes and to create a special holiday in their memory. Now, wouldn’t that be ironic?

OK, as long as we were debating the issue with respect for each other, everything was fine. This comment, however, is a cheap shot. I am no longer interested.

God is. I agree.

If God grants us free will, it is not to determine what constitutes objective morality, but to choose for ourselves whether we will follow His definition of objective morality or defy it. Mankind is not able to decide what is objectively moral, we can only live in accordance of what has already been determined by God to be objectively moral.

Your retraction is good, but you should have stopped while you were ahead.

1. Objective Morality can only be true if God exists.
2. If God exists, then so does Objective Morality.
3. Objective Morality can exist without God.

What a mouthful!

The existence of God means that objective morality also exists and is true. Therefore, if God does not exist, then objective morality either does not exist or is false, which means it cannot be objective morality but must be something else–subjective immorality is what I would call it.

BTW, please point out to me where you already addressed that. I must have missed it.

“Striving for peace in Ukraine while encouraging genocide in Gaza — that’s weird!”

No, not really. When you understand that Trump only cares about the bottom line and how he can come out on top, it’s not that weird at all. He simply doesn’t care–about Ukraine, about the Palestinians, about anything, except how it will benefit his bank account.

If he was really “striving for peace in Ukraine”, he would immediately shut off the weapons pipeline and tell the little pipsqueak, Zelenskii, that he was on his own. But he doesn’t, because it’s all about the money. Remember his statement right after the Seven Dwarfs of Europe and Ursula Whatsername came to Washington and sat like dutiful little schoolchildren while he scolded them?

“We’re not giving anything. We’re selling weapons.”

The parting zinger here is the comment he made just a few days ago about something Sergei Lavrov said in relation to talking with Zelenskii.

“It doesn’t matter what they say. Everybody’s posturing. It’s all bullshit, OK?”

No, Trump isn’t weird at all nor are his actions. He’s just plain downright despicable.

Would it not be better to simply abandon the idea of the State and society taking care of these people without demanding any responsibility from them and allow them (and their broods) to die out naturally? Of course, this means, to remain consistent with the philosophy, that we do not grant anyone else the “right” to rely on the State or society to take care of them, but they must measure up on their own or will also disappear from the scene.

Would this not be the proper “solution”?

So, instead of trying to become god-like, why don’t you become godly? The first is unattainable, the second is well within your reach. Not only that, but it has promises attached to it which you ought to find attractive.

“Delight yourself also in the Lord, and He shall give you the desires of your heart.” — Psalms 37:4

Humanity is so misguided that eugenics attracts religious people, not atheists.

I see no reason to assume that would be the case.

It was actually Catholics that protested the Nazi Aktion T4 plan. Catholic nuns in the hospitals and asylums figured out quickly as to what was going on. Patients were asking Catholics nuns to pray for them before they were taken away to be killed.

Both religious and non-religious people can make the case for eugenics.

Both China and the USSR had various policies to reduce inherited diseases that could be described as eugenics. The USSR had atheism in its constitution and maintained a quiet eugenic plan for a period.
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/884623

Religious and non-religious countries have been using abortion to reduce the rate of down’s syndrome. That isn’t explicitly stated policy but the result is the same. I see no reason to assume an atheist would be more likely to keep a fetus with down’s syndrome. If anything I would assume the opposite since they reject the concept of the soul and are far more likely to support abortion according to polls.

Objective Morality can only be true if God exists. He does not.

OH, REALLY?? Wow, you sure do sound like you know exactly what you are talking about.

Of course there is no PROOF of God’s existence, but there is tons of good evidence of God’s existence.
For example you might like to try to read Frank Tipler’s book, “The Physics of Immortality”
He was a professor of Physics and a confirmed atheist for most of his life, until he just plain saw too damn much evidence for the existence of God and was forced by intellectual honesty to admit it.
More and more scientists are coming to the same conclusion, which is why they are talking about, “Intelligent Design” which of course begs the question, “who is the Intelligent Designer?” God, of course, but they are too stubborn to admit it.

So since there is tons of good evidence pointing to the existence of God….
MY QUESTION TO YOU IS, “Where is your good evidence that there is NO God?” Do you have anything at all? I DON’T ASK FOR PROOF, but do you have Even a scrap of true real evidence?

If so, it sure would be cool if you could share it with the rest of us.

“Objective Morality can only be true if God exists. He does not.”

Allow me to introduce you to Hitchen’s Razor–“What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.” — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor

Of course, Christopher Hitchens was a committed atheist in his own time. I say, was, since he died in 2011 and has nothing more to say about the matter.

You have stated that God does not exist. Your statement is presented as a fact, but it is not fact at all since you have no evidence to back it up, but a statement of belief. You believe that God does not exist, therefore, to your mind, He does not. However, your belief does not and cannot prove or disprove the existence (non-existence) of God. You are operating from a position of faith in something which is not provable, in exactly the same manner as those billions upon billions of people who believe that God DOES exist. Let’s get this straight. You ARE a believer, no matter how much you try to deny it.

“Methinkest thou protestest too much!”

Move on. Nature abhors a vacuum. If God does not exist or if you remove God from the picture, something else will take his place. Since Man (the species) is the highest form of intelligence that we “know for certain”, then it is logical, reasonable, and inevitable that Man will step in and become God. Man attains the cosmic throne, at least as far as we know, therefore, anything which Man decrees, determines, and decides becomes Law and Truth, which is not to be assailed, critiqued, or held in contempt. Man’s truth becomes The Truth, forever and ever, without end. AMan!

Yet, we also know that Man is fallible and makes mistakes. What, then, are we to do when Man (the One and Only Arbiter of Truth) trips up and falls off his throne? Is he to be cast aside in favor of something better and less prone to error? What would that something be? Angels? Aliens? Chaos? Pure Chance and happenstance? Or simply some other form of Man, distinct from the previous form, which picks himself up, dusts himself off, and sits down again, extending his sceptre over the “known” universe and declares that his word, which varies from the original, has now become the REAL Truth and is, therefore, Law, which all people must live by.

