Lawless Hatred of a Lawful Karen

A copy-paste from Lamb’s Reign:

From Gamer Boys, Twitter Trolls, & Karen Swallow Prior, by John Reasnor

—<Quote begins>—

A few days ago, English professor, columnist, and author Karen Swallow Prior publicly announced that she would not be returning to her position at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. 

In her announcement, she wrote:

It has also become clear to me that I am simply not well-suited to the politics of institutional life in the SBC. 

Therefore, I have made the difficult decision not to return to SEBTS in the fall.

The fallout of her announcement only confirmed what she wrote. Many men affiliated with the SBC filled up her comments with scorn, ridicule, and even rejoicing that she was leaving. Others felt vindicated in their previous complaints toward Professor Prior as if her departure confirmed some suspicion. 

Later that evening, Jacob Denhollander posted some insight into this dynamic. He writes: 

There’s a self-fulfilling prophecy for women, especially, trying to have opinions and work in conservative circles. They are treated with baseless hostility and suspicion, and when they eventually find it too much to bear and leave, their detractors say, “See, we were right!”

The eggshells women have to walk on merely to voice their opinions or experiences in conservative spaces is just *absurd.* They have to either toe the company line & become essentially cheerleaders or mascots, or they are treated immediately as suspicious & not really belonging.

And so often the suspicion is based on *nothing* having to do with the content of their beliefs or their creed, but everything to do with their unwillingness to pander to the men in these spaces who see themselves as authorities & their fans who view them as icons.

I have witnessed this same phenomenon many times.

I do not know the details of Professor Prior’s resignation, but I have repeatedly witnessed her take the high road. I can also confirm that she could embarrass some of her critics, but she chooses not to. In contrast, the men targeting her are eager to find any opportunity to oppose her. While I’m a Presbyterian and have some other differences with her, I cannot help but see the similarities between her case and Jacob’s post. Further, I can’t help but see a much broader pattern of behavior. 

But I also wonder why a specific subset of male church leaders acts particularly hostile toward women—especially a particular sort of woman. These men consistently move beyond cordial ideological debate, heartfelt concern, or Christian reproof. Instead, these men hurl insults, degrade these targeted women, and work hard to not only correct the women they disagree with but also tarnish their reputations, diminish their influence, and end their careers. 

This radical behavior is certainly not representative of all men, and it’s not even representative of how some men treat all women they disagree with. But it is the expected behavior of some towards a subset of Christian women. 

Years ago, I stumbled upon an academic paper outlining some interesting dynamics between men and women video gamers that could shine some light on this issue. 

This study found that lower-skilled male Halo 3 players were statistically more likely to be verbally abusive toward players with a female voice. On the other hand, high-skilled male players were more likely to be passive toward female gamers. 

I have anecdotally experienced this to some degree. When a woman uses voice chat, the hostility (sometimes alluding to violence and/or sexual violence) begins. Online gamer culture is notoriously toxic and abusive, but there’s certainly a difference between how male players and female players are treated. This paper confirms my own experience. 

Though I don’t play many online multiplayer games, as a blogger and sometimes podcaster, I have historically spent a good amount of time on social media and in the comment sections of articles. And I can confidently say that the same dynamic you can observe in a Call of Duty or Halo game can be seen on Twitter and Facebook. 

I have the privilege of being friends with many exceptionally talented women who are experts in one field or another, if not many fields. From advanced academic degrees to a vast amount of self-taught knowledge, many women can run theological circles around many of their male critics. 

Yet, I’ve seen, again and again, brilliant women treated like garbage by mediocre (at best) male Twitter theologians and, tragically, sometimes actual pastors. 

Women in conservative circles can usually get away with passively cloaking their disagreement as submissive questions. Instead of stating her position, much less arguing for her position, she may feel pressure to state her position as a question. If she is afraid to object openly, she must bracket all objections with plenty of “with all due respect” and “although I appreciate your perspective” phrases. With every objection, she must throw in something that soothes the ego of the Twitter Theology Bro™.  

But if she plainly states her case or even nears any firmness, she receives brutish acting out. If she doesn’t receive flagrant hostility, she’s almost certainly met with condescension and dismissiveness. She’ll be quickly labeled a “shrill, loud, and probably bitter woman.” And these women do not tend to be aggressive, rude, or argumentative. These do not invite hostilities or contentious with their own bad behavior. 

In the hundreds of online conversations I’ve had about a plethora of theological concepts, I’ve noticed that I am treated differently than my sisters in Christ. When I engage in a topic, and sometimes even firmly disagree, I am typically responded to respectively, honorably, and with a level head. Even if the debate becomes tense, there’s almost always a sense of basic mutual dignity between brothers in Christ. At the same time, when a woman enters the discussion, she’s often not afforded the same level of dignity and respect. She can defend the same position as I, and even in a more submissive way, but she is met with suspicion, hostility, or condescension. 

To revisit the study on Halo gamers, the writers put forward the following hypothesis as an explanation for this gender-based and skill-based behavior discrepancy. 

We suggest that low-status males increase female-directed hostility to minimize the loss of status as a consequence of hierarchical reconfiguration resulting from the entrance of a woman into the competitive arena. Higher-skilled players, in contrast, were more positive towards a female relative to a male teammate.

In other words, low-skill male players feel that gaming is a male space. When women (especially high-skill women) enter this supposedly male space, they feel a competitive insecurity when their social hierarchy is disrupted. It’s essentially a territory dispute. She’s a threat, but only to low-skill players. 

In the same way, knowledgeable, influential, and capable women in certain Christian circles are treated like a threat to insecure men. Like a rageful Call of Duty gamer ready to throw his controller across the room, many comparatively low-intelligence, less influential, and less capable men throw temper tantrums on Twitter because certain women are making them look bad. Meanwhile, many more mature and often more knowledgeable men may disagree with these capable women, but they do so as adults. 

I haven’t seen this a few times; I’ve seen this hundreds of times.

Disagreeing, debating, and even correcting like a mature man is one thing. But the sort of childish trolling, mocking, and scoffing that is all too common is a mark of low-skill, low-maturity, and high-insecurity. This kind of behavior towards women says far more about the male critics than it does about the women. 

“Harsh as truth” Twitter pastors, Christian Shock Jocks, and Trad Memelords… know that you’re signaling truths about yourself. Women have always noted how they are treated differently, but many men are also fully aware of the dynamics under the surface. We know the game being played, and we know that it is driven by vanity, envy, and insecurity. We know the ruckus you cause is about feeling entitled to influential spaces of Christian life and thought, regardless of whether it’s an ordained position. We know this is about clinging to power and influence as much as, if not more than, sincerely held views on ordaining women. You show your hand when female lawyers, professors, and writers are treated just as harshly as female pastors. It’s increasingly transparent that the problem, to you, is women in spaces that you think belong to you. This “no girls allowed” attitude extends far beyond the pulpit, and we all know it.  

