Politics

It isn’t difficult to see that there’s a lot wrong with the world today. The simple answer to why is that man has rejected God, but of course that’s not sufficient for the sort of autists who go about dreaming up abstract political theories so far removed from reality that if they are not actively harmful they are at least completely useless in actual practice. One such theory that is quite popular among so-called conservatives (whose function it is to conserve absolutely nothing save for what the Left was pushing just ten years ago if that) is that the reason everything’s gone wrong is that we just didn’t follow this country’s constitution well enough, making an idol of it and treating it as though it were some magical talisman with the power to ensure peace and prosperity throughout the land if those darned commie libtards would just bow down to its infinite wisdom. To be clear I am not opposed to a constitutional government, but to put the trust one should place in God into a legal framework and expect it to bring about everything one thinks is good in society is absurd.

Even many intelligent and respectable people whom I look up to still fall for this meme and will make such claims as “I don’t have to worry about the government spying on me because I have the Constitution to protect me” when clearly it does not and illegality has never completely prevented any crime in the first place. It’s as the old Roman saying goes, “who watches the watchers?” At least with other crimes the government is a third party, yet in regulating itself the government has only the consciences and willingness of its members to enforce any laws binding it, and our leaders lack both. While the Constitution has utility in that it can serve as a reminder of these men’s offices, and as with any law it is useful to have at least some threat of punishment for wrongdoing and a written standard for how things ought to be done, ultimately it is not the law that holds power, but the men who enforce it. It’s reminiscent of Bagehot’s observations on British government, that there are the “dignified” parts of government, i.e. those which “excite and preserve the reverence of the population” (and they have their place), and the “efficient parts”, i.e. those which get things done.

This is how the powers that be can bend the law to their whims making up such things as a “constitutional right to abortion” or whatever else they want, even though the Constitution does not grant any rights to begin with. If one looks through the Bill of Rights he will see not an enumeration of rights but a list of legal protections for rights which are already presumed to exist as an innate part of man’s nature. (Perhaps it would be better to exclusively use the phrase, “Constitutionally protected rights”, but since I’m not Richard Stallmann I won’t beat anyone over the head with this.) To be clear, human rights are a moral or legal authority to possess, use, and claim a thing as one’s own, and the objects of these rights are those things which are necessary for man’s well-being in this life and salvation in the next (e.g. his own life, bodily autonomy, and the Sacraments, etc). Violation of these rights, i.e. interference with his ability to freely enjoy and defend these things, constitutes an injustice.

Error has no rights however, and free speech absolutism is wrong and was not practiced by the Founders as it is entirely possible to render harm to one’s fellow man or to offend God by his words, and it is the right and duty of the state to punish those who blaspheme, foment uprisings, corrupt the youth, etc as should be clear to all but the most deluded libertarians. “tWaNs WiGhTs” and the “right” to an abortion do not exist, and Internet access is not a human right except insofar as it is necessary for one’s livelihood because it is otherwise not needed to live, notwithstanding the ramblings of delusional NeoCities furries. And no, animals and AI’s can’t have rights as they lack immortal souls (though sadism towards animals is still wrong). Rights are also not simply entitlements, so my need to eat or have a place to live does not nullify your right to property except under the gravest and most extreme circumstances, though all are obliged to provide for the common good. Even the right to life itself may be forfeit, should one commit sufficiently grave criminal offenses that undermine the fabric of society and harm his fellow man.

Going back to the Constitution, while it should not be treated as a moral bedrock for society or a magic solution to the problem of government infringing on your rights, it still occupies an important place in our government for a reason, and it is the duty of legislators and Supreme Court justices to interpret it in a manner consistent with the common good [1] that these rights may be freely enjoyed by the citizenry. This might seem like common sense, but for half a century “conservative” thought has been dominated by the ideas of textualism, an autistic reading of the text alone with no regard for any outside context or even the intentions of its authors (though in fairness it is not to be conflated with the even more autistic system of strict constructionism), and originalism, which strives to respect the Founders’ original intentions and is good in itself but can become a form of autism in itself. This can perhaps be most clearly seen when conservatives get caught up in trying to answer the question of whether abortion happens to be constitutional when the real question is “Who cares?” as it is the duty of every living person to prevent or at least curtail such evils to the extent that their position allows. (As an aside, those who make it an issue of “states’ rights” miss the point entirely and should not be taken seriously unless they actually intend to explain why it is that a state has the right to legalize abortion but the federal government does not have the right and duty to ban it.) In conclusion, constitutions are a useful tool of just government, but their limitations should be acknowledged and elevating them to the level of Gospel is simply counter-productive.

