The Agency of Lies Forcing a Religious Test On the Wrong Candidate

The No Religious Test Clause of the United States Constitution is found in Article VI, paragraph 3, and states that:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

The excessive concentration on Rick Santorum's beliefs amounts to a religious test conducted in the court of public opinion.

It  is coming from both the Left (major TV and newspapers) and from the Right (e.g. all of Salem(witch) Broadcasting's talkers either directly or by snide implication.)

Meanwhile, Barack Hussein Obama attended Islamic madrassa  in Indonesia when very young, had two fathers who were Muslim. And we are to suppose that the young Barack Hussein never had to declare allegiance to Allah (to which apostasy garners the convert to Christianity a fatwah)? The agents of the Agency of Lies have declared questioning Mr. Obama on this out of bounds since day one of his appearance on the national scene.

The good news is that America will not fall for this anal cavity search on Mr. Santorum as long as my bare handful of regular readers dare make note of what I'm saying here to the handful of people they talk with daily.

Get the word out. The way the Agency of Lies is attacking Mr. Santorum could be called what? Satanic? Why did that word come to mind?

Cross-posted

Unholy Alliance

Yesterday, with Incremental Orwellianism, I presented only the latest example that ought lead everybody to conclude that our two political parties are united -- them against most of the rest of us.

Over the years I've been quizzed on it from the typical sheeple with the questions they've been schooled in by the antidisestablishmentarian "conservative" talk show hosts. "C'mon Pascal. The difference in the positions of the two parties could not be more clear." Although they've long heard the wisdom -- and many even adhere to it -- to "judge a man by his deeds and not his words," they somehow cannot take that same wisdom and apply it to the political party of their choice.

How can two parties be so united even as one of them quite obviously gets angry with the other over the differences in their party's stated goals? They can't ALL be acting can they?

All it takes is for each of the members of the parties to conclude that they are somehow better than the rest of humanity. In that common inclination that they each have something special that other humans lack, they unite against the rest of us. It's another one of those conscience-salving phenomena, somewhat less directly deadly than the radical green concept that the number of humans on the planet must be drastically reduced, but every bit as autocratic in its consequences.

The liberals in the Democratic Party believe that they are purer because they mean well. And the media almost never holds them to account when their hare-brained schemes go awry. The Progressives (who started out in the GOP, but whose mentality has shifted over to the Dems also) always thought themselves the enlightened ones, the ones who knew best, "the best and brightest," the most clever -- yes sneaky -- but the ends justify the means so the libs will accept us even as they don't trust patricians.

So we have one party that gets its most ardent followers from those who think they're more pure at heart than the rest of humanity.
We have another party that is controlled by those who believe themselves to be super clever and better thinkers and planners than the rest of humanity.

They've managed to get along with each other because each is willing to accept the others shortcomings just so long as they get what they want. Were men angels, we would need no government. But also because they who govern are not angels but men subject to the same failings as the governed, checks must be placed on the governors. The American constitution was written with the express intent of limiting what mischief men in government might be inclined to do.

As the consequences of sowing the wind from this unholy alliance between the former adversaries -- where they labored to convince us that they were true adversaries, but they are winking at and not checking each other -- that we now are reaping the whirlwind.

As the world devolves into chaos, remember the sins of those in this unholy alliance, an alliance based on variations in hubris, and then maybe the survivors will be demand humility in their new leaders -- on the pain of death. (A very fine thought on this day that is the pretender to Washington's Birthday on Wednesday. George Washington, the indispensable man whose humility shames the hollow men we have today. It's no wonder that today's rulers wish him forgotten.)

Please God: Deliver us from evil one more time.

Incremental Orwellianism

• President Obama claims that the religious institutions really don't have to compromise their principles.
• President Obama has proclaimed that contraceptive and sterilization devices, drugs and services must be provided FREE.
• When someone must provide a product or service under penalty of law, that is SLAVERY.

If the Republican Party is really the party of economic freedom, why don't they plainly warn against slavery when it's been proposed by our dictator President?


I never quite understood the Ingsoc slogan "Freedom is Slavery" in Orwell's 1984. I now do.

Being forced to do something for free is slavery.