Know that most women know the routine very well. I’m far from the first man to point this out, and I’m sure I’m far from the first person to point any of this out, but I’ll still add my name to the list of men who can cut through the veneer of doctrinal browbeating to see the hidden angst of little men fearfully gatekeeping their Twitter influence. 

Grow up, and shame on you. 

Lastly, when an organization states a principle such as “we highly value women in various roles of influence,” but that same organization tends to run that exact sort of woman off, there’s an apparent disconnect. Something isn’t aligned between stated values and reality. Perhaps they’re working towards that value, and that explains the disconnect. Or, perhaps they’re moving in the other direction and widening the gulf between the public-facing policy and what’s happening in churches, universities, and other organizations. 

Suppose women are respected and honored in various roles and positions open to them according to the traditional doctrinal standards of the church. Is that reflective of how women in those roles are treated? Is that reflected in women even being in those roles? If not, let’s stop lying about how women are respected and honored in our circles. 

—<Quote ends>—

An end of lies would be a good thing.

That opens the door to repentance.

And thus, from death to life.


For the Artsy Types

Artists – and the rest of humanity – still hate the mere idea of a Higher Authority that can judge them, by a law that humanity did not write.

“No, you are not gods. You don’t get to decide what’s good and evil: the Creator dies!”

Rest assured: if they could crucify Him again, they would in a New York minute.

But you already knew that.

The Ruling Class still despise Christianity, right to the marrow of their bones.

And we all know why: any Source of the Law that is not themselves is by definition idolatry.

So far as the Better Sort is concerned.

But not even they are going to stay hardcore atheist, instead moving on to Hindi-style (Buddhist Zen?) pantheism/panentheism.1

Atheistic Darwinism is just too incoherent2… and the glory days of White European Power is dead and gone.

Time for the priestly guilds – supernaturalist and naturalistic – to move on to some other control tool. Some other mystifying technobabble to keep the Inferiors in their place.

They might even grit their teeth and prop up some Christian iconography every so often. Our Masters can’t tolerate that very much… but, to gain political power at a critical moment?

“Desperate times call for desperate measures.”

The Commoners of the West will continue to uncaringly drift from whatever mystifying relics of Christianity remain in their culture.

It’s the easiest thing to do, after all: it’s what they teach in the schools, it’s what’s on the YouTube/TikTok videos, it’s what shapes the songs, it what helps them fit in, it’s what get approval from the Authorities.

Nothing will change here… until the welfare cheques end.

When the money stops coming, the empire dies. And the Commoners will go into chaos, until they can find some other Leader and Elite that will save them from the burden of personal responsibility.

And when no such leader is found?

Most will implicitly commit suicide, in the style of Russian Commoners via drugs and violence. (Or explicitly, as euthanasia is furthered normalized.)

Those Commoners who fear God, who will plow through the tough times to build His Kingdom, who will still hew close to the Law of God and so have future goals, as well as commitment, dedication, and self-control (see: fruit of the Spirit)… that’s where the future lies.

From Commoner Trash, to a multitude of Kings and Priests. As common as the stars in the sky, who needs no king but King Jesus, no law but the Law of God.

(To the intense hatred of the increasingly powerless Ruling Elites, by the way.)

The future Ruling Class of Kings and Priests may be willing to pay skilled Christian artists for their work.

Until – like all powerful people – their ego bloats up, and they start worshipping themselves instead of God.

The bold is mine:

“Take care lest you forget the LORD your God by not keeping his commandments and his rules and his statutes, which I command you today, lest, when you have eaten and are full and have built good houses and live in them, and when your herds and flocks multiply and your silver and gold is multiplied and all that you have is multiplied, then your heart be lifted up, and you forget the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery, who led you through the great and terrifying wilderness, with its fiery serpents and scorpions and thirsty ground where there was no water, who brought you water out of the flinty rock, who fed you in the wilderness with manna that your fathers did not know, that he might humble you and test you, to do you good in the end. Beware lest you say in your heart, ‘My power and the might of my hand have gotten me this wealth.’ You shall remember the LORD your God, for it is he who gives you power to get wealth, that he may confirm his covenant that he swore to your fathers, as it is this day. And if you forget the LORD your God and go after other gods and serve them and worship them, I solemnly warn you today that you shall surely perish. Like the nations that the LORD makes to perish before you, so shall you perish, because you would not obey the voice of the LORD your God.
-- Deuteronomy 8:11-20, ESV

Commoners who hold Christ and His Law-Word above all things will inherit the land.

Commoners who – after playing the Christian for a while – turn to pour contempt on God (after getting the stuff that they really wanted, really worshipped, and really revered above any god in the sky) will get their teeth smashed into the back of their throat, by the iron rod of Jesus Christ.

Surprise, surprise.

The artists sense their coming near-total irrelevance.

Yes: AI Art is part of it…

…AI music too…

…but I suggest that the destruction/irrelevance of meaning — a central goal of atheism and Darwinism — is a big part of it.

Excepting the top tier 20%, nobody needs human artists anymore.

(Because AI art is fundamentally uncreative, the top 20% will still be able to earn a living… after a painful adjustment, where they learn the new tools and know what AI can and cannot do.)

Darwinian artists can’t compete with mindless computers, when it comes to generating random noise that they can charge wealthy collectors millions of dollars for.

Ho-hum artists with ho-hum, ordinary skills are already being shown the door.

Christian artists – however few they may be – will have to work like dogs, and get a real mastery of Christian theology, if they hope to rise to the 20% in their small field.

(Top 20% = the artists who actually get paid.)

The rest can go into advertising (which can be honourable) or porn (which is barred to the Christian who takes his religion seriously).

1 From Uncommon Descent: Stephen Hawking’s Co-Author: Hawking Thought That His Brief History Of Time Was Wrong

—<Quote begins>—

At The Guardian:

In 2002 Thomas Hertog received an email summoning him to the office of his mentor Stephen Hawking. The young researcher rushed to Hawking’s room at Cambridge. “His eyes were radiant with excitement,” Hertog recalls.

Typing on the computer-controlled voice system that allowed the cosmologist to communicate, Hawking announced: “I have changed my mind. My book, A Brief History of Time, is written from the wrong perspective.”

Thus one of the biggest-selling scientific books in publishing history, with worldwide sales credited at more than 10m, was consigned to the waste bin by its own author. Hawking and Hertog then began working on a new way to encapsulate their latest thinking about the universe. – Robin McKie (March 19, 2023)

The outcome is a new book, On the Origin of Time (Penguin Random House, April, 2023).

According to Hertog, the new perspective that he has achieved with Hawking reverses the hierarchy between laws and reality in physics and is “profoundly Darwinian” in spirit. “It leads to a new philosophy of physics that rejects the idea that the universe is a machine governed by unconditional laws with a prior existence, and replaces it with a view of the universe as a kind of self-organising entity in which all sorts of emergent patterns appear, the most general of which we call the laws of physics.” – Robin McKie (March 19, 2023)

But doesn’t self-organization of the universe, as is now suggested, entail some sort of panpsychism?

You may also wish to read: Why is science growing comfortable with panpsychism (“everything is conscious”)?