[1] Apologies for the author's faggotry on corona-chan and climate change but his main points stand and he gets the underlying philosophy of government right, so I still highly recommend this article as it's a return to common sense after decades of the above-described autism and the anarchy of a "living constitution".

Well it’s that time of year again. We’re now being subjected to the second round of a fake and gay holiday that hardly anyone had even heard of let alone cared about just two years ago, yet is now a federal holiday. I suppose it’s an ok consolation prize for not being able to celebrate Father’s Day, but if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em, so let’s honor the unceasing request of every mainstream media pundit and Twitter blue check and actually have a “serious discussion about race in this country”.

But before we can begin talking about race, there are some to whom we must prove that it even exists at all. Even the eminent E. Michael Jones, redpilled as he is on the evils of organized international Jewry, inexplicably becomes a sniveling midwit when confronted with the topic, claiming that “race is a category of the mind” as though the concept has absolutely no bearing on reality at all. I frankly don’t know what else to call this but the basest nominalism; if the differences between the races do not warrant categorization into separate groups, then what does? A pencil and a trebuchet are both made of wood, yet none but the most die-hard materialist would dare argue they are the same. Thuletide has written an excellent series deboonking all the most common denialist arguments on his blog, but essentially what the “‘all one race” argument boils down to is “we’re all one category, the super-category.” It denies the very real diversity that God created for a reason, even on the national level (Italians aren’t Germans), supplanting it with a Satanic lie that is fundamentally an attack on His creation. This isn’t even about whether one is any better than the others, but all a race really is is the next-largest bloodline after the human race as a whole. There are very real differences and inequalities between them, to be sure, but acknowledging this is not hatred. Race is not made up, it’s not a “system of oppression”, and it’s definitely not just skin color. It’s extended family.

This is precisely why race matters. There can be no more effective bond for a society than the natural brotherhood that arises within an ethnically homogeneous group. And on the other hand, no matter how leftist academics attempt to distort the data, it is empirically clear that diversity destroys trust in a community, even accounting for every other variable you could possibly think of. Now some might chalk this up to differences in culture, claiming that biological race is irrelevant and these groups all just need to assimilate into one big melting pot, but this is a woefully myopic worldview. The most obvious problem with this is, how do you convince millions of people, especially those whose culture is built on gang violence and “kill Whitey” to just abandon that culture and become good little white picket fence Americans like you and me? Even for the more decent ones, they still have a distinct culture and identity of their own, just because some Americans like to pretend they have none why would they want to give up theirs? Even for the European immigrants from Germany, Ireland, Italy, etc in the 19th Century, the road to assimilation was a long and difficult path, and that was with relatively similar cultures. It just ain’t happening. Race and culture are two sides of the same coin, and their diversity, when allowed to live in their own homelands rather than jumbled all together, is in fact something good and worthy of preserving.

As simple as it sounds, even acknowledging that the races are different is now so taboo that it can even get you fired from your job. It’s no accident that the “support the current thing” crowd has been supporting “civil rights” along with every other degenerate Satanic movement in existence, even from its inception. There are a few reasons for this, one is that in attacking such a basic property of a man’s birth Satan is attacking human nature as a whole and thus subverting God’s creation, which is integral to his evil agenda. By promoting the lie of equality, Satan erases our different natural talents and weaknesses, leaving us with nothing special to offer God or our neighbors, instead being perfect little cogs to fit right into his machine as slaves. Another is the unique role to which God has evidently assigned our race in the evangelization and conversion of the rest of the world. While many wrongs were admittedly committed along the way, and unfortunately it was not always the full Truth of God’s Word that was preached, Western colonialism brought millions of souls to Christ that would have otherwise been lost, and has been used as an instrument of God’s mercy to continue the work of redeeming the world. It is for these two reasons that “abolishing Whiteness” is so central to the enemy’s plan, and another reason why we must resist this obvious attempt at extermination.

As should be clear by now, none of this has anything to do with hatred, but everything to do with love. Love for one’s own people, united in the kinship that can only exist between true brethren, free to live together in their own homeland as God and nature intended. Though other races may be more prone to indulge in unsavory behavior, we must remember that they are still created in the image and likeness of God, it was only through our Faith that we were ever able to reach the heights of what was really a reflection of God’s glory, and it is our duty to do what we can to help them come to know their Creator. That absolutely does not entail subverting our own existence as a people, whatever “Catholic” Charities thinks, but the point stands. “Much will be asked of the man to whom much has been given; more will be expected of him, because he was entrusted with more.” - Luke 12:48