Monday, August 21, 2017

Malevolent Misleadership -- Republished

Dear Readers.

I'm no Nostradamus. Furthermore, in my opinion, there was so much evidence available back in 2006 that many others should have easily arrived at the same conclusions.

It greatly upset me that nobody else with a wider audience alerted their readers to the many dangers that were then building. That loneliness contributed greatly to my reduced posts.

As my bright readers will know after reading this, each and every shameful act listed is now much worse. And the list wasn't even exhaustive. Perhaps the only real value reading this today is so you know that it is not you that has gone mad and that you are not alone.

See, there are so many around us who have been lured -- misled -- into aberrant behavior in which they now feel they have every right to engage, that those still preferring what is now scorned as decency won't feel at ease confiding in anyone.

You may indeed be surrounded by cannibals who have no idea that that is what they've become.

This leaves the battle to the ruthless and Heaven's forces alone. So pray often.

I will re-post all of the original below. For a more readable white paper format, retrieve it from the archives:  Malevolent Misleadership.

Sunday, April 16, 2006.

Malevolent Misleadership

By Pascal Fervor

“We used to say live and let live.... [Now we] say live and let die.” -- Paul McCartney

In a world perceived to be overpopulated, what would one expect to find? How would it differ from the one before such a notion were widely accepted? It is my opinion that little could unflinchingly be accepted to be what it claims to be.

Individuals want to be treated as individuals, and they generally value their own life. Who hasn't stopped to consider what life would be like if there only wasn't so much crowding or traffic or whatever. How few of us have the power to actually accomplish the depopulating feat? Who will be upfront about implementing such a program? Quite a few actually. They have conferences and are well attended. Yet those people most of us tend to consider as oddities and think no further on the subject. Unfortunately for many, they are not only oddities. Whom may you trust?

In a country like the United States, personal freedom is pretty much taken for granted. The latitude of leaders to forcefully reduce the population as is being done in China and Zimbabwe, to name two, is not an option. But misleading people into destructive and other non-family oriented lifestyles seems to be working well for those who would like to encourage smaller numbers of people. It also works well for those who crave ever more power. The confluence of these concerns and desires makes for a natural alliance of which few are willing to speak publicly about. Long before Malthus, there were leaders who hated people. So sweet for them that they now may so well cover their megalomania and label it a public service.

Leaders who knowingly, and subordinates who unwittingly, perform that public service send out quite clear signals. They exude an attitude different from that of leaders in our past. They display [it] with the people they associate, employ and honor. What they speak up for and what they speak against may offer us a clue. But what they actually do about that favorable and unfavorable stance provides the sign of most consequence. Should you wish to continue to be misled – should you actually believe the world is dangerously overpopulated (and many do) -- you will not long consider how probably dangerous what I am saying truly is.

The following is a list I promised reader Cindi. It begins a random scrutiny of so many things that are not now functioning as they once did. They are going on all around you in forums everywhere from local to worldwide. The list is by no means perfect or even complete. I already know that the items are never going to convince many of the danger these abnormalities portend; I pray mostly that it is reasonably clear enough to get a few more decent men to start thinking up effective countermeasures.

These shameful acts are far worse in total than each individual act may appear to be by itself. The sum is worse than its parts. Particularly take note of both items A and D. They are cross-linked in a number of ways that I haven't tried to explore today.

A.) Personal thoughts, ideals and values; on their being attacked by political correctness.

1.)   Being accused of intolerance for warning others of danger. Raising hurt feelings to a higher level than danger of physical harm. Replacing community awareness and concern for welfare of its members.

a. e.g.: Charges of Homophobia: for warning of the dangers statistically linked to male homosexuality.

b. e.g.: Charges of Xenophobia: for wishing invasions be prevented.

2.) Crimes are apt to be invented as new concepts of intolerance are recognized. Giving rise to acceptance of what used to be known scornfully as kangaroo courts, where men acquire power by abusing the principle based in English common law of “ignorance of the law is no excuse.” Replacing the right to fair notice of what is and is not acceptable so that you can avoid committing a crime.

3.)   Elevation of minor infractions to major ones. Chilling the right to free expression for fear of consequences from being in disagreement with hurting the feelings of someone or some group favored by those in authority.

4.) Once an accusation of such intolerance is accepted by someone in authority, you are treated as if having been convicted. Replacing both innocent until proven guilty and the right to trial by jury of one’s peers.

5.) Hiding identity of accusers. Replacing right to face accusers.

6.) Suppression of evidence for you and hiding of exculpatory evidence acquired by the prosecution.  Replacing right to a fair trial based on the evidence.

B.) Language

1.)    Great effort and expense to allow foreigners to have less need to learn English. Replacing past practices which forced people to work to understand what each other said. At least when they were struggling to speak the common language they could have a chance to comprehend what was said, be able to know what to disagree with and be able to offer alternatives. The current course is precisely the prescription for incivility.

a. A demagogue’s dream. Whereas politicians of the past could say two different things at the same time, or different things to different people, this situation makes it difficult to expose the duplicity and for like minded individuals to come to agreement on common ground against their common foe.

b. Makes it far easier to divide and conquer the governed. People disagree even understanding each other’s language. How much easier for the ruling creeps to misrepresent what others say or do?

2.)    The destruction of English and redefining of words has been a prerequisite for undermining the limits placed on those in power by the constitution that is the central pillar of our republic.

3.)    The meaninglessness of labels. Progressive represents not advancing civilization, but advancing agendas. Liberal relates more to the growth of power allegedly to protect individual liberty rather than to individual’s liberty itself.

4.)    Confusing of words like notable and notorious. One is more apt to be ignored, or worse, put in jeopardy for being notable (a target for thieves), than for being notorious. The notorious get more press, and often are made celebrities. Admiration for the notable? For the honorable? For the heroic? Look at the way our founders are viewed today for a clue. Question: what sort of encouragement is that for the young? To gain celebrity: be bad.

5.) Projection has become the norm. Frequently flinging charges that disclose what the charger feels. Things such as hate. In retrospect, most chargers of hate are themselves full of hate. This whole commentary is, after all, about hatred for humanity.

C.) Education – How many ways has this been destroyed? What surer way to empower misleaders could there be?

D.) What concepts, like innocence, would take on new meaning? At what point will someone’s productivity become the measure of innocence in a world worried about limited resources? In many instances we’ve already seen where this is headed.

E.) Would self-defense become a crime in some circumstances. Already, in the words of Kevin Baker, there are places on the globe like England and Australia where the freedom to act in self defense has been “chilled.” Certainly, this of all things, is a strongly probable stance by rulers who have population control among their worries.

F.) How would the practice of medicine be affected? Medical schools have altered the Hippocratic Oath so that the swearing off of causing harm has been removed. Experimentation on volunteers has begun; in some quarters, they may not know they’ve volunteered; in some nations, body parts are taken from living prisoners and sold on the open market. American medicine is not asking too many questions.

G.) How would crimes and criminals be viewed in light of this meme? Indeed, criminals are now allowed to gain from consequences resulting from their criminal act. In the past, it was long standing common law that this could never happen. Criminals shot in the commission of a crime have been awarded large sums by courts. Even if criminal loses his case, he has further intruded into the life of his victim. In past practice, a civil case of this sort could never make it in the door. Related to the chilling comment above under E.

H.) How would the morally straight be viewed? Foolish? Or cynically? Or as hiding something? The religious would be given less understanding than a criminal (The subject of my next post is on anticipated religious persecution returning to the West)

I.) Consider the crowds protesting executions of some of the countries worst murderers. Worried about cruel and inhuman punishment are they? Or worried that terror and death dealing cretins might be chilled in their unofficial tasks? The same people did not care that Terry Schiavo was starved to death by court order. A media eager for the latest “advance”  waged a propaganda campaign. It convinced large numbers of Americans that concerns about her husband were less important than the idea of “who would want to live like that?” It didn’t matter her parents loved her and would take care of her and even would let her husband keep the money for her care. It was probable that her husband, were he guilty of some crime, would be fearful she could be revived? Sure. But none of that mattered. Is it not probable to be suspicious because  no autopsy was allowed? Certainly none of the parties involved, the husband, the courts, the doctors, the misanthropes, seemed to want to take any chances that they were wrong in their decisions.. But in a world which no longer considers human life sacred, no surprise there. Indeed, in a world fearing overpopulation, such a concept inspires laughter and ridicule.

J.) What other behaviors would be encouraged or made easier? “If it feels good, do it.” What would be discouraged and obstructed? Organizations like the Boy Scouts.

K.) How would merit be treated? Increasingly we see schools and unions caring less about merit, and more concerned about hurting the feelings of those who are less than the best. What sort of future does that portend? How will kids raised in this sheltered atmosphere ever deal with adversity when they eventually encounter it? By whining that you have hurt their feelings? You bet! It happens in the work place now.

Enough for now. This is way longer than I intended, and its format has “evolved.” More on another day.

Copyright,, 2006, All rights reserved.


  1. I know that this isn't the main thrust of your post, but it came to mind.
    I don't watch Walking Dead or similar crap.
    The main thrust seems to be to get us willing to kill the afflicted. Live and let die.

    1. For sure, the eradication of the Judeochristian concept that innocent human life is sacred is a necessary step.

      The idea that the afflicted are a burden on allegedly scant resources -- "a foolish sentimentality" at best -- is again on the ascendant.

      Sentimentality has been under fire for a very long time. It's only now more clear that that makes turning on one another easier. "The despot cares not that his subjects love him provided they don't love one another." -- Tocqueville

  2. A splendid essay that lays bare the agenda and techniques of the left and the people haters. This is where Trump is out to lunch. This malevolent agenda cries out for a major public figure to identify it and suggest a cultural and political response. But Trump is not that man. There's a visceral patriotism there I think. At a minimum, a sense of the inequity of bad trade deals. Greater insight has to come from Coulter, Buchanan, Gingrich (?), Ron and Rand Paul, Cruz and Heather McDonald but they are a tiny faction.

    The anti-life agenda of the globalists is clear. There is absolutely no justification for mass immigration. Destruction and internal killing is what is intended. Want to know what the agenda is? Look at what isn't mentioned. The political elites are filled with malevolence.

    1. Well, you have always been aware more than most, but you and I have about the same size audience. :{

      "Want to know what the agenda is? Look at what isn't mentioned." That's a concise version of what is in my blog's masthead. And now I call it the Universal Filter for exposing which leaders are most dangerous.

      Now that so many masks have been taken off, you'd hope and pray that more people would be wise to tyranny's providing that we don't love each other.

      However, if cultural Marxism has succeeded in largely turning us into a nation of cannibals -- "I need, deserve and demand what the other guy has, be it his dog, his house or his heart" -- only Heaven can bail us out. And that's only if enough decent folk remain to be saved in this life.


View My Stats