Yes, I think They Are Evil

 As if to answer the previous post, at the American Thinker Monica Showalter has a post entitled At Davos, the WEF now promotes less clothes-washing to save the planet. What is it with these rich freaks, that they want to impose misery on the rest of us?

What is it about the greenie jet-setters of the World Economic Forum flying in on a plume of carbon compounds, and their urge to make life just a little more solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short for the little guys they claim to know what's best for?

...snip...

It's all part of the leftist urge to make life as wretched as possible for the well-fed average joes of the West.

As I wrote here, they really like this stuff and they're on a tear:

What a sick world this is. Greens have unsuccessfully tried to sell us on all sorts of repulsive things to put into our bodies -- from various versions of soylent green, to "stewmaking" burials, to human compost burials, to recycling urine into drinking water to save the earth, to eating bugs. It's one disgusting thing after another, which these days even includes attempting to coax people into taking public transit. Not too long ago, a Utah official tried to encourage people to eat wild toads to save the environment. Utah teachers were also recently caught teaching CRT in schools behind the kids' parents' backs.

... and ...

It wasn't enough that the greenie left came for our light bulbs, our flush toilets, our guns, our plastic straws, our gas stoves, or our hamburgers.

Now they're coming for our coffee.

Another greenie favorite is going without air conditioning. The New York Times was promoting that last year. I wrote about it here.

Now they want crusty, dirty, smell-it-a-mile-away clothing, all made worse by the greenie practice of going without air conditioning.

To reinforce what I wrote in the last post, yes I think the WEF people are evil, and anyone who supports their insane ideas is supporting evil. Rather than trust in these guys, perhaps put our trust in God?

Are Democrat Voters Evil?

At Hot Air today, David Strom has an article that tells us It's Wrong to Assume Democratic Party Voters are Evil.

One of the frustrations all of us have is that Democratic voters are incurious about why we believe what we believe and why we vote as we do.

They come up with explanations that amount to: we are Naziwhitesupremacisthomophobiccolonialist genocidaires. They watch the pundits on TV, listen to people like President Biden, and read the editorials in Pravda and are convinced that we are on a hair trigger and will soon stalk the land with our scary AR-15s hunting down trans people, brown people, and eventually AWFLs.

The idea is of course absurd, but a lot of liberals have voted for politicians they, at some level, know are insanely liberals because they believe the alternative is a future they fear would be dystopian.

Now, reverse things for a moment. For decades, we understood that liberals see us as evil, and we saw liberals as stupid. But as their politicians have become more and more insane or even evil—what else can you call abortion until birth and sterilizing and mutilating children except demonic?—many of us have concluded that anybody who can be complicit in that evil must be evil themselves.

I see it in the comments. I understand it in my bones. When I hear a liberal talking about trans issues while ignoring the fact that boys are having their penises cut off and girls are having their breasts and wombs removed, it is enraging. Vague handwaving in the face of Mengele-like human experimentation isn't just baffling, but enraging.

So far, his experience is similar to mine. And frankly, I am not sure that ignorance is an excuse for continuing to vote for evil, particularly because so many have in essence closed their eyes, covered their ears, and yelled "nanny nanny boo boo" to avoid hearing the truth. They want to believe that man is basically good, but the truth is man, and everything in the world is fallen.

In the end, what liberals believe is that the world is perfectible with enough money and effort, and their politicians promise to perfect it. They actually believe that Gavin Newsom wants to solve homelessness, that Tim Walz wanted to feed children and provide daycare, and were shocked, SHOCKED, to discover that Biden's brain was pudding. They were told by their trusted elite that he was fit as a fiddle.

It must have been a mistake, because the alternative—a massive conspiracy to deceive the American public—would never be done by their trusted elite.

Your average liberal doesn't want communism or children sacrificed to the alphabet gods. They want peace and prosperity and a "kinder, gentler" world. They don't understand that human beings are fallen—most are post-Christian—and believe the myth that the world is perfectible.

Saint Paul notes that the Word of God has gone out to all creation. Therefore, closing your eyes, covering your ears and screaming so you won't hear it does not relieve you of the responsibility for evil. So, I will continue to think that while these people are not, in themselves, evil, they are still promoting it to the detriment of us all.

About Greenland

 Howard J. Warner has a post at the American Thinker entitled Greenland: How about this for a solution? that proposes a middle ground to America controlling Greenland. I agree with the President here that we need Greenland for security purposes. Looking at a typical Mercator map shows Greenland off to the side of Canada and much larger than it actually is. But if you look at a map looking down on the North Pole, the strategic importance of both Alaska and Greenland becomes obvious.

Now, the Arctic Ocean and Greenland are being actively contested by Russia, China, and of course the United States. Greenland has a population of only around 56k. Clearly it cannot defend itself. Either Russia or China could easily over run it. Denmark cannot defend it either. For that matter, can NATO? Don't make me laugh. As for which of these potential rulers would the residence rather live under. China? Really? Russia is not much better. The U.S. with its long history of freedom seems a much more benevolent. Now, I am the grandson of Danish immigrants, and I have been to Denmark. It's a beautiful country, to be sure, but I am sure glad that my ancestors immigrated here.

In an ideal world, the Greenlanders would be left alone to pursue their independent lives. But we don't live in an ideal world. The Greenlanders find themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time. Sorry.

A Democratic Republic Is the Worst System of Government...Except All The Others

Olivia Murray at the American Thinker today notes that As history has shown, communists always go for the churches first. Marx sneered that "religion is the opiate of the masses" meaning that the huddled poor comforted themselves that they would be rewarded in the afterlife. Marx was an atheist. And so are most of his followers.

Attacks against the Christian church and her people are nothing new. Christians in imperial Rome were fed to the lions and other wild beasts in the Colosseum, and they were burned alive on posts to light the streets—but what we saw in Minnesota was communism, through and through, as we’ve seen this same movie play out across time and place for more than a hundred years. Communists always go for the churches first.

In late 1917, the communist Bolsheviks overthrew imperial Russia, and just a few months later (January 23, 1918), Vladimir Lenin enacted the “Decree on the Separation of Church and State” (American leftists love that phrase still today), which was a systematic attack against the religious order of Tsarist Russia. That campaign promoted atheism as a core tenet of a new Bolshevik nation, and saw mass arrests, the confiscation of church property, and mass murders of religious teachers. (A few very interesting photos from the time can be found at this link, with one in particular looking eerily evocative of the smug mob that just barged into Cities Church in St. Paul, MN.) This war against the churches continued apace under Joseph Stalin, who, among other measures, ordered more mass killing against church leaders.

Mao Zedong’s Cultural Revolution waged a war on the “Four Olds” of traditional China, which included the destruction of Christian churches, and the prohibition of Christianity (a ban which effectively exists still today).

Pol Pot’s genocide in Cambodia during the 1970s intentionally decimated the Christian population. According to Persecution.org, Pol Pot “established a medieval regime of terror and restlessly hunted Christians.” The same site reveals that before the Khmer Rouge rose to power, there were around 170,000 Christians in Cambodia; in just a few years, that number dropped to a staggering low of only a couple thousand. Christians were “outsiders” accused of being too Western, so they had to go.

(I could go on with the anti-church policies of Fidel Castro and Che Guevara, but I’m running out of room.)

Murray has noted every communist experiment with the exception of some of the smaller countries that have tried it. Then she asks a key question, one that gets to the heart of communism/socialism/progressivism/fabianism/fascism (the system has gone by many names, but they all come down to one reason.)

So why do communists hate the Christian church so much? It’s simple: Without an authority higher than man, they can be god. They want to be the moral arbiter, making moral claims on what’s right and wrong. So, the real moral arbiter (God), and anyone who believes in Him, is an obstacle to the communist and his political goals.

So, it is the original sin.  They want to dethrone God and sit in his place. They have listened to the Devil and are following his instruction and not God's. There is so much that is wrong with communism, I don't understand why people think it is better than our own system. Oh, I understand that ours isn't so great, but any other is worse, far worse.

Politics Is Dangerous to You and Everyone You Care About

 I don't write about Christopher Cantrill's pieces much, though they are thought provoking.  But today he made a point that needs to be amplified if we are to retain our sanity.  You can find his article at the American Thinker entitled Why Do the Virtue Signalers Hate Carl Schmitt? So, who, you are wondering is Carl Schmitt? I will admit that this individual is today just a little bit obscure. He was a Nazi jurist and sometime philosopher who made the point that politics requires an enemy. If there isn't an enemy, one has to be invented. Sometimes our overlords can't find a human enemy so they invent one like terrorism, poverty, or drugs. The whole point of politics is to acquire power so that you can punish your enemies and reward your friends.  Well, duh.  Obama made that point as well as noting that elections have consequences.

But there is another way to live. You can live by God's laws, doing good, loving God and loving your neighbor. This is how most of us, most of the time, live our lives. We are social creatures, for good and bad. Politics is a necessary evil. But Democrats see it very differently:

Notice how I am always writing about “our liberal friends” or “our Democratic friends.” There is a reason for that. I do not think that liberals are The Enemy. I believe that our liberal friends are fools and knaves that believe in politics as the solution to social problems -- and race problems and patriarchy problems and climate problems. Earth to liberals: politics makes most things worse.

I repeat: Doesn’t Yarvin’s maxim exactly explain the minds and the acts of our liberal friends, from intellectuals to politicians to activists? They are devoted to politics: therefore there must be an enemy.

Now, to me, Nazi jurist Carl Schmitt is important because he teaches me why politics is really dangerous to humans and other living things. I Have a Dream that one day our liberal friends will finally understand that politics is radioactive and that politics should be shut down like nuclear plants before we melt down all the way to China. My understanding of Nazi jurist Carl Schmitt is that politics should be confined to dealing with the problem of real external enemies, and real internal thugs and criminals.

Schmitt explains why Communism has been such a disaster, why Nazism led the Germans into Hell, why the Iranian regime is blowing up the ancient land of Zarathustra until the rubble bounces. Using politics as a guide to running society at large is a disaster, because humans are social animals. Nearly all the time we interact with each other with the give and take of community and work and play and a shared moral framework. Politics is only useful in an emergency, as “in emergency, break glass.”

Yes, but whatabout morality, about good and evil? I direct your attention to our Democratic friends in Minnesota, and the apparent large-scale corruption featuring the Somali community. If you look at Minnesota politics through a Schmittian lens you see that, to Democratic politicians, it doesn’t matter that the Somalis have been ripping off all kinds of federal social programs. The Somalis help get the Somali vote out in elections and harvest the ballots to defeat the Republican Enemy. The Somalis are the Friends of the Democratic politicians in their fight against the Enemy, and in politics you reward your supporters and friends.

In other words, despite all the talk about morality and helpless victims, our Democratic friends just fight the enemy and gift the friends that help them get elected. Morality, good and evil, has nothing to do with the case. In politics the only rule is: just win, baby. Morality, good and evil, only applies outside of politics.

A note here about what it means to "love your neighbor," because too many confuse "loving" with "letting you neighbor get off scot free." It does not mean that at all. Suppose your neighbor defrauds another out of his life savings, and you discover it. If you do nothing, you may be showing one neighbor kindness, but you are further hurting the neighbor who was defrauded, not to mention that you are demoralizing yourself. Sometimes tough love is the only way to show love. This is why it is so important for the authorities to prosecute those who have lied, cheated, stolen elections, and engaged in lawfare. While we cannot achieve absolute justice in this fallen world, we must attempt to approximate it.

My main takeaway from Chantill's piece though is that while politics is necessary, it should not consume us. I have certainly allowed it at times to overtake my life, to my regret. Don't let it overtake yours.

When Both Men Are Armed, Persuasion Is the Only Way to Changes Men's Minds

 Allen J. Feifer reminds us that Whether in Iran, Minneapolis, or NYC, collectivists like gun-free zones at the American Thinker today. The Second Amendment to our Constitution is unique among the world's governments. But that is because of the unique circumstances of our founding. Having just fought a war for independence from what at the time was the finest army in the world, we determined to remain free and independent. The only way to do that was if everyone was armed and trained.

Just as people who want power manage to convince a subset of our people that socialism and communism isn't really so bad, so they constantly work to convince us to disarm ourselves. So far, it hasn't worked. There are too many reminders of things like the protests in Iran, or the massacre at Bondi Beach in Australia to remind us that perhaps we need more guns, more ammunition...just in case.

Have you been watching TV lately? If you have, you’ve seen an ever-spiraling series of events that threaten to overwhelm the most steadfast among us. You hear it everywhere: domestic and foreign events are as kinetic and dynamic as they’ve been since the end of WWII. From internal unrest to war in Europe and one of America’s major adversaries in open revolt against the Mullahs, what should we take away?

It turns out events in NYC, Minneapolis, and Iran have something in common—gun control:

Iran: Contrary to what many thought, the government still has cards to play. Its strength is that, while Iranians can own guns, they can do so only under very strict, state-controlled conditions, leading to few people actually owning a firearm and virtually no ordinary citizens.

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, who touts “the frigidity of rugged individualism with the warmth of collectivism,” opposes the Second Amendment, as do those in his government. They have warned that they have designs on citizens’ private property and wealth, and citizens have no Second Amendment bulwark against this.

In Minnesota, Governor Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, showing incredible chutzpah, are simultaneously (allegedly) responsible for one of the largest frauds in American history, even as they scream loudly how caring they are for their “Neighbors,” which is code for illegal aliens whom Walz and Frey consider above the law. It’s not a coincidence that Minneapolis is an anti-gun city and Walz dreams of an anti-gun state.

Of course, there are other places like New York and Minneapolis right here in the United States. Virginia just elected a hard left governor, Abagail Spanberger, who took the oath of office on a Quran. Now, I know she is not a Muslim, and I suspect she is not a Christian either, but swearing on a Quran is making Lucifer the guarantor of your oath. What could go wrong?  But it is appropriate because the Democrat Commonwealth's General Assembly has sworn to bring gun-grabbing back to Virginia.

Which brings me to this point: that Virginia was a freedom loving state, and most of it still is. There are lots of guns in Virginia. One of the things one learns living in Virginia is that when both people are armed, the only way to change someone's mind is through persuasion. But collectivism depends on force.

Collectivist projects are always coercive because large-scale redistribution and centralized coordination conflict with private interests and individual autonomy. Sooner or later, the government must use force to implement and sustain collectivist policies.

While Tehran’s force is religious and military, New York City and Minneapolis use regulations, law enforcement, and judicial enforcement to exercise control over people. Most importantly, people’s ability to fight the government is limited by the government’s near monopoly on firearms ownership, which effectively empowers it and ultimately encourages it to violate our God-given and constitutional rights.

As long as we have the Second Amendment, and it is viewed as a first-class right, the same as the right our First Amendment rights, we are citizens. One we lose it, we become like serfs or slaves, mere subjects.

When the day comes that Americans can no longer resist their government and self-styled demi-gods like Mamdani, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and yes, people like Jacob Frey and Tim Walz, we will have lost our ability to protect ourselves. We will no longer be free men, but serfs in service to the collective.

What’s happening on Iran’s streets is a cautionary tale about tyrants disarming their people. Firearms ownership has long been understood as more than a matter of personal defense. It serves as a structural check on how far a government can intrude into its citizens' private lives.

Foreign Actors Finding Out

 J.R. Dunn claims in a post at the American Thinker that the Delta Force that arrested Maduro used a "sonic weapon". You can find Dunn's piece here.

Here’s a wild one: rumors asserting that Delta Force troops used a “sonic weapon” against Maduro’s bodyguard troops while picking him up last week have been confirmed by Karoline Leavitt.

While sonic weapons such as the LRAD (Long Range Acoustic Device) and sound cannons have been used for years against targets such as Somalian pirates (what a pleasure it is to write that) and rioters, this weapon appears to operate on an entirely new level of effectiveness. Eyewitness reports of the raid on Caracas describe troops falling to their knees with their noses and mouths spurting blood, a level of impact unheard of in previous such weapons. While the LRAD and sound cannons can cause disorientation and moderately severe pain, physical effects of this sort are new in this kind of weapon.

Early on, some wit coined the term FAFO. It describes a situation where someone who insists on doing bad things finds out what the word "consequences" means. Right now, some foreign actors are discovering the meaning of FAFO. Just as clearly, the Trump Doctrine is coming into focus, with a renewed emphasis on the Monroe Doctrine and an emphasis on American greatness.