—<Quote ends>—

Don’t you love that “god-eye” on the cover?

Atheists hate the idea of a personal deity that holds them responsible for their every thought, word and deed… but they also like their book sales!

2 From Uncommon Descent: Peer Reviewed Paper Calls For Changes To Darwinism

—<Quote begins>—

At Evolution News

A peer-reviewed paper published towards the end of last year in the Elsevier journal Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology has a provocative title: “Neo-Darwinism Must Mutate to Survive.” …

“Realistic probability calculations based on probabilities associated with microevolution are presented. However, macroevolution (required for all speciation events and the complexifications appearing in the Cambrian explosion) are shown to be probabilistically highly implausible (on the order of 10-50) when based on selection by survival of the fittest. We conclude that macroevolution via survival of the fittest is not salvageable by arguments for random genetic drift and other proposed mechanisms. [– from the paper] ” – Casey Luskin (March 15, 2023)

Much more at the link. The paper requires a fee or subscription.

And wow. Careers used to die over statements like that.

Look, evidence has nothing whatever to do with it. The researchers can have boatloads of evidence and scrupulous methods for handling it.

BUT if conclusions that cast doubt on settled, easy Darwinism are allowed to just be published and stay published, with no one punished – think of the huge swathes of sloppy Darwinian claims in the literature that could suddenly become subject to actual scrutiny… Omigosh… it would start to look like actual science…

Well, if Brown and Hullender survive, stay tuned. Here’s their abstract:

Darwinian evolution is a nineteenth century descriptive concept that itself has evolved. Selection by survival of the fittest was a captivating idea. Microevolution was biologically and empirically verified by discovery of mutations. There has been limited progress to the modern synthesis. The central focus of this perspective is to provide evidence to document that selection based on survival of the fittest is insufficient for other than microevolution. Realistic probability calculations based on probabilities associated with microevolution are presented. However, macroevolution (required for all speciation events and the complexifications appearing in the Cambrian explosion) are shown to be probabilistically highly implausible (on the order of 10−50) when based on selection by survival of the fittest. We conclude that macroevolution via survival of the fittest is not salvageable by arguments for random genetic drift and other proposed mechanisms. Evolutionary biology is relevant to cancer mechanisms with significance beyond academics. We challenge evolutionary biology to advance boldly beyond the inadequacies of the modern synthesis toward a unifying theory modeled after the Grand Unified Theory in physics. This should include the possibility of a fifth force in nature. Mathematics should be rigorously applied to current and future evolutionary empirical discoveries. We present justification that molecular biology and biochemistry must evolve to aeon (life) chemistry that acknowledges the uniqueness of enzymes for life. To evolve, biological evolution must face the known deficiencies, especially the limitations of the concept survival of the fittest, and seek solutions in Eigen’s concept of self-organization, Schrödinger’s negentropy, and novel approaches.

—<Quote ends>—

Atheists MUST have their self-organization…. but they know that random chance won’t cut it.

Atheists will never tolerate the presence of Christians. But the Hindi and the Buddhists, with their impersonal forces that are integrated into – and not above – the Creation? And the escape-from-reality door they have available?

Well, if you can’t control all of reality (and kill everything everywhere, in the Marxist style), maybe you can escape all of reality!

I suggest that it will take less than 50 years before the greatest Dharmic religious leaders are invited to speak before the highest scientific circles.

While Christians – even submissive and compliant Christians, desperately eager to please their Betters (like Pope Francis and the Church of England leadership) – are pointedly kept out in the cold and the dark.

Training Children as Prostitutes


While quoting Rushdoony — From Leviticus: Volume III of Commentaries on the Pentateuch, Chapter Thirty-Five: Abomination and Confusion (Leviticus 18:20-23) — I quoted him as saying

—<Book Quote begins>—

These verses are titled by Wenham, “Other Canaanite Customs to be Avoided.” [201] In v. 21, we have the heart of the problem, Molech worship, which could mean child sacrifice, as in Carthage.[202] It could also mean, as Snaith suggests, that possibly children were given to the authorities to be trained as male and female prostitutes; the fact that this law comes together with prohibitions of various forms of sexuality and is followed by references to sodomy and lesbianism certainly is evidence of this.[203]

[201] Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985), 258.

[202] Ibid., 259.

—<Book Quote ends>—

And I added my own thoughts afterwards;

—<Blog Quote begins>—

“… children were given to the authorities to be trained as male and female prostitutes”

You might want to take a careful detailed look, at exactly what is in your public (or even Christian!) school library, as well as what’s in their government-approved textbooks and curricula.

Expect unpleasant surprises.

“But this takes time and effort, and I just can’t be bothered to do it.”

Christian losers are forever losers.

Big surprise.

Thankfully, God is careful to discuss the scale and ferocity of vengeance He has planned for those servants of His that pervert, destroy, and out-and-out murder the small and weak people He has placed under their charge.

Especially His littlest ones.

—<Blog Quote ends>—

Why Is NPR Promoting Teaching Children How To Give Oral Sex?

Well, that’s actually a good question.

You can read the whole article — Why Is NPR Promoting Teaching Children How To Give Oral Sex? Taxpayer-supported public radio continues to gaslight listeners about queer dirty books in school libraries — written by Rod Dreher.

(Referred to by GetReligion’s article Parents, schools and ‘LGBTQ themes’: Why is the Associated Press being so vague?)

Selected quotes from the article (not images from the awarding-winning middle school book: go to the original article for that) below:

—<Quote begins>—

Why do media outlets like NPR mislead listeners (viewers, readers) about what’s in these challenged books? Because they are part of a cultural elite that believe they have the right to deceive parents for the sake of Progress. The contempt they have for normal people and their concerns is breathtaking. For example:

SCOOP: NYC middle school principal confirms in an email that the school offers the pornographic book “This Book is Gay” and have no plans of removing it.

The book teaches kids about gay sex and encourages the use of sex apps.

This is what they’re giving 12 yr olds to read.

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) January 8, 2023

Here’s a more readable version of that letter from a middle school principal to a parent who had written to complain about the book:

The parent had been complaining that the book — which, among other things, teaches middle-school kids how to use apps on their phone to meet gay men for anonymous sex — was inappropriate for children. I’m not making this up. From the book:

It is hard to fathom that this is the kind of information that middle schools give to kids now in the United States. But it is. And if you object to it, you’re a hate-filled censor. I know because I read about it on NPR’s website.

David Marcus quote:

Parents are furious and they should be. It is not the job of the state to teach our young children the proper way to suck a penis, frankly I can’t believe that this sentence has to be written. It also certainly not the job of taxpayers to fund propaganda in furtherance of this behavior.  

At some point, the public is going to have to start throwing stuff. Meaning voters are going to have to use the only tool they have — pressuring elected politicians to change the way they spend the public’s own money — to fight back against the cultural elites who despise them, and who are corrupting our kids with this filth. The backlash is long overdue.

—<Quote ends>—

The Future Belongs to Those who Obey the Lord

Dreher is an optimist: he thinks that there will be a backlash from parents against this Establishment manual on raising up male prostitutes.

I don’t believe it.

Parents have been bleating, whining, then meekly submitting, about the latest evil nonsense from the Authorities for all my life.

Parents — including those parents who send their children to the government schools — are treated with earned contempt by their Betters. If said parents had even some fragments of spine left, they would have taken their children out of the public schools.

It is up to Christians to raise up the next Ruling Class at their homes and congregations.

For boys trained up as submissive prostitutes aren’t going to rule anything.

They are just going to be used and dumped, then die of disease, then burn in hell forever.

Thus pleasing the secularist.. and the other enemies of God, since the days of the Philistines and Canaanites, the ancient Greeks, and even the Romans.

Dead people – and those raised up in their lifestyle – should be left to bury the dead, assuming that they refuse to repent and live.

Christians must repent, live in accordance to God’s Law, and so inherit the future.

Christians must raise their children in the fear and admonition of the Lord, as well. To remember and obey all of His commandments.

And so inherit the land.

9-11 In Real Time

Future generations should know why we became subjects of the surveillance state.

Long after

  • Bin Laden is dead and gone,
  • the Taliban rose to rule Afghanistan (after a 20-year American occupation of their country),
  • and Al-Qaeda (a terrorist organization) rose to rule its small oppressive Caliphate, and lost it’s Caliphate

The Patriot Act is still in force, and no one challenges the alphabet agencies. Homeland Security remains in force, and we still must remove our shoes (a CIA humiliation tactic) and go through the peeper x-ray machines before boarding a plane.

The boogieman is forgotten, as the goal – more power, bigger budgets, and less supervision – has been secured.

Until the next step up in centralized control is required. (See the COVID-19 mania.)

Statist Aristocracies: Silver Spoons and Red Diapers

(A repost from the scifi blog. Some sci-fi babble deleted.)

So with that in mind, we have all this industrialisation and urbanisation going on,  and standards of living for the poor slowly getting better. But there was an Establishment backlash against this. In the 1840s, the Conservative Party was the pro-Statist party. They stood for authority, monarchy, nationalism, high-taxes and heavy intervention in the economy. “The Conservative Party exists to conserve;  it is the party of the status quo.”

And what was the status quo back in the 1840s?  Monarchy, authority, high-taxation and heavy intervention in the economy to prevent the poor from improving their standards of living. They wanted things to go back to as they had been before the Industrial Revolution. They wanted to be the Lords on the Manor, with the poor and  starving peasants working their fields. That’s why they were against ‘change’, because of what  happened in the French and Industrial Revolutions.  

There’s a distinctly Russian scent in the air…

Now yes, technically they were opponents of other utopian political visions, but that doesn’t mean that they were against all utopian visions.


They wanted to protect the Church and the aristocracy,  who they believed were central to British society at the time. And again, they wanted a feudal-style Britain – that was their utopia, because they were the landowners. Thus, they were pro-taxation, and pro-protectionism, because taxation benefited the government (who were the aristocrats), and protectionism would benefit them because they owned all the farms.“During the 1870s the large-scale imports of cheap grain from North America triggered  a long-term decline in agriculture, marked by falling rents and land values, which left a generation of country gentlemen and aristocratic landowners disillusioned with conventional Conservatism and was eventually to make them susceptible to extremist politics…”


So the Conservative aristocrats were pro-State – they were statists, mercantilists, nationalists. It was the Conservatives who  implemented the Income Tax in the 1840s,  because up to this point taxes had been largely  indirect, and they wanted direct taxation on the industrialists who were benefiting the poor. They  didn’t want to get rid of the Corn Laws, which had  previously been implemented to protect British  agriculture by guaranteeing high food prices that had to be paid by the poor. If you want to know why people were going hungry in the 1800s, it wasn’t because of evil capitalists, it was because of Statist price setting, high regulation and taxation. In other words, it was a lack of a free market.

And the Conservatives weren’t the industrialists – they were against the free market and the industrialists. That was who they were implementing regulations and taxation against.

And, by the way, the source I’m using  for this is a standard history book, not someone from the Mises Institute or something. The historians are largely in agreement with what I’ve just said, so this shouldn’t be controversial, but I know that  people’s perceptions of what the Conservatives are is different to what they actually are. They’ve just implemented higher taxes on the poor and businesses, and lower taxes on the Establishment aristocracy. And last year, when Comrade Sunak got in, he raised taxes. That’s why they’re known as the “low-tax” party, because they always implement low taxes on the Establishment, and higher-taxes on the rest of us. They’ve been consistent  throughout their entire political history. 

The Chinese Communist Aristocracy, the British Aristocracy, the Russian Aristocracy (Czarist, Communist, Putinist), the senior American families… someday, all these aristos will all get together to gang-bang the rest of us.

Well, that’s the plan, anyways. Due to unforeseen circumstances — the bankruptcy of the welfare state, the aging society, information decentralization — I don’t think that they are going to get what they want.


Commoners think they know how corrupt the Aristocracy is. If you are an insider, you actually do know how corrupt it is… and now, you know why they won’t trust each other as far as they can throw them.


So Conservative leader Disraeli realised in October 1849 that the Conservative policy of protectionism was costing them votes, and thus political power, since most of society was in favour of Free Trade. So they turned in favour of Free Trade to get elected, but that was a political ploy. They still remained the  party of the Establishment – the State – and  remained a high-tax and protectionist party. “Disraeli’s greatest legacy to the Conservatives was to make them the ‘national’ party. From the late 1870s the Conservatives were able to wrap themselves in the Union Jack, and, when all other tactics failed, they were able to identify themselves with a strong foreign and defence  policy: whatever else changed between Disraeli and Thatcher, that, at least, remained the same…” Thatcher implemented the Poll Tax, almost doubled VAT, and it was increased again during John  Major’s term, and again under Cameron’s term  in 2010. Yet, despite this, people vote for  them hoping for lower taxes. No, they hate the  free market, and they’re for higher taxation, regulation and protectionism, and they always  have been. On occasion they might lower taxes to win votes, or for stability reasons, but  usually they raise them again, or lower them against one part of the economy and higher them on another. They’ve never been low-tax. Now why am I bringing this up? Well, where  did Mosley start his political career?  The Conservative Party! Forget “Left and  Right”, “Up and Down” or any of that nonsense, look at the facts.

If Christians can follow TIK’s words here — “forget left and right, up and down or any of that nonsense, look at the facts” — we would be well rewarded.1

Mosley was an aristocrat – he was Lord Mosley. He was pro-monarchy. Pro-taxation. Pro-regulation. Pro-autarky (protectionism). He was against the free market. He was against industrialists, the businessmen, and the self-employed. He thought they all should be forced into a giant hierarchical structure led by an aristocratic-type elite. That’s why he started in the Conservative Party,  because that’s what the Conservatives have always been about.

Now, he did disagree with certain policies of the Conservatives, even when he was first elected in 1918. He disagreed with the“hereditary principle”of the House of Lords, and he was in favour of modern reforms of the British state. But he was also against “Aliens” – in this case the Germans living in Britain, because he thought they were reducing wages, underselling goods, ruining English social life, and spreading disease. However, even at this  point, he believed that the British state should provide welfare and ‘education’ for the British people – a typical Conservative position. Why is that? Well, it’s because, as we just saw before, Conservatives are the aristocratic elite. They want higher taxes for themselves. So by promising limited welfare and an ‘education’, they can impose high taxes and pocket the rest. 

However, Mosley wasn’t your typical Conservative. He seems to have genuinely believed that the British State should be looking after the British people. 

Amusing, to see the Germans typecast as the Evil Alien Foreigners, “taking our jobs and spreading their icky diseases.”

Never trust a Ruling Class – political, religious, scientific, racial, whatever – who promise to ‘educate’ your child. The scare quotes here are definitely warranted!

The  Liberal Party has its origins in the Whig Party, which had its origins in the 1600s… but we’ll  start off in the early 1800s. The Whigs were against the Conservatives, they were for free trade and property rights – they were basically the Adam Smith Party. They weren’t AnCaps by any stretch of the imagination – after all, they were an aristocratic faction – but were classic liberal in outlook. Individual liberty was seen as something to… as something to aim for. 

However, there was a flaw in their reasoning. Some argued that liberty could only come about if the State intervened in the life of the people. “Liberals had no scruples about interfering with the poor, even without their consent through the vote, in the interests of improved social morality as they understood it.”They weren’t entirely free market – through no fault of their own. Everyone’s understanding of economics back then was primitive. They were still operating under the Labour Theory of Value – since the Subjective Theory of Value was only discovered in 1871. Back then they didn’t really understand what was going on.

So while they freed the slaves in 1832, they implemented legislation that banned football and animal fighting, and said that it was okay to dissect the bodies of people who died in the workhouses. They also weren’t a zero tax party, and they implemented interventionist legislation, but they certainly were more hands-off than the others.

You take your liberty where you can get it.

It’s tempting for Americans to mock a classical liberal party of aristocrats… but then again, Americans were of the time were quite willing to hold millions in chains, due to their politically incorrect skin colour. Aristocrats freeing the slaves in 1832 with laws and compensation is a lot better than republicans freeing the slaves in 1863 by open war, the death of a significant percentage of your nation’s male population, and the economic crippling of a major region of your nation for about a century. Good thing American birthrates were still strongly positive at the time…

Poverty still existed, and people started to falsely assume that laissez-faire economics was causing this poverty. Dickens’ socialist propaganda (because it was socialist propaganda) falsely blamed poverty on laissez-faire economics. But he wasn’t the only one. A Hegelian called Thomas Hill Green started the ball rolling in the 1870s, followed by one of his students, a guy called Arnold Toynbee, who questioned the idea of laissez-faire economics being good for society. Toynbee especially believed that the poor were being trampled by it. Of course, he had the perfect solution. “[Toynbee viewed] the state as something more than a mechanical contrivance for material ends, as a union of men for the highest purposes of human nature…”

I can already see the Soviet – and Chinese, and North Korean, and Cuban – Ruling Aristocracies grinning ear to ear.

Here comes the Hegelian State, God Walking On Earth, our true and final Saviour.

I would like to point out that Green and Toynbee  were Hegelians – and I think it’s extremely interesting that they went to the Liberal Party to demand reform. The Conservatives were the party for the strong-state, yet Green and Toynbee went  to the Liberals – the laissez faire market party. That’s very strange…

I believe that the British Elite were the first to understand the importance of corrupting the substantial opposition first, most likely by dangling the carrot of the Inner Circle, Social Status, and a Comfortable Income to certain key individuals.

After that, we can have all the Tweedledee-Tweddledum political dramas the public can clamour for.

But anyway, because of the Hegelian attack, John Stewart  Mill, who had been a classic liberal, had a crisis of confidence and basically turned into a socialist as a result. He wasn’t a Marxist – he became a classic utopian socialist – believing that private property and money should still exist, but that society should help the less fortunate, because he now believed that freedom for the individual could only occur under the guiding hand of the state.

“Our true Master, the State, will save us!”

So the old classic liberalism of laissez  faire economics was under attack, and the Liberals began to think that they should intervene in the more extreme cases of poverty, or when it was deemed that the free market had failed. In the 1880s and 90s, Rowntree and Booth published studies on poverty, and basically confirmed to everyone that laissez-faire was  anything but fair.

Now, I want to make it clear that the free market wasn’t causing  this poverty – the free market was pulling people out of poverty during this period. Between 1870 and 1914, the amount of food consumed by the British people skyrocketed.“All departments of life showed improvements. People ate and dressed better… Many items, once considered luxuries, now were being massed  produced. Furniture, books, pictures, carpets, cigarets, pianos, watches, neckties, and roller skates entered general circulation. Similarly, entertainment became more universally accessible… Annual consumption of goods increased markedly: Consumption of sugar rose from 12 pounds  per person in 1870 to 34 pounds in 1907; that of beer from 78 litres in 1872 to 123 litres in 1900. In 1873, average annual consumption  of meat was about 59 pounds per person. That had gone up to 105 pounds in 1912.” The guys back in the 1800s should have known this. 

Yes, they didn’t have the statistics that we do, but one of Karl Marx and Engels’ disciples, Eduard Bernstein (who was one of the people who buried Engels at sea), could tell with his own eyes that the poor were getting richer as a result of laissez-faire. He began to deviate from Marx in the early 1890s, and started publishing literature against Marx’s ideology. So if he could see it, why couldn’t any of the laissez-faire guys? 

My bet: Inner Circle promises, coupled an increasing disbelief in a supernatural God who shapes history for the righteous, and an increasing belief in a strictly naturalist God of Uniforms and Guns and Leaders and Parties.

“Who will insure justice for the weak and the poor? The Right Sort Will!

And the Collectivists rise up with smiles, humming power in the blood quietly to themselves…

“…and the shedding of the blood of one lamb is entirely insufficient to meet todays needs. Much more blood, and far more human sacrifices, will be needed to reach the True Utopia!”

But regardless, as a result of the crisis of confidence (brought on by the Hegelians),  a “Radical” faction emerged and eventually took over the Liberal Party. By 1890, Old Liberalism had died, and New Liberalism was cast to the side (although it wouldn’t die completely until about 1911). New Liberalism effectively abandoned laissez-faire and free market economics, and was decisively more interventionist – almost socialist.“In order to differentiate the two, the liberalism of the 17th and 19th centuries has been dubbed “classic liberalism” (also called “laissez-faire liberalism”), while the more contemporary version has been labelled “modern liberalism”, “social  liberalism”, or “nanny-state liberalism”.

The so-called “New Liberals” then went on to implement policies like state pensions, school reform and so on. Nothing dramatic compared to what came later, but enough for historians to note the significance, and also the change in tactics. “By 1890 the socialists seemed to pose a serious threat in the possible creation of an independent working class party. Progressive Liberals responded to these socialist threats by advocating  Lib-Lab cooperation, and by supporting working class and industrial reform. In one sense, then, the change from the old to the new radicalism lay in the new orientation toward “socialist” reforms.  

And indeed, the border between the left wing of Liberalism and the right wing of the socialist groups was so indistinct that it depends mainly on point of view whether some individuals are classed as radicals or socialists; they favoured the same practical reforms.” The Fabian Society is also involved here, but the fact that the Hegelians are there too… I don’t know, my Spidey-senses are tingling. The fact that they went for the classic liberals and not the Conservatives, really strikes me as suspicious. 

It should. You already know what I’m betting on.

And the fact that the liberals folded so easily just doesn’t make sense, especially  since the vast majority of the British public were still laissez-faire advocates. Up until the late 1880s, the workers and their  bosses (the so-called “capitalists”) were on the  same team.

Yes, there was a union movement, but it wasn’t until 1889 that the two sides started to clash – again, really suspicious in my opinion. “…the major basis of Liberal support came from an alliance between the middle class and the  working class. This alliance was made possible because working class voters generally shared  middle class goals and middle class assumptions  about the nature of the economy and of politics. 

The great bulk of the working class in the 1860’s  and ‘70’s was still pre-industrial in the modern  sense; the typical workman was a craftsman or a small-scale capitalist. In the economic world of  these small-scale producers, it was still possible to rise by thrift and self-help. These working class voters, therefore, shared the middle class ideal of individualism; and as small-scale producers, they did not see the  capitalist as their class enemy. Until the end of the 1880’s, then, the leaders of organised labour  had no desire to use politics for economic ends.

“So wait, there’s no antagonism between the workers at their employers throughout most of the industrial revolution, until the late 1880s, which just so happens to be when the laissez-faire Liberal Party abandoned their free market economics?”

History that doesn’t fit The Narrative gets shoved down the memory hole.

Just the way Our Betters like it.

Let me just read that first line again. “…the major basis of Liberal support came from  an alliance between the middle  class and the working class.” So you’re saying that in the middle of a century  where the aristocratic elite are losing power to a free population that was pulling itself out of poverty for the first time in human history off the back of free market economics, there just so happened to be a gnostic cult attack upon the very principles that was enriching the entire population at the expense of the power of the elite?

And then after a century of progress, an artificial split was created between the employers and employees, dividing the very alliance that had weakened the elite and strengthened the poor and middle-income earners. And as a result of that split, it turned the entire political landscape into a pro-authoritarian, pro-taxation, pro-regulation, pro-reform and pro-inflation cesspool – all  policies designed to hurt both employer and employee, and keep them divided, as the aristocratic elite get richer and richer, and we all end up back in feudal times, eating bugs and being happy? I’m sure this is just a coincidence. Right?


No, we’ve been played. This is all a trick. If you get rid of the “Left” and “Right” nonsense, and forget Party politics for a minute – they’re all the same. Pick a party, they’re all pro-state. They’re all pro-establishment. They’re all pro-tax. They’re all on the same side. When they get in, nothing ever changes. 

Employers and employees have been divided. Why? ‘Patriarchy.’ ‘Fat vs thin.’ ‘A million genders and races.’ ‘Class warfare.’ We’ve been played. They’re keeping us divided and they’re keeping us against the free market and liberty. Socialists are just puppets of the elite. 

TIK gets a solid grip on truth. Not the whole truth, not the complete truth… but a good and genuine aspect of reality.

I hope he doesn’t let go.

Certainly, we should not.

Incidentally, I like that bit about eating bugs.

And if you think Our Betters – corporate, socialist, clerical, academic – will be eating bugs… think again.

1 And not just by recognizing the Conservative’s pointed contempt to Christian mores, although that is something worth keeping in mind.

Note that when I refer to Conservative hostility to Christian mores, I do not mean any hostility to the Church of England and its hierarchy. Useful control tools and obedient religious professionals are useful, in England and Russia, Japan and China, yesterday and today.

I’m glad that propped-up pious tool of government control is dying, by the way. The Church of England will be the first to go, p

COVID-19: Knowing the Truth, Choosing to Lie

The current Ruling Class is bone-deep evil.

We must become better than they are, in the eyes of God and Man.

From Tom Woods, They Knew It Was True

—<Quote begins>—

If we have any honest historians out there, a true chronicling of 2020 to 2023 is going to make the hairs on your neck stand on end.

Matt Taibbi has just released another installment of the so-called “Twitter Files,” and this one looks closely at something called the Virality Project (VP), based at evil Stanford University.

On the eve of Taibbi’s congressional testimony we had started hearing about what it had been up to, but we now know a lot more.

VP worked with the major Big Tech platforms to suppress dissident voices even when by VP’s own admission, what those voices were saying was true. It worked with the Office of the Surgeon General and the Centers for Disease Control as well.

Writes Taibbi:

This story is important for two reasons. One, as Orwellian proof-of-concept, the Virality Project was a smash success. Government, academia, and an oligopoly of would-be corporate competitors organized quickly behind a secret, unified effort to control political messaging.

Two, it accelerated the evolution of digital censorship, moving it from judging truth/untruth to a new, scarier model, openly focused on political narrative at the expense of fact.

Through July of 2020, Twitter’s internal guidance on Covid-19 required a story be “demonstrably false” or contain an “assertion of fact” to be actioned. But the Virality Project, in partnership with the CDC, pushed different standards.

VP told Twitter that “true stories that could fuel hesitancy,” including things like “celebrity deaths after vaccine” or the closure of a central NY school due to reports of post-vaccine illness, should be considered “Standard Vaccine Misinformation on Your Platform.”

Raising objections to vaccine passport programs also attracted the attention of VP, which advised, “We expect the vaccine passport debate to continue as a key talking point especially bridging the anti-vax community with the right-wing media sphere.”

Therefore, “concerns” over such programs could be considered a “misinformation” event.

When the AstraZeneca vaccine began to be banned in Europe because people experienced blood clots, VP grew concerned that “increased doubts in one manufacturer’s vaccine may lead to hesitancy about vaccination overall.” Therefore, VP would “continue to monitor discussions about these suspensions.”

By March of 2021, writes Taibbi, Twitter personnel “were aping VP language, describing ‘campaigns against vaccine passports,’ ‘fear of mandatory immunizations,’ and ‘misuse of official reporting tools’ as ‘potential violations.'”

VP urged platforms to “hone in” on an “increasingly popular narrative about natural immunity.”

VP falsely described “breakthrough infections” as “extremely rare events” and should of course never be cited to claim that “vaccines are ineffective.” VP also claimed it was misinformation to say that the shots did not prevent transmission, even though it is a commonplace that they do not.

Even as research continued to vindicate natural immunity, this didn’t matter because according to VP, “Whether or not…scientific consensus is changing, ‘natural immunity’ is a key narrative…among anti-vaccine activists.”

In April of last year, VP sought a “rumor-control mechanism to address nationally trending narratives,” and — see if this sounds familiar — a “Misinformation and Disinformation Center of Excellence” at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

It certainly should sound familiar, because the very next day the director of DHS announced the creation of a Disinformation Governance Board.

The truth is coming out, dear friends.

We need someone to write The Secret History of the 21st Century. (I am too burned out to do it, but some young whippersnapper should make a name for himself by doing it.)

Now, for the weekend, here’s a fun assignment for you.

Just over three years ago I spoke at a conference in Orlando, not far from where I live. It wasn’t a history conference, or an economics one, or about health or libertarianism or anything like that.

And yet I think I gave maybe the best speech of my career.

I was invited because I’m apparently pretty darn good at selling things. I am trying to follow in the footsteps of Harry Browne, one of the greatest libertarians ever, who wrote The Secret of Selling Anything.

At that conference were a lot of people who sold the same things I did. They had been doing it for far longer and they had a much wider reach. They even spent a fair amount of dough to get eyeballs on what they were selling. (I spend nothing.)

And yet, ol’ Woods just kept on outperforming them.

So they needed to know: how is this small fry, who doesn’t even do this as his main living, beating the pants off us with a smaller audience and working only part time?

In short, who does this whippersnapper think he is?

So the conference organizer, Omar Martin — who has since become a good friend — asked if I’d come explain myself.

Attendees paid $197 to come see me show how I do it.

In 60 minutes, I revealed it all.

If you’re an entrepreneur or a wantrepreneur, and you actually do what I recommend, you will see a vast improvement in your results.

I’m now giving the speech away for $0.

Curious? Of course.

Here’s the link:

Tom Woods

—<Quote ends>—

Doing the Hard Work, Pushing Through the Footnotes

Pagans are naturally unconcerned with academic integrity. They know that they will be rewarded so long as they toe the party line… and that even if they are caught, punishment won’t even amount to a slap on the wrist, again so long as they stick with the Established Consensus.

Christians are expected by God to do better than this.

From Evolution News, “Sacred Cause”? Reconsidering Charles Darwin as Abolitionist by Robert Shedinger

—<Quote begins>—

In 2009, noted Darwinian biographers Adrian Desmond and James Moore published Darwin’s Sacred Cause: Race, Slavery, and the Quest for Human Origins. They argued the radical new thesis that Darwin’s species work was primarily motivated by an abolitionist desire to combat racist polygenist views of human origins and instead draw all humans together under the umbrella of common descent. This book has been both widely praised and widely criticized. 

But agree with the thesis or not, many view the book as a premier example of historiographical research. The book contains 820 endnotes citing hundreds of primary sources, not the least of which are many hundreds of references to Darwin’s voluminous correspondence. One can always disagree with Desmond and Moore’s interpretation of the evidence, but one would be hard pressed to criticize them for not doing their homework. 

Or So I Thought

I have been reading the Darwinian correspondence myself for several years and have never seen anything in Darwin’s letters that would seem to support Desmond and Moore’s thesis about the motivating factor for Darwin’s species work. However, given how deeply their book is rooted in primary source documentation, surely I must have missed something in my own reading. Curious to figure out what, I decided to undertake a careful re-reading of Darwin’s Sacred Cause, paying special attention to places where Desmond and Moore register Darwin’s views on slavery and race. I then checked the references they cite to document this new portrait of Darwin. 

Shockingly, it turns out that these highly esteemed scholars play fast and loose with their sources and with basic tenets of historiographical research. 

Therefore, I offer a series of posts here designed to lay out the evidence in detail. It is not merely that Desmond and Moore are selective in the sources they cite, filtering out only those which support their thesis. Many historians are selective. What I found in their historiography rises, instead, to a different level. 

A Sweeping Statement

For example, let’s consider Desmond and Moore’s sweeping statement regarding the impact on Darwin of his encounters with indigenous peoples during the Beagle voyage:

Interestingly it was in Tierra del Fuego, perplexed and troubled by an alien race, that Darwin decided to spend his life studying natural science (97). 

It sounds like Darwin’s scientific work was primarily motivated by anthropological concerns. Let’s check the sources. An endnote points us to Darwin’s autobiography (p. 26) and volume 1 of his correspondence (pp. 305, and 311-12. Desmond and Moore cite the correspondence by volume and page number, never by date and addressee of the letter). 

In his autobiography, Darwin does indeed write: 

I remember when in Good Success Bay, in Tierra del Fuego, thinking, (and I believe that I wrote home to the effect) that I could not employ my life better than in adding a little to natural science.

Darwin does say he contemplated a career in science while in Tierra del Fuego, but he gives no indication that it was due to being “perplexed and troubled by an alien race,” as Desmond and Moore indicate. 

Volume 1 of the correspondence, page 305, reflects a March 1833 letter of Darwin to his sister Caroline written during the Beagle voyage. He makes several references to his growing love for geology, and his ability to withstand the difficulties of the voyage because of his increasing pleasure from natural history, but nothing about alien races. Pages 311-12 reflect a May 1833 letter to another sister, Catherine, in which Darwin says, referring to the numerous invertebrate animals in the intertropical ocean, “If it was not for these & still more for geology — I would in short time make a bolt across the Atlantic to good old Shropshire.” 

These references clearly demonstrate that Darwin’s interest in a career in science was stoked by his natural history pursuits during the voyage. The idea that he was motivated by being “perplexed and troubled by an alien race” has no support in the sources that Desmond and Moore cite, a point that undercuts their entire thesis that combatting slavery was his sacred cause.

An Emigration Daydream

As another brief example, consider their story about how Darwin bought his children a copy of Mary Howitt’s book Our Cousins in Ohio, which painted a portrait of “an English family living as neighbors to liberated blacks, their children playing in the lush countryside only miles from the Slave States’ border” (238). Desmond and Moore claim that in response to this book, Darwin also harbored an emigration daydream in which he 

plumped for the ‘middle States’ as ‘what I fancy most’ — New York, Pennsylvania, maybe even Ohio; free soil situated between New England’s snobbery and Lyell’s beloved south. 

An accompanying endnote refers to volume 4 of the correspondence (p. 362). There we find Darwin writing to his cousin William Darwin Fox in October 1850. In noting that his eighth child was on the way, Darwin made the offhand comment: 

I often speculate how wise it would be to start off to Australia, or what I fancy most the middle States of N. America. 

He then quickly changes the subject to a question Fox asked about his pear tree. 

No Connection at All

Darwin’s brief speculation about possibly moving to America is not connected at all to the difference between slave or free states and he makes no mention of Howitt’s book. But more problematic is Desmond and Moore’s gloss, “New York, Pennsylvania, maybe even Ohio; free soil situated between New England’s snobbery and Lyell’s beloved south.” Darwin neither said nor implied this. Desmond and Moore, with brief phrases actually quoted from the letter, give the impression that they are paraphrasing Darwin’s words. In reality, Darwin was simply concerned about finding economic opportunities for his many children and thought Australia or America might provide them.

These are just two of many examples of Desmond and Moore creating a portrait of Darwin as abolitionist that is poorly supported by their intimidating apparatus of primary source citations which are mostly irrelevant to their argument. Readers have a right to trust that the sources cited support the claims made in the text. But most readers will not check obscure references buried in over 800 endnotes at the back of the book. They haven’t met me!

In future posts, we will see many more illustrations of Desmond and Moore’s historiographical methodology, and how that bears on Darwin’s “sacred cause.”

—<Quote begins>—

“Nobody wants to read anymore.”

When I read this, I think This is how we win.

Well, at least This is how homeschooled Christian children will mop the floor of the public school processed products.

Submission to the manufactured consensus is something left to others.

The ability to think, reason, follow long chains of logic, weigh the evidence for ourselves… THIS is what we need.

And lots of reading and storytelling. Understanding how the Law of God hooks together (Thanks, Rushdoony!) Knowing why Christianity is capitalistic and pro-liberty (Thanks, North!)

The road to Christian victory means, by definition, the victory and dominance of our children: ethically first, but also intellectually, health-wise, physically, even emotionally.

(Not necessarily children by blood. But necessarily children – natural and adopted – who call Jesus Christ LORD and GOD.)

If we take good care to raise our children well, God will go out of His way to insure that we get to share in their early victories.

Just as it should be.

From Quora, What is something you need to get off your chest that has been bothering you lately?

—<Quote begins>—

Amy Fellows Administrative Assistant

Nobody wants to read anymore.

To be brutally honest, Quora has been hanging on by a thread for years, and with the recent announcement that much of the staff has been sacked, that thread is about to snap. In a desperate attempt to keep itself relevant, you might’ve noticed that the site has been cycling popular answers from years ago back through your feed. This means some of my most popular answers from four-ish years ago are getting fresh views – answers written in a time where this site/app was for written information, and not memes.

The biggest one that’s been recirculating is a four-minute read, according to Medium. I’ve gotten comment after comment like these, from people of all ages:


Or this one…

Or this one…

Or this one…

And many, many more. On a four-minute read.

Nobody said that here years ago. This, to me, is really troubling. Because of TikTok, Instagram, Facebook reels, and similar social media, our attention spans have seemingly gone down the shitter.

I rolled my eyes as a child when my elders complained about “text speak” and complained that technology was making us distrait. This study actually supports that theory, but it was over a decade ago and relates only to instant messaging. That is child’s play compared to apps such as Tik Tok that seem to be tailored to packing your brain with quick spurts of stimulation over and over and over again. Social media is evolving so rapidly that research can’t seem to keep up with it. Quora, with its thousands of spaces filled with unrelated screenshots answering “What photo is worth 320092848.5 views?” is no different.

I can’t find a good platform that appreciates writing, not one of Old Quora’s caliber. The fact that people are actually getting irate with me because I had the nerve to write more than two sentences years ago just boggles my freaking mind and makes me feel like something important is no more.

—<Quote ends>—

Our future must read books – and digest them, draw good value from them – even as the their future circles around Twitter and memes and TikToks.

The ability to master the Holy Bible — and put the lessons to work — is a gateway to many roads to victory.

I want the children of Christian believers to get all the victories, all the time.

The future must belong to those who put King Jesus and His Law-Word first.

God’s people (and their families) must win, and God’s enemies (and their families) must lose.

We must inherit, and they must be disinherited.

Just the way God likes it.

Whining Losers & Responsible Winners

From The Fallacy of Politics by R. J. Rushdoony

—<Quote begins>—

Chalcedon Report No. 357, April 1995

In different eras of history, different groups and institutions have dominated the scene. Certainly, the modern age has been a political era, and men have tried to solve human problems by political means. For many people, if not most, politics is the determinative force of our time.

How true is this? The statistical approach is not conclusive, but it can give us a sense of direction. In the United States, most people do not vote. They are either indifferent to or skeptical of politics. Of those who vote, normally anything over 50 percent of the vote gives victory. This means that a minority of the total population exerts primary control over the United States.

But is it really minority rule? Although many will be skeptical of this statement, most politicians have a very practical (not ideological) conservatism. For them, survival means having a solid following. A cause, however good in their eyes, is “unwise” unless it has a substantial amount of support. I recall vividly, at a national meeting, hearing some important people express respect for Howard Phillips, but a strong dissent because he fought for causes they saw as “losing” ones, i.e., pro-life, South Africa, the Panama Canal, and so on and on. Their attitude was that one should simply “go on record” for such causes and then forget about them, not fight for them, because they are “losers,” and the name of the game is to win.

Normally, men in politics espouse and adopt causes only when they have a sufficient support to make them winners. Then politics takes the credit!

A good example of this was the civil rights issue. It was fought and won before Martin Luther King Jr. and President L. B. Johnson became involved. The men responsible for it were Branch Rickey of the Brooklyn Dodgers baseball team and Jackie Robinson; they integrated baseball, and this began desegregation. After those men, discrimination began to collapse. It is Rickey and Robinson who should have a day in their honor rather than King. Politics takes the credit for what others do.

Political measures, whether good or bad, triumph when a high percentage of the people favor them and when their practical implementation may already be under way. It is a fallacy to see politics as the determining force.

This does not mean that politics is not important: it is, but it is not the initiating force. Political measures are preceded by the hard work of reformers, sometimes generations in advance. Politics in a sense gives assent to a change made in public opinion, whether good or bad. Since circa 1850, public opinion has become a powerful force. The Crimean War, and Tennyson’s poem, “The Charge of the Light Brigade,” brought into focus in Great Britain the power of public opinion.

The political fallacy is a belief in top-down motivation and government. One of its articles of faith is, “You can’t fight city hall.” But most of our great victories have come from fighting city hall, and our defeats are a result of our failure to fight.

One of the truly great evils of this century has been the growth of a belief, both on the left and the right, that “somebody has done this to us.” We are the victims, it is held, of a great plot to do us in. There are no ends of groups trying to control or manipulate peoples, but God has made men the primary agent of government. Only man’s failure to exercise responsible self-government can destroy him. It is childish, then, to wail that somebody has done this to us. Our Lord on Judgment Day will accept no such excuse. He has made us a new creation and allied Himself to us. What more do we want? See things handed to us? The only one in the Bible who offers to do so is Satan, in his temptation of our Lord (Matt. 4:1–11).

Our problem is not the controllers but the willful and whining losers. The primary area of determination on the human scene is the self-government of man, and for redeemed men to abdicate self-government and to hand over determination to church, state, or any other agency is to invite God’s judgment.

The Christian man can do much in every sphere, politics, the church, education, the sciences, and more, only by assuming responsible self-government. Otherwise, he will conspire in his own destruction.

—<Quote ends>—

Christ — that is, God walking on Earth as a peasant of Imperial Rome — shows us the way of victory.

Secondarily over hard pagan men with swords and slaver whips, but primarily over posing-pious, accredited liars in the Temple – or the ideological pieties of the Academy, for that matter.

It’s time we took His example to heart, and followed in His way to victory.

Right IS Might…. over the long haul.

And that long haul is the road God has assigned to us.

“Politics fourth.”