The silence from what claims to be the Right "leadership" is simply unacceptable. Maybe tomorrow talk radio will pick up my perspective. Don't hold your breath!

Maybe it's time to think of Obama as merely the face of Big Brother. The two parties are one when only your humble blogger, a nobody, states what should be obvious to leaders of a real opposition.


Look for new leaders or get comfortable being slaves.

Your being convinced to accept chains has been less clear before. How about now? When is incrementalism no longer incremental?

Why Conservatives Don't Trust the GOP

What follows is why your humble author does not trust the GOP. I bet I am not alone, hence my title.

I would bet that if any of the talkers on talk radio were really conservative they would have brought up what follows themselves.

I don't care about what the actual legal process is allegedly supposed to look like because it seems that when the Democrats want laws reversed, they get a quick hearing from SCOTUS. When conservatives want laws reversed, the GOP won't do the work that the Democrat law-makers did. (In other words it looks like the GOP is in the tank. I think it proper to call the Republican Party the base of operations for the "Progressives" Incrementalists on the Right.)

The following is a typical refrain from the little conservative who feels betrayed:

Pascal, I don't understand why he's not charged (or sued) for what he's done already (recess appointments, mandates on insurance companies, etc.). -- Ed B. of Not of This Earth.

You really don't understand?
Or you don't like where your logical speculations lead; and from experience you know so few people will listen to your logical conclusions?

Because the direction the speculation goes tells you that

1. the growth of government is a one-way street and 
2. we don't have a true opposition set of representatives. 

When Ronald Reagan got the line item veto passed by Congress, DEM Senator Robert Byrd was johnny-on-the-spot filing a brief with the SCOTUS. His complaint got heard -- and the line item veto reversed -- in almost no time at all. There was NONE of this 2 years of taxes collected for ObamaCare before the SCOTUS decides if it's kosher.

Or how about when the voters of the State of Washington passed term limits on its Congressman. Then Dem Speaker of the House Tom Foley took it immediately to SCOTUS. He had it declared unconstitutional lickety-split.

Meanwhile our illustrious GOP Speaker John Boehner cries about how unfair Obama is, how unfair the press is, how unfair his base is. He tells us through all those tears how he's a real conservative. But he still gave away to Obama the keys to the treasury this last August. And then, for good measure, he caved on the payroll tax extension in December.

Isn't it true that many of you who are reading this post have said the same thing at some time in the past -- "I don't understand" -- rather than truly express your thoughts on the matter because your thoughts are so dark you dared not state them?

You and I would probably both find our names on a list for those destined for the new gulag. I figure I better speak out while I still have the ability to think at all. Orwell said Newspeak was the tool by which Big Brother sought to make it impossible for his subjects to piece together thoughts that were detrimental to his rule. Look at the state of American education and who it is that is running the media and then look me in the eye and tell me Orwell was not spot on.

I see speaking out as a God given gift. I view it as a terrible ingratitude to push that gift aside. I'd rather be scorned by the GOP than damned by God.

How about you?

Incre-mental Case

All of the following, excepting the last sentence, is an observation in regret that was prompted from the comment stream of "self-herding sheep" at Crusader Rabbit.

“Incrementalism is a method of working by adding to a project using many small (often unplanned), incremental changes instead of a few (extensively planned) large jumps…”-- Wikipedia

The schemers through their PR branches may own the Progressive label, but you know the road to tyranny over a once free people could never have been accomplished any other way but incrementally.

I fear that makes me an incre-mental case for having allowed it to advance for so long without my speaking out sooner and actively seeking and rallying more supporters. There were many of us who also saw and said little, each of us awaiting the other to take the lead.

Given the incremental destruction to all education in contemporary America, most certainly leadership training had to have been an early target. Every leadership course I've encountered in my long life had the underlying message "Go along to get along."

In retrospect I think we should all be immensely grateful that George Washington had the good sense not to succumb to such tripe.

Attack On Our Care for Posterity

This is a follow-on to my recent republication of "At the Core of the Judeo-Christian Ethos: What Animates Its Critics."

I great number of us have been conditioned to be pessimists. Yet it only takes a little faith to beat that conditioning. Your enemies know it too.