Obviously, this leads to all sorts of confusion because Man is not simply collective, but also individual. Out of the entirety of Mankind, which man will become God? The strongest? The one most able to convince other men to support him? The most intelligent? The best-looking? The most reasonable? Doesn’t that become a jockeying for power, a continuous, non-ending game of “King of the Hill” in which everyone struggles to reach the pinnacle to the detriment of all others? Or, are all men individually God, able and willing to dictate their own version of truth regardless of any and all other men? Does this not lead to the idea that truth is relative rather than objective? Does this not lead to chaos and jockeying for power over others? Have we not been down that road already? Are we not able to deduce from the lessons of history what that leads to? Apparently not, since we repeat the lesson over and over again, hoping against hope that we will arrive at the correct answer this time. How many times do we have to go there? Are you willing to go there? Again?

To be frank, I’m not. I prefer to believe in God and His Absolute Truth, even if that belief is irrational.

“My Administration will act to restore respect and sanctity to the American Flag and prosecute those who incite violence or otherwise violate our laws while desecrating this symbol of our country, to the fullest extent permissible under any available authority.” — from the text of Trump’s EO

[T]hose who incite violence or otherwise violate…laws while desecrating [the flag]… In other words, if you “desecrate” the flag, you will be prosecuted IF you also incite violence and violate laws. Any half-wit lawyer ought to be able to understand this concept and tear apart any prosecution based solely on “desecration” of the flag in and of itself.

“…to the fullest extent permissible under any available authority.” This is Trump’s own admission that prosecution must be done according to laws already in place. Nothing here tells me that he is advocating lawless or extra-legal activity to punish flag burners. Not to say that might not happen, but, as of right now, it is still legal to burn the flag.

In 2012, I published a blog article concerning the actual burning of an American flag and the judicial manner in which it was handled, to which I took exception. If you’re interested, you can read it here. https://poorrogersalmanac.com/2012/12/24/287/

Everything you wrote is true, but it does not follow that eugenics must be implemented to stop this type of behavior. All that is necessary is to shut off the spigot of “free” money doled out to these women. Cut off the bean check. Permanently. Out of necessity, they would begin to act in one of three ways:

1. Attempt to maintain their lifestyle by stealing whatever they could get their hands on, especially food. They would probably find out quite soon this was a dead-end (no pun intended).

2. Attempt to find and keep a paying job. Highly unlikely. Who would hire such a creature?

3. Attempt to find a man who could and would support her and her progeny. This would change the entire dynamic as it would force her to submit to his authority and leadership instead of calling the shots herself. She would have to trust him, not the government, to provide. It would force him to grow up, to become protective and productive, and in the process, more like a father should be toward his children and a husband should be toward his wife.

This last is the time-honored way in which society survived and prospered. We may have lost our heads for a while, but eventually it will come back around to this.

“For themselves, everyone naturally wants to be of good stock, to have good genes; good genes typically imply good looks, health, intelligence, strength, longevity, and a robust personality. We cannot affect our genes, but still, we somehow hope that we have good ones and that any personal problems or health issues will somehow be ultimately controlled or remedied by our ‘good stock”.

This statement touches on the idea that “good genes” can somehow magically fix problems. However, this is not how genetics works. While genetic predispositions can influence the likelihood of certain conditions, lifestyle choices and medical interventions are often necessary to manage or overcome these issues.,

“No one has a ‘right’ to bear children. In a dysgenic world, childbearing is a privilege, not a right”

Parenthood is both a right and a privilege. It is the rights of humans to reproduce and bear offsprings. It is also the privilege to ensure that offspring are properly taken care of. Now, the author says that “society will grant this privilege” and that “the state will not directly control childbirth”, but offers no specifics.

“thanks to an entrenched cult of equality in the West (owing ultimately to Judeo-Christianity). Any eugenic society will have to abandon this long-promoted but highly damaging concept.”

First, religions are not “cults”. That is a value judgement of the author. Second, there are no specifics as to how to ensure that religion will be abandoned by members of a society.

“Preliminary steps should be taken, therefore, to minimize ethnic diversity prior to instituting any eugenic program.”



The author suggests a a selection process of some sort headed by a “panel of skilled, racially aware elders”. Who is ultimately in charge of selecting this panel? What are the exact qualifications? How does this course of action taken into account individual liberties as afforded by constitutions? The author suggests the use of sterilization. Isn’t such policy outlawed in the first place? Wouldn’t legislation have to be ultimately involved? How does the author propose to address public protest if such a panel was created and made procreation decisions? Isn’t the government ultimately directly involved despite the author insisting it need not be?

“Such, at least, is my outline of a eugenic solution. I believe it to be quite benign and effective, achieving the end goal of a healthy, flourishing populace with a minimum of intervention.”

There is nothing new in these solutions. They have been advocated before. Fortunately. the author’s suggestions are not going to be implemented. Might as well punch at waterfalls.

medicine, technology and social welfare would concurrently decline, promoting a more darwinistic environment which would then re-eugenize mankind.

I like this point. It’s interesting to me how consistently people who advocate for the gloriously effective and wise natural order of evolution cannot help themselves from prescribing human engineered measures to help evolution get going again. Feeble minds are habitually self-unaware, and irony abounds.

Well said!

You are right about all the Epstein stuff coming out,
but by then it might not matter. Time may not
always obscure, but it dulls the import.

You may be right. I might be crazy. Both of us might be wrong, but both of us cannot be right. Time will tell. In the meantime, I will hold onto my hope.

Paul Roberts is wrong about this, as is often the case with his pronouncements, and in keeping with tradition, he will generally NEVER revise his stance or admit to being wrong about anything, regardless of any new information that may come to light subsequent to his pronouncements.

Implicit in Roberts’ unchanging position in this case is the notion that the military conflict in “ukraine” is strictly about the status of “ukraine,” which it obviously is not. Roberts implies that if only Putin had used overwhelming (and perhaps necessarily indiscriminate) destructive force, early on, rather than the delayed and militarily limited approach he chose, the conflict would be over by now and everybody’d be sitting around the campfire singing Kumbaya. Of course the problem with this implication is that the demon-possessed madmen running the Satanic “West” are determined to destroy Russia, apparently at any cost, even if it means nuclear war, and the Russians apparently understand this even if Roberts doesn’t (or pretends not to).

Knowing that a big war with U.S./NATO is coming, Russia is using the time and the experiential knowledge gained from the “ukraine” conflict wisely: e.g., it’s developed, deployed and tweaked new “game changing” weapon systems; it’s increased the size of its military forces and expanded the production capabilities of its its military-industrial complex; it’s refurbished and restocked bomb shelters; etc.

In a sense, every day that the “ukraine” conflict drags on the Russian military gets stronger while the corrupt “West” falls apart – militarily, economically and politically.

…he has enabled and emboldened the West to support Ukraine’s efforts to bleed Russia dry.

PCR’s heart is sometimes in the right place, but his head is often in another place– a place where you probably don’t want it to be. I too was at first perplexed by Putin’s rope-a-dope strategy. But my estimation of how it is turning out? He’s bleeding the West dry.

Europe is broke economically, in no position to ‘support’ the war much longer. The US is all over the place, but its commitment to Israel precludes significant military help to Zelensky. And slowly but surely Russia is taking land. Sure, it’s been been trench by trench in the countryside and street by street in the cities. But Zelensky can’t stop it, now reduced to conscripting old men in a last ditch effort.

What will be interesting is Trump’s boast that he will slap major tariffs on China and India for buying sanctioned Russian oil. When is the 10 day deadline up? Unless things change quickly, Trump has really painted himself in a corner over that one.

But Trump is delusional. Blaming Putin for a war that the US/NATO started, and a war that could be over yesterday if the US would properly yank Zelensky’s chain.

Paul Craig Roberts has been saying from the very beginning that Putin was fighting the wrong kind of war. By holding back and being cautious and constrained, he has enabled and emboldened the West to support Ukraine’s efforts to bleed Russia dry. This, in spite of the fact that Russia was fully capable of smashing Ukraine with a hammer blow against which it could not stand. Putin has yet to declare this a war, preferring instead to refer to it as a Special Military Operation.

For years, I thought PCR was wrong, but lately I am beginning to think that he may have been spot on all the time.

Sooner or later the dam which has been holding back all this explosive information will collapse and the flood will commence. When the final straw has been added, the camel’s back will break. This is a good thing.

My theory is that the Epstein thing will be pursued and hounded so much by so many people that eventually all that information will be released with nothing held back. Once that occurs, JFK, RFK, USS Liberty, 9/11, even Covid, and likely many more, will follow and the establishment powers will be swept away by the torrent. Someone else and a different system will take their place. This may, or may not, be a good thing.

Regardless, whether Epstein is the final straw and no matter how long it takes, the truth will “out”. This may not happen within my lifetime but I am not concerned about that. It will happen.

H. L. Mencken is my favorite satirist. He would make fun of anything or anyone, and do it with such a straight face that you would swear he was telling the truth. Which he usually was, if you could see it.

From “A Boy Named True”, by Bigly Blowhard and the Liars

“A shot rang out and a lot of cries,
And he went down, but to my surprise,
He came back up with a fist and blood all over his ear.”

Unless the government and the State come completely and totally clean about this episode, I will remain skeptical that Trump was shot at all. Consider, for instance, that a wound to the ear bleeds but there was not a drop of blood on his lily-white, bleached and starched shirt. Not a single drop.

Being the “conspiracy theorist” that I am, I find it quite conceivable that a red marker was rubbed on his face when he was in the dog pile and the narrative spread that he was “saved” by God and Jesus Christ for a mission which no one else on Earth could accomplish. In other words, a SuperHero, if not an outright messiah and millions of people immediately bought into it.

And now we find out he has feet of clay just like everyone else.

Trump is in pretty good health for someone his age. He has always avoided alcohol, tobacco and drugs, which are the leading causes of premature death. The one area he needs improvement on is his diet. RFK Jr., who has spent a lot of time with him, has said his diet is atrocious. When Trump debated Biden, Trump was obviously the one in better mental condition. He did worse against Harris but that seemed to come at least partly from overconfidence and lack of preparation.

Trump’s incoherence comes more from not having any well thought out political philosophy. Ron Paul is a decade older than Trump and has undergone as much mental decline as Trump but comes across as more coherent than Trump because he has put more thought into developing a coherent political philosophy that he sticks with. Trump constantly changes his mind and does not really think about the long term effects of his policies.

As it turn out, suicide without a gun is actually pretty hard to pull off.

Huh? Jumping off from a high building is pretty easy.

NEVER is a long time. The problem with your theory is that things change over time. Governments change. Paradigms, social attitudes & mores, change. Nothing stays the same forever, with the exception of absolute truth, which is constantly shining its light in dark places, exposing the evil within.

It is my opinion that, sooner or later, Epstein’s “list” will be revealed for everyone to see and when that happens, JFK, 9/11, USS Liberty, and multiple others of such ilk will also be released and the truth will come out. I think it is inevitable. It may not happen within my lifetime, but it will happen.

It’ll be interesting to hear what Ghislaine Maxwell has to say when/if she comes in front of Congress. I have no doubt that she’s been told what is “kosher” and to avoid any other comments. This, however, would be a very good opportunity for her to blow the lid off the whole damn steaming pile and she could do it by naming names and stating facts without regard for her own well-being. That’s not likely to happen.

And the beat goes on. The beat goes on.

Nor Santa Claus, the entity who just loves to get little boys and girls to sit on his lap and whisper their most intimate wishes into his ear while he’s wrapping his arms around them.

The one “memorable pronouncement” that Trump made which I believe has been kept with complete fidelity is his statement concerning Syria’s oil. “We’re going to take it.” And they still are, much to the detriment of Syria’s people, who literally count for nothing in the world of geo-political control.

“I do not celebrate the Fourth of July.”

This is the first sentence in one of Dr. Gary North’s innumerable articles, but he doesn’t blame skin color as his reasoning. Rather, it was because the American colonists prior to the War for Independence had it quite good compared to the rest of the world in general and British citizens in particular.

“The colonists had a sweet deal in 1775. Great Britain was the second freest nation on earth. Switzerland was probably the most free nation, but I would be hard-pressed to identify any other nation in 1775 that was ahead of Great Britain. And in Great Britain’s Empire, the colonists were by far the freest.”

“I will say it, loud and clear: the freest society on earth in 1775 was British North America, with the exception of the slave system. Anyone who was not a slave had incomparable freedom.” — https://www.garynorth.com/public/8215.cfm

Funny thing, imagine that. Trading the “tyranny” of King George III for that of King George I, at which the colonist’s situation immediately took a downward turn, taxation-wise:

“In an article on taxation in that era, Rabushka gets to the point.”

“Historians have written that taxes in the new American nation rose and remained considerably higher, perhaps three times higher, than they were under British rule. More money was required for national defense than previously needed to defend the frontier from Indians and the French, and the new nation faced other expenses.”

“So, as a result of the American Revolution, the tax burden tripled.” — ibid.

Further, if anyone wants to quibble with my characterization of George Washington as King George I, be reminded that he forcibly crushed the hopes and dreams of Western Pennsylvania farmers during the Whiskey Rebellion, men and women who had just been through a war which they thought had made them “free” from tyranny, and found out the hard way that homegrown tyrants are just as abusive as foreign ones.

It has been a long slide downward from the roots of the American Dream, but skin color has little to do with it. That is a symptom of the disease, not the cause. Rather, it can be more properly attributed to the condition of the individual soul, human nature, which drives people everywhere to desire more than they have AND to strive to better their situation by forcefully taking what rightly belongs to someone else.

Gary North also created a quip, “Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.” There can be no question that, at least in America, the “white” population has engaged in wholesale theft for centuries, beginning with the theft of the indigenous people’s lives, liberties, and lands. Nothing has changed since then.

“I think too many people are looking for excuses to do nothing.”

I’m not even sure they’re looking for excuses. They just do nothing as a matter of course because it’s easier than doing something.

I don’t have a problem with “conspiracy theories”, no matter how absurd they may appear, because even then, they usually provide more believable explanations than the mainstream conventional narratives.

The “covid” hysteria psyop and its attendant trauma-based propaganda provided ample proof of this. Virtually any conspiracy theory around “covid” far out-paces the “trust the science” narrative in terms of explaining power.

I can’t help but notice that people who hate the idea of “conspiracy theories” always serm to speak down to people from a position of smug, condescending elitism that far too often leans on authority fallacies rather than any sort of investigative exploration of these “conspiracy theories”. Indeed the critics of “conspiracy theories” very rarely have any sort of serious awareness of the ideas they’re critcizing. Almost always they strawman these matters only into the most cartoonishly unrecognizable caricatures that instantly betrays their foolishly wilful ignorance.

These critics are rarely deep thinkers, and they certainly don’t have any alternative explanations of their own apart from trying to shame and tone-police you back into believing “the science(TM)”.

But I think conspiracy theories are an excellent use of free speech and public scrutiny. Their existence alone proves our elites have totally failed at giving plausible explanations for things. And if conspiracy theories were all lies, there would be absolutely no need to censor them because they’d be easily disproven.

I think the idea that Jewish-owned MSM is a reliable source of accurate and truthful information is the ultimate “conspiracy theory”. I think I’d rather listen to the fat slob hiding in his basement from chemtrails. It’s ok, I can make up my own mind.

I never ‘mocked’ Christianity. I was agreeing with OP that Christianity is among the most interesting religion in that it needs the greatest degree of faith I am aware of. Those four pillars of faith I listed demand us to believe in things that our logical mind refuses to accept.

As an aside, logic and mathematics, physics etc. were well developed before ‘Catholic Scholastics’. Aristotle, Socrates, Pythagoras, Archimedes plus the Indians who created arithmetic plus the Arabs who created Chemistry (Algebra, Alchemy, Algorithm…. lot of words beginning with Al) were not Catholic.

My recommendation is that you don’t put so much time and effort in trying to figure it out. Some things are better left alone and this may be one of them.

One of the most important things I ever learned consists of five short words: It is what it is. No sense in “kicking against the pricks”, just go with the flow. Does it really make a difference whether we have totally free will or are enslaved in some fashion or other? The problem is that, like the Gordian knot, is that it cannot be solved and must be conquered by an unorthodox means, that is, quit thinking about it and live.

We all have options and choices to make. We all make bad choices, sometimes we make good choices. Every choice we make has a consequence–either good or bad and that consequence brings us to another choice to make. Theoretically, at least, the history of suffering the consequences of bad choices ought to help us avoid making more. As we grow older and more mature, our choices should become better and better. Right?

How does this play into the “free will” argument? I don’t know and really, to be honest, don’t care. I simply believe in doing the best I can to make the most of what I’ve got. This attitude is liberating and I wouldn’t change it for the world.

I like the story I have seen attributed to Native American wisdom that tells of two wolves struggling in the heart of every man. One wolf is good and the other is evil. The one that wins will be the one the man feeds. This illustrates the power of prayer as well as any words could. Imo, prayer is useless in the way that people superstitiously understand it, expecting some intangible hand to reach into the world to change it. But a daily feeding of the good wolf in the heart is practical magic. To embrace health, a good diet, exercise, marital fidelity while avoiding substance abuse, porn, trashy entertainment, greed, hubris, wrath, etc. is how change occurs. Our society has been feeding the evil wolf for far too long.

I don’t believe it is wise to Destroy Christianity. It is the fabric of our Society. The glue that holds our civilization together. The Christian / Puritan work ethic built this great land of ours. The edicts of Christianity reveal the very best of human nature. It is lofty challenge that Jesus Christ throws down before us. A worthy challenge. We could do much worse than adhering to the principles of Christianity.

“So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.”
— Matthew 7:12

“Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.”
— Matthew 11:28

“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.”
— Matthew 22:37

“A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another.”
— John 13:34

“And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’”
— Matthew 22:39

“For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.”
— Matthew 6:14

“But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”
— Matthew 5:44

The Universe has a balance to it. The Yin and Yang of things. Where there is Light, there is also Darkness. Hot and Cold. Love and Hate. Good and Evil.

For this reason, I believe Satan most certainly does exist… his shape, form or name matters not. All times and in all civilizations…mankind has felt his presence.

Jesus travels to the region of the Gerasenes (or Gadarenes), where He encounters a man possessed by many demons. This man lived among the tombs, was violent, and could not be restrained by chains.

When Jesus confronts the demon(s), He asks for a name, and the response is:

“My name is Legion, for we are many.”
— Mark 5:9

Well, I am with you on nearly everything you described in your first paragraph except that I am a few months away from getting rid of the “smart” phone (required for work).

As to the second, God forbid that I should tell you to become politically involved. In fact, I have expended quite a bit of time and effort telling people NOT to do that very thing. Politics, as I see it, is nothing more than manipulating others to get what you want at their expense. Here are three articles which I wrote recently about the subject which leave no doubt about my viewpoint.

https://poorrogersalmanac.com/2024/10/12/should-christians-be-involved-in-politics/
https://poorrogersalmanac.com/2024/10/19/the-practice-of-politics-continued/
https://poorrogersalmanac.com/2024/10/26/the-practice-of-politics-round-three/

What can you do? What can anyone do? Obviously, none of us are going to impact society and culture in a large way (perhaps not even noticeably), but that should not stop us from making the attempt, which begins with transformation of ourselves and spreads from there throughout our sphere of influence. Like mixing live yeast into a bread mix.

The worst thing to do is to blame someone else for the ills which infect our world as that takes away from our own sense of responsibility. If I had to explain this in only two words, I would probably phrase it like this: “No excuse.” The problem, as I see it, is that most people are more inclined to point fingers rather than to ‘fess up’ to their own failings.

We are not called to change the world for the better. We are only required to change ourselves. The paradox in that is that, as we transform ourselves, we somehow transform our world.

Thank you for your response. It is appreciated.

I have a neighbor in the next block over, here in the hills of NE Tennessee, with whom I’ve had numerous conversations. He lives in a trailer and is close to the same age as myself (73). He is so brainwashed about Israel and the Jews.

I have mentioned to him about the Israeli attack on the U.S.S. Liberty in 1967, the Jewish food tax that we pay and Israel’s apparent involvement in 9/11. All my conversations with him were like water off a duck’s back. So I gave up discussing anything of any importance with him.

I only know of FOUR “clergy persons” who are publicly trying to educate people – Chuck Baldwin, of the non-denominational church in Kalispell, Montana (whose church, incidentally, has NO 501(c)(3) IRS tax exemption); Father Carlo Maria Viganò, the excommunicated Archbishop of the Catholic church; Brother Nathanael (Real Jew News website) and Louis Farrakhan, of the Nation of Islam, in Chicago, Illinois. Another person, although not a clergy person, but a journalist, is a converted Jew, now practicing the Eastern Orthodox faith. His name is James Perloff.

There is a local Russian Orthodox church that I am going to investigate. ALL of the American “mainline” churches, as well as the “evangelical” churches, in my opinion, are COMPLETELY SILENT on the destruction taking place here in the USA and the corrupt and fraudulent banking system that has infected my country and all of the other countries in the so-called “civilized” world.

Thank you.

The author seems to be an evil Amalekite, intent on disparaging the only people with souls. Both Biden and Trump (and all of DC) support the slaughter in Gaza so it must be right and necessary.

And while most children who disappear are due to divorce and parental squabbling, there is always some percentage that is trafficking. Maybe not 6 million, maybe only 60,000 (1%)); when does the number become a problem? Jeffrey Epstein was treated with kid gloves in Florida (Acosta claimed he was told that Epstein “belonged to intelligence”. Now we have Kash Patel and Dan Bongino saying “We’ve seen the files, Epstein committed suicide” (most people think he was murdered, the rest think he’s alive in Israel– the ears on the corpse rolled out on the gurney didn’t match Epstein). Show us those clearly faked “files”.

Some Americans still blissfully believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (Colin Powell was persuasive) and believe Covid came from a wet market (Fauci and Friends CYA persuasion) and believe Harvey Oswald acted alone in the JFK assassination (Dulles) and Building 7 collapsed “on its own” coincidentally on 9/11. Remember the Maine and the Gulf of Tonkin. The Official Narratives are generally lies, at least in part. Otherwise, we wouldn’t need State Media stenographers and official narratives and censorship of dissenters.

Parabiosis is one of the very few interventions that extends life-span in animals. There are rumors that Peter Thiel paid college-aged men for blood transfusions (transactional, consensual), and that Hillary was kept alive by draining Haitian toddlers of their blood (notably when she collapsed and was thrown bodily into her van like a sack of manure, there was no surprise or concern from her security crew as if this was not a rare issue for her– “phone in that we need three toddlers”).

While adrenochrome is secreted from the adrenal chromaffin cells along with epinephrine and ATP, it is clear that is just ridiculous embellishment from the Establishment to muddy the child trafficking waters, much like “Covid vaccines are snake venom!”, to make the conspiracy theorists look stupid and untrack the issue from more rational actors/ critical thinkers. Parabiosis is real and our oh so important leaders will do anything no matter how vile to stay alive and in power.

What you may not know is “Christian God” is actually a Serbian word, as is “word”.

Where is Lord Chancellor Master of the Hunt Viscount of Verbosity RIN UNX when Mr. Odyssey perpetrates his “it’s all Serbian” buggery, also a Serbian word? Where oh where the fuck is the YOUR COMMENTS MAY BE TRASHED trash talk? “Trash talk”? Also a Serbian word.

Maybe I’ll start doing it. There seem to be no consequences. Smart money says there’s buggery afoot.

Whether the story of Adam and Eve is true or not is debatable. The principle holds. Man is responsible for his environment, whether good or evil.

The question you should be asking is not why God doesn’t do something about this, but why do you tolerate it?

Well? Why do you?

If, if, man has been given dominion over creation, then it is correct to conclude that man is responsible for the condition of creation as it now stands. It is not God’s fault, but man’s. If the devil is running wild on earth, then it is not God’s irresponsibility, but man’s. Including you and I.

If you take exception to some innocent child being abducted and sold into a pedophile ring, then what are you doing to put a stop to it? Prayer changes things, right? That’s what we hear all the time, but as James tells us, ” Faith without works is dead.”

I ask you again. What are you DOING to make sure that an innocent child is not abducted and sold into a pedophile ring?

“By their works, you shall know them.” — Matthew 7:16

Belief without action is worthless.

“I BELIEVE there is a God but I question His methods.”

In other words, there is a God, but everything I see tells me that there is nothing right about his workings. He is impotent, incompetent, and useless.

Is this what you believe? Perhaps power, for the sake of power, really is the primary mover and shaker. If that is the case, are your beliefs correct or do you need to make a change?

What is your point? Bring this in for a landing.

Beautiful!

Add this to your collection: Galatians 5:14. “For all [ALL] the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

I know what you are describing. I have been there and I have found it wanting. There is only one solution, only one answer, as seen above in the scripture referenced.

This is love. Everything else is religion.

All I know is that when I lived in Thailand, I had a personal visit one night from a malevolent spirit. (He was in the form of a shadow.) I prayed to God, invoking Jesus’ name. That did the trick and the demon (?) immediately vacated my room. I am NOT a spiritual Christian, but that experience did make me question things.

So, do we, as humans made in God’s Image, have free will? Or not?

What is God? Who is God? Does anyone really know?

I salute your efforts to sort out the garbage of long-held beliefs from the truth, yet it seems to me that you are only trying to demolish one concept without proposing an alternative. Or, as Gary North used to say, you can’t beat something with nothing.

Say what you will about Christianity, but it presents a solution:

“For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’” — Galatians 5:14

Regardless as to who or what God is, this truth holds. If we love our neighbor(s) as we love ourselves, it is equivalent to loving God. If we treat our neighbor with the same respect as we want them to treat us, then we have exercised the power of love, which is and originates from God.

Whoever or whatever God is.

The fact of the matter is that all, that is ALL, religions that have ever been conceived and concocted on Earth were designed with one aim, namely, to exercise power over others and to subjugate them to the will of those who originated the religion in the first place. Galatians 5:14 upends this completely by emphasizing that love for others is far more important than any sense of adherence to a developed legal or moral code.

Man, how liberating when we come to an understanding of this. Instead, we continue to insist on our own pet dogmas, demanding that others enslave themselves to our point of view, believing that we, only we, have the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

God help us!

I do not question the existence of God. I do question the theories and beliefs about God which have been promoted through the centuries and millennia as truth, and are still used today to justify the superiority of one god, one system of belief, over all others as preferable.

Concerning the hypocrisy you alluded to, I only have one answer and it does not espouse any particular religion or belief: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind, AND, love your neighbor as yourself.”

This, rather than any dogma or creed, defines true faith, in my opinion, and would work wonders on the world if it was practiced widely. In fact, the Apostle Paul clarifies in Galatians 5:14 that the entire law, that is, the religious law, is superseded and encompassed within one easily understood concept: if you love your neighbor as you love yourself, it is the same as loving God. It makes no mention about who God is or how He must be worshipped. It simply states that we are supposed to treat our neighbor (s) with the same respect that we accord to ourselves.

What a difference this would make in human relations if practiced religiously!

Unfortunately, most Christians today do not buy into this, but prefer to bring the trappings of religion into the conversation, as my credo requires them to abandon their long-held belief that, because they have been “saved”, they are superior to all other people. Humility, on the other hand, demands that we recognize that we are no better than anyone else and ought to cease making judgments about them and attempting to “convert” them to our point of view by dint of force and violence, by which we benefit and they pay.

We benefit. They pay. Can you describe a better way to explain the mindset of Christians in the West today?

No problem. I try to meet people halfway, but if they aren’t willing, I cut them loose. However, thanks for the advice. Personally, I can’t figure out what MeanJuJu has to gain by promoting such a lopsided message, unless there is a desire to turn the whole world against her, his, or its viewpoint, which probably is well underway.

For you, I only have one question. What do you have against Northern Greenland?

Two things:

1. I’m quite grateful that you are not calling the shots.

2. I have nothing more to say and will not debate this any further here.

In a sense, I agree with you. When you’re in a war, a battle, or a fistfight, you give it everything you’ve got with the goal of walking away victorious. That much is true.

Nevertheless, starting wars and then using extreme measures to win them is not the way to operate. The problem lies with “starting” wars, which no one should do, whether it is on an individual level or at the highest echelon of power. Starting wars is an obscene, immoral practice which needs to be ended.

That being said, the only justification for war is to defend oneself, and in this effort, everything ought to be on the table. Punishing an aggressor quickly and harshly should be done with the intention of causing hesitancy on the part of others to mimic the aggressor and to teach him the painful lesson of adverse consequences for improper action.

That being said, the reason for NOT using extreme measures is that, if practiced, retaliation in kind and amplified, would be implemented, resulting in a continually upward spiral of greater and greater violence until complete and utter destruction happens. This could, conceivably, result in a situation where the entire world was destroyed because no limits on the violence were imposed. The limits are there, not because we are moral or considerate of others, but because we know what might happen if we do not control ourselves. Political assassinations of opposing “leaders” are frowned upon for exactly this reason.

Don’t do to others what you don’t want done to you.

That being said, the closest thing I can think of to the American State working this kind of power over others is in the way the American Indian population was virtually exterminated. Nothing was forbidden and all manner of means used against the “enemy”, regardless who was harmed in the process.

Like Israel does, right? Start a war, then leap the dead and trample the weak because “winning” is all that matters. Start a war, then kill them all–men, women, and children. If they have a pet dog which is shredded, so much the better. Damned Amalekites, anyway!

“That’s a win in anybody’s book.”

Sure it is. Now tell that to all the people who were killed, maimed, raped, and destroyed there, not only Americans, but also Vietnamese, Cambodians, Laotians, etc. Tell them how much they won. Tell that to the families back home about their fallen heroes who wouldn’t come home except in a body bag.

Yes, a really good solid win. But, hey, at least the MICIMATT won. That’s all that matters.

“India just threatened to shut off the rivers leading from Tibet that nurture Pakistan’s wheat farmers. Pakistan threatens to breach any Indian dams on the Indue River and its tributaries with nuclear weapons.”

The way this is written, it seems that India can just turn a valve and stop all water flowing into Pakistan via the Indus River. Well, if there are enough dams on the river and all the gates are closed, the flow could be checked–temporarily. However, because rivers are constantly flowing, the water behind the dams would soon fill the reservoir and start flowing down the spillways and there would be no way that it could be checked. In addition, doing this would raise the risk of potential failure of the dam which would be catastrophic to everything downriver from it.

But even if India was able to stop the water, why would Pakistan destroy the dams with nuclear bombs irradiating the entire area and all the backed up water which would soon flow into Pakistan’s own river basin, affecting everyone who lived there? Conventional bombs, yes, I can understand that, but nuclear bombs sound suicidal.

Am I missing something or is Margolis just spouting off more nonsense?

Mr. Penfield,

Thank you for writing this article even though it was pretty long-winded. We need more of these, not less, and they need to touch on all the controversial issues which are staring us down. It is only by getting the problem out in the open and talking about it that we have any chance at all of conquering it.

Carry on.

:…get rid of corporate control & money in farming and let the farmers become farmers again.”

Absolutely. I noticed in the spreadsheet above that 6 out of 10 (3A-8) of those listed were titled “Subsidized Farming”. If this is true, then the way to eliminate the problem (if it can be done) would be to stop the subsidies. Stop funding the polluters, solve the pollution problem.

However, this MIGHT also cause another more serious problem: mass starvation, as the great majority of people, especially those who are crammed into high-density population centers, cannot produce the food they need on their own. They will go hungry if or when the subsidized food producers are forced to compete on their own merits.

Will we, as a society, revert back to an agrarian community? In and of itself, this might mean a rapid decline in population until the means of production (small scale farming) once again meets the demands of consumers.

There are no easy answers.

Thank you, Ron, for posting this. What is important is that various different (and differing) viewpoints are allowed to be openly published and discussed. Whether I agree with it or not doesn’t matter, however, I strongly suspect that the article carries some serious weight of truth in it.

It will be interesting to see how China compares with the US in twenty or thirty years.

Yes, that is right, but we had no irons in the fire and nothing to lose by calling it out as so much BS.

Thanks for your comment and I may, or may not, agree with you. I look at this issue from an agnostic point of view since it is impossible to KNOW for sure, to be absolutely certain about the truth of the matter.

That being said, Man is a spiritual being. Everyone lives in a belief structure of some sort or another. Everyone believes something (anything, nothing) as true and consequently has a religion to which they adhere. Whatever they believe to be true constitutes the structure of their religion which informs their life. Everyone has a religion and everyone has a god which they worship. Find the one thing which anyone reveres over everything else in their life and you have found their god. Therefore, the argument about religion really boils down to one thing: my religion is better than yours and, for many, the question becomes one of power and the willingness to use force and fraud to coerce acceptance. With respect to that, government and the belief in government is a very real religion.

To answer your questions about Lucifer, I raise the question (and have never gotten a satisfactory response to it), “Was Lucifer a created being?” The Bible doesn’t say, but it must be assumed that, if God created everything out of nothing, then Lucifer must indeed have been created. Or is it possible that Lucifer was actually part of the God-being in the same manner as Christ, i.e., a son of God who is (was) equal with God until he was thrown out of heaven and disinherited?

Is God both good and evil? Is Dualism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_in_cosmology) behind all the conflict? Or are there two (or more) competing moral minds behind humanity’s struggle to reconcile the existence of good and evil?

These are questions I cannot answer. I simply don’t know. Therefore, all I can do is to attempt to live my life in accordance with the teachings of Jesus and love my fellow Man in the same way I want to be loved. At least, in doing so, I am not adding to the problems of getting along with each other. Whether this results in some “heavenly” reward or not remains to be seen and, at my age, I don’t have long to wait before I find out.

What is a terrorist? Here is an official definition.

In Canada, section 83.01 of the Criminal Code[1] defines terrorism as an act committed “in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause” with the intention of intimidating the public “…with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act.” Activities recognized as criminal within this context include death and bodily harm with the use of violence; endangering a person’s life; risks posed to the health and safety of the public; significant property damage; and interference or disruption of essential services, facilities or systems. — https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cj-jp/victim/rr09_6/p3.html

According to this, your statement rings true. Mexican cartels differ from American Mafia in that they are not averse to assassinating top-tier politicians who get in their way. The really important thing to recognize from this, however, is that the definition applies to anyone or any institution which uses violence to advance a

“…political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause” with the intention of intimidating the public “…”

which, if taken literally, simply means that every single government in the world is a terrorist organization, and the greatest of these is the US of A. The distinction between “terrorist” groups is, of course, that one is legal while others are not.

Or maybe people know the whole thing is a joke. So why bother. Besides, if you vote you are giving your approval to mass murder, invasion, and theft. Maybe people want to be able to sleep at night by not giving their approval. But most of all people probably know their vote doesn’t count for anything. I’d guess the people who do vote don’t understand any of this. Trying to think for yourself can be painful if you aren’t used to it.

Don’t vote. It encourages them.

I did not mention jury nullification specifically, but I did say that IN ALL PROBABILITY he would be found guilty. This leaves room for jury nullification, however, I would not expect that to happen. A hung jury, perhaps, but jury nullification? Really?

To find a jury hearing a case on anything which results in nullification is extremely rare and given the high profile nature of this case, already decided in public opinion (see Meamjojo and Harry Huntington, above, for example), the odds of seating a jury which would turn Mangione loose on the grounds that he was justified is quite a stretch.

https://fija.org/library-and-resources/library/jury-nullification-faq/what-is-jury-nullification.html

Luigi Mangione has been charged with murder and will be tried on that charge, but until he is actually proven guilty in a court of law, he is innocent according to US law. Innocent until proven guilty. At least, that’s the “official” version of jurisprudence in this country. We all know better, don’t we.

Realistically, he is already being seen as guilty. Articles such as this one promote the idea. Even though Ted Rall uses the term, “allegedly”, to describe Mangione’s situation, his script spreads the presumption that Mangione really did the dirty deed, in much the same manner that everyone “knows” that Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated JFK in Dallas in 1963. Speculation about his “mental condition” only plays into the bigger picture of the already decided outcome.

Did Mangione gun down Thompson or has he been set up? Unfortunately, the presumption has already been cast in stone. Whether he did or not is irrelevant. He will, in all probability, be found guilty and thrown in prison for the rest of his life, at which the general public will exhale a sigh of relief that “justice” has prevailed once again.

Mitt Romney counts as a real Republican? I think of him as some sort of visitor from an older and dumber world who was happy to bring a knife to a gun battle.

https://shumway.substack.com/p/nick-cotton

An interview of Nick Cotton by a friend of mine at Speaker’s Corner in Hyde Park. Nick Cotton is an interesting character who uses extensive body language to accentuate his words.

Enjoy.

Looks to me like they are quite capable. And not a government inspector in sight!

I stand corrected and admit the mistake. My apologies.

How silly!

Oreshnik was only released a few weeks ago to the complete surprise of everyone and may be used again in the very near future, long before anyone else has the time and resources to counter it effectively. Its use was meant as a warning to the West, not to show off, and if the West has any sense at all, it will take the warning seriously.

As for your contention that the West does it first, then talks about it, this seems to me equivalent to sucker-punching an old lady on the sidewalk, then bragging to your fellow thugs about it. Similar to the US destroying Libya and Muammar Ghadaffi, while Hillary Clinton laughs about it.

A missile that travels half as fast?

Since Russia’s Oreshnik is widely understood to have the capability of traveling at Mach 10-11, your assertion would mean that “normal” ICBM missiles should be able to reach speeds of Mach 20, at the very least.

That has never been the case, so I am going to presume that you simply made an error. And, yes, twice as fast is a huge game changer, since there is no current defense against it. You might see it coming, but it will be upon you before you can get out of the way or swat it down.

If Putin took out DC, The City, and the Vatican, there would be no need to follow up with the others listed as they would simply die on their own. Selective decapitation, as it is now known.

Wow! Such exquisite command of the English language. I am impressed. Not.

Perhaps you would be more effective in your argument if you learned some new words. Your vocabulary is quite stunted.

until i see evidence to the contrary, trump is the deepstate. imo, those of you expecting to see trump wrestling an alligator, are going to be bitterly disappointed once again.

So the women were enslavers for buying and selling slaves. But what is a “passive enslaver”? Maybe a woman who just inherits a slave from a husband or parent?

Good essay. Anglin posts like a juvenile delinquent, but he actually has things pretty well figured. Well done, Andy.

I can understand feeling uncomfortable about enacting laws abridging a woman’s right to exercise bodily sovereignty. Yes, even if the exercise of such bodily sovereignty results in the destruction of a miniature human being. Whether deemed a full-fledged human endowed with “natural rights” or not, a zygote–never mind an embryo or a fetus–surely qualifies as a miniature human being.

We were all zygotes, embryos, fetuses, infants, and toddlers once. We had to pass through those stages to get the point where we can debate the ethics of baby-killing, the just war hypothesis, or the infield fly rule. You’d think that counts for something.

Pan: pan; vino: vino.

Abortion is murder and simultaneously a form of suicide.

I find it incomprehensible to call it anything else and as a male could never be either a willing or passive participant in it. Were I the father of said fetus, I would be by conscience compelled to accept the child and raise him or her as best I could, but the denatured laws of present societies would likely prevent me from doing so.

I cannot understand how stating what for some is an uncomfortable fact can be criminalized.

It would be good if your predictions proved correct but I reserve the right to be skeptical. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

I’m not Christian and I don’t hate women. I think abortion as a form of retroactive contraception, basically a flippant “oopsy disposal” procedure, is a disaster for culture and perpetuates a practice of throwaway, meaningless sex, and insidiously ropes both parties to the impregnation, male and female into a child sacrifice ritual in service of our equally disposable and meaningless “civilization.” I think people naturally pay a psychological price for engaging in this practice which most sweep aside into the utmost depths of their unconscious, for it to rise up again in diverse forms of falseness, self-denial and ultimately evil. I think Moloch happily consumes the discarded infant lives.

Thank you for this article, AA.

In a normal time, one death from the purposeful termination of a life that was created through the voluntary act of will by two irresponsible people would be too many.

Since, in these times, 73 million purposeful killings is a statistic, per Joseph Stalin, the Unz pro-abortion monsters can cackle and giggle at it.

The age of the “fashionable” abortion will pass. The very idea that killing one’s own flesh and blood, by the creature that is designated in nature as the nurturer, due to the “suggestion” that life begins much later than conception, is beyond amazing to me. Or that it’s not the right time, or, I have to see Europe before I settle down, or, I have a career to think about. Whoever they are listening to that makes them do such a hideously psychopathic act has mad power.

You, and everyone you know, or meet, because mom understood personal responsibility.

No, it is not impossible to ban (outlaw) abortion. Neither is it impossible to ban (outlaw) murder of already born human beings, theft, rape, assault, or any other aggressive action which someone might visit on someone else. Laws can be passed which prohibit and punish such behaviors, so your argument is flawed from the get-go.

Just because laws are passed and punishments are administered for “breaking the law” does not mean that illegal actions will not be taken. Abortions will be sought and performed in spite of legislation outlawing it, just as murders, thefts, rapes, assaults, etc., also happen even though there are laws against them. Does this fact mean that we should simply throw up our hands and quit trying to prevent them? Imagine where that would lead. California, perhaps?

I am not an angry man. I am not afraid of women. I am not obsessed with punishing women. I don’t try to stop women from having sex for fun. I am not mean-spirited and petty. I do not have a fixation on what other people do sexually. However, what I am solidly opposed to is people who act irresponsibly and foolishly in their private lives, then expect to be relieved of all consequences which arise because of that irresponsibility and foolishness.

If women want to have sex for fun, more power to them, but there is no good reason for any woman to become pregnant as a result of that unless she refuses to take steps to prevent the conception in the first place. Granted that “accidents” do happen, but they should not be considered a good reason to commit an abortion, which is the deliberate killing of an unborn human being. No matter how much you try to prevaricate and obfuscate, it cannot be construed as anything else.

BTW, you sound like someone who wants to have sex for fun without having to bear any responsibility in case of an unwanted pregnancy. You are not alone. There are millions of other men like you. Pathetic.

Denzel Washington is nearly 70 years old. Is he playing an old man? I hope he is not playing a gladiator, at that age.

Trump did have a shout-out to Pat Buchanan at his Madison Square Garden rally, before the election. In some ways, Buchanan paved the way for Trump. I think Trump understands that.

It was a rhetorical question aimed at all the gullible people who think that appointing a strong man will solve all the problems. That is all. Nothing more should be read into it.

Every person that volunteers to enter the US military has signed up to be a murderer should the situation allow for the opportunity or the idiot is presented with a life or death situation that he opted in for. Each makes a choice to go to a foreign land to help kill people. This is indisputable fact.

These people are amoral swine that have decades of evidence to show that absolutely every US military adventure has been offensive with innocents death and infrastructure destruction the result. The US military does not protect the citizenry of the US – they are the terrorists that give the rest of the world a reason for blowback against the US population.