The tune below became popular when I was still in my twenties and I had not yet met my wife. I definitely had grown to like the sound of the psychedelic mix added to the tune, but I'm sure I didn't think much of the lyrics even then. I was just never that pessimistic.

I'm sad to say that many fellow baby boomers, especially those a few years younger, did feel at a loss to solve the worlds problems as they had been laid out by the Neo-Malthusians ten years earlier. How many followed the pessimistic maladvice of Timothy Leary's "turn on, tune in, drop out" that are echoed in these lyrics? Too many that I knew and have since lost touch with, that's for sure.

But what about the "faithful?"

Even those who still feel they are loyal to the Judeo-Christian ethos will say to me "but, yeah, there are too  many people." The thought that God had given mankind the intellect to solve the issues of population without resorting to neopaganistic human sacrifices is a faith that has been driven out of them if they ever had an inclination to have such faith to begin with. The bible does not simply say "be fruitful and multiply." It says

"Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the Earth." 

Thus I tell you that the ethos foresaw the fear so many of you believe in today. See how it suggests that man has all he needs to follow this assigned purpose for his life. The purpose for his life? Well, it IS the very first task found in Genesis. But without faith? As I explained in the post that preceded this, those who want power to rule us all as if we were all dumb brutes hate the Judeo-Christian Ethic. They want the very notion of faith in something higher and more powerful than them – a just and final Judge and Protector – never to enter our minds.

Who exactly did Alvin Lee tell "So I'll leave it up to you-ooo-ooo" in his lyric? In retrospect he and that "but I don't know what to do" generation granted the power to solve it all to the Progressives Incrementalists. I and those like me were never given a fair hearing before the unwitting granted such permission. At any rate, it is a power that has been seized with or without Mr. Lee's permission and to which we seem to be at a loss of power to reverse -- so far.

I'D LOVE TO CHANGE THE WORLD
by Alvin Lee of Ten Years After

Spoken 'Now, turn on'

Everywhere is freaks and hairys
Dykes and fairies
Tell me where is sanity?

Tax the rich, feed the poor         [Heh Obama!]

Till there are no rich no more?     [Heh, Thatcher!]

I'd love to change the world
(Dee-dee-dee-dee)
But I don't know what to do
(Dee-eee-dee-dee-dee-dee)
So I'll leave it up to you-ooo-ooo
(Be in my prayer)

Population, keeps on breedin'

Nation bleedin', still more feedin'
Economy

Life is funny, skies are sunny
Bees made honey, who needs money?
Monopoly

I'd love to change the world
But I don't know what to do
(Dee-eee-dee-dee-dee-dee)
So I'll leave it up to you-you-ooo
(We-eee-dee-dee-dee-dee)

Oh, yeah!
(Rich or poor)
(It's your fault)
(Screw you)

More pollutions, there's no solutions
Restitution, mass confusions

Spread the word
Rich or poor
Save the earth
Stop the war

Spoken:
(And we've got nothin' to do)
(Just turn on)

I'd love to change the world
But I don't know what to do
So I'll leave it up to you-ooo-ooo, woo-ooo
Woo-ooo-ooo-ooo
(Dee-eee-dee-dee-dee-dee)

Just turn me on.

Better Late Than Never (Glenn Beck)

This morning I heard Glenn Beck issue a warning about the danger to any who hold Judeo-Christian views. This was prompted by Obama's current assault on Catholic Church managed health providers. He wants listeners to stand with the Catholics. I concur. [UPDATE: Attack On Our Care for Posterity is the new follow-up to this post.]

My own formal warning on this, posted at my old website (PascalFervor.com) in 2006, often cannot be brought up from the WayBack Machine. So I'll repost it again today. Were I to rewrite it today I'd think I write it more to the point, and I'd make sure to explicitly link the Precautionary Principle to the adversaries of the heart of Christianity and Judaism. But I'll let it stand as it is, awkward wording and all.

Saturday, 5 August 2006.

At the Core of the Judeo-Christian Ethos: What Animates Its Critics Enemies

By Pascal Fervor

Judaism and Christianity have one very important thing in common. They are life-affirming religions.

The Only Bad Publicity Is No Publicity

I warn you again about how much the Right is being manipulated into backing the two most Establishment candidates.

Talk radio is as conservative as its sponsors and the handful of radio groups will permit it to be. Yes, they will SAY things that you like because those good thoughts all come from you.  But when it comes time to put their money where their mouths have been, they will go with those who have gained their allegiance by permitting them to go on and SAY all those nice things so that you will buy their books. Making each of them very wealthy,

You know in your bones that's how the system works. Accept it.

Once you accept that, then you know that cronies back both the Left and the Right, so you have very good reason to be more skeptical over the way this is playing out.

• Yes, Romney is the most country club of GOP candidates.

• Yes, Gingrich is being gang-attacked. I also feel like defending him when the attacks are over the top. But I did that for G W Bush too even though I detested how Statist and Left pleasing (and them never acknowledging it) he could be.

Please look at all this bad blood publicity for what it is: Providing name recognition for Gingrich and Romney.

Rick Santorum basically has had the oxygen in all of the recent debates sucked away from him. Stolen on behalf of R & G by the guiding hand of the moderators and later bickered over all over the map. That all starts and continued with MSM The Agency of Lies -- it deciding who get the oxygen.

I know I am not going to persuade any of you. But let me state this for the record:

R & G are losers for us. They will either lose to Obama like McCain did, or they will become care-takers of the burgeoning state so that the Left can do in 2014 what they did in 2006 -- claim that the GOP is bad for America.

Name recognition buys at least half of the votes. That and fear that only "He can win." The resultant candidate would then only offer the non Leftist American the choice of voting for the radical Obama or a GOP Progressive. That is not a good choice. THAT IS NO SENSIBLE CHOICE!

I don't get where anyone thinks that Newt is not a Progressive. And if you know he IS a Progressive, WTF? "He can win" is what saddled California with the gawdawful Schwarzenegger instead of the best candidate, McClintock.

As you suffer from either Obama's 2nd term or under either of these Progressives, please remember I warned you. Maybe you can then tell me why you didn't heed me. Okay?

ObamaCare Ought To Be the Key Issue

As Rick Santorum pointed out forcefully last night, Governor Romney still defends "the elimination of fundamental freedoms" in RomneyCare. Romney can't run against this BIG (>75% hate Obamacare) issue.

But who am I to tell you this?

And who is Rick Santorum? That's the way the MSM -- including most of talk radio which spends all of its time defending Newt or Mitt only -- likes it.

They do not want you to hear Santorum. Why? He's not perfect, but he can take this issue cleanly to Obama.

Why don't you back Rick Santorum? Because the feminists hate him. And most of our side are afraid of them?  That's gotta be it. "He can't win" because he's pro-life. Tell your feminist influenced friends that Santorum isn't the dictator Obama is. Santorum is not going to eliminate abortions like Obama is eliminating loads of other things. Obama is eliminating freedom of healthcare and eliminating our security with his anti-American foreign policies and eliminating jobs through dictatorial regulations at EPA and Labor and Commerce and -- need I go on?

All you conservatives just don't like that he's strongly pro-life? I must be a fool for not getting it. Someone make me an offer to sell my principles. Oh -- you have? Well, keep trying. Maybe you'll stumble on the truth.

Self-Defeating

As this seemingly neverending campaign season grinds on, and you receive requests to send money to campaigns or super PACs, don't forget this.

The money you send is helping keep your most insidious and relentless enemy alive. The  MSM Agency of Lies will take your money and become an even bigger factor in destroying your life.

If only, like The Magnetic Monster, we could over-feed it so that it blows itself up. Ah. Wouldn't that be wonderful?

Did That Really Come From Newt?

When I reproduced the money bomb email in yesterday's post, I scrubbed off the "From" line along with the "To" line. Sorry about that.

I was asked, half jokingly, by more than a few people whom I told of the email

"Are you sure that came from Gingrich?"

It's a fair question given all the political dirty tricks that  have transpired in the past and seem to be on the increase.

Why would the Gingrich campaign deliberately send out an email that plays to the stereotypical charge that "Gingrich is a bomb thrower?"

I have no idea. Ask them.

Here's the line I left off yesterday (since added).

Subject: Money Bomb: Deliver the Knockout Punch
From: Newt Gingrich <campaign@newtgingrichforpresident.org >

I really wish the question did not feel like a joke. That is because the targets of the joke are all those who legitimately wish to restore the dream that is America.

Could Newt Be More Self Defeating?

In what follows, I'm aware that there is a certain sick humor about all this. Perhaps the laugh is on anyone who thinks the GOP hierarchy is actually trying to oust Obama. Or maybe the laugh is on the gullible buyers of books put out by conservative talkshow hosts. They sure write good books detailing what Obama is doing wrong and extolling what is right and honest. Obama's presidency has been a boom time for them, doncha know. 

It surely is mighty hard to take in what follows and keep a straight face..

By now everybody has heard how tone deaf Romney has been. Talkers and bloggers have chalked up his loss in Saturday's South Carolina primary election to Mr. Romney "being unable to read the voters."

Like that was a revelation? As far as I'm concerned, Mr. Romney, like Mr. McCain before him, and Mr. Huntsman, and countless other Republicans, simply hate conservatives because we simply don't approve of "Progressives" pretending to be moderates.

But what of Mr. Gingrich? The Carolinians reacted favorably to Newt's eagerness to fight the media and from there extended confidence in him to take on Obama and the Dems. I personally still await to hear his clear denouncement of the radical Greens and their sophistic abuse of the Precautionary Principle. He has the smarts to do it if he's not in the tank. Intelligent anti-greens know this too. I want to know:

Is Newt truly a changed man?

Well, now that's where this post begins to get funny.

The media and the talkers and several big bloggers have frequently call Mr. Gingrich "a bomb thrower."

And what shows up in my email on Sunday? 

Subject: Money Bomb: Deliver the Knockout Punch

From: Newt Gingrich

.

.

Please read this special message from Newt Gingrich.

.

Patriot, Our success in yesterday's South Carolina primary is a result of one thing: a national movement of conservative patriots who want to see bold solutions enacted to....

Money Bomb? Any kind of bomb?

Wasn't one of the primary reasons Mr. Gingrich won South Carolina was because he used his great political skills? He proved he could out-trash talk the media? Because he could turn the tables on them?

So what does his campaign do right after that win? It feeds the opposition's bomb-thrower stereotype.

Bold ass you say?

Yeah, that's the first criteria Americans seek in their presidents.

Manipulated

South Carolinians sure have my sympathy today. You are the latest subjects to be manipulated. I surely hope you understand.

If I learned nothing else from Orwell, I learned that the Statist regime winds up running its own opposition. And you believe our current situation is dissimilar?

“We’re doing this because it is the right thing to do”

Is that the imperial "We" there? You bet it is.

Understanding the Implacable Enemy Within the West -- part 6. 

In recent weeks I've presented how the Precautionary Principle forms the basis of a new morality. People who operate surreptitiously -- for what they believe is the common good -- feel good about themselves no matter how much sophistry they employ. “We’re doing this because it is the right thing to do.” Got it?

Below the read more is an independent video taken at the kickoff for the "winter workshops" of a regional land use commission with the authoritarian sounding name OneBayArea. Have you had similar experiences? Share them. Homeland Security is not the NKVD -- yet.

What Would Institutionalized Voter Fraud Look Like?

Thanks to James O'keefe, we know.



The institutional apparatchiks wear such smiley faces, what's to worry?

H/t: Ace of Spades

"Progressives" Using Incrementalism

My readers know I loath the word "Progressive" used as a label for the bastard Incrementalists. That is because their chosen label belies their real agenda: to achieve furtively, a little bit at a time, authoritarian repression. They do this with a clear conscience because they believe themselves anointed with a clearer vision. That vision requires that mankind be ruled by supermen. So in support of the Precautionary Principle's worry that mankind might overburden the environment without their rule, they fully intend on regressing the livelihood of the common man.

Tough to do in a free and open and informed society you say?

Mark Levin, in the second half hour of his show

Precautionary Principle Is Older Than 1999

Understanding the Implacable Enemy Within the West -- part 5.

I've heard a disheartening remark from at least two people who already understand how the Precautionary Principle is a threat not only to progress but to liberty. "Most people are too stupid to understand, so why bother discussing it?" For me such an attitude recalls the smartassery "beauty may only be skin deep, but ugly goes clear down to the bone."

Nanny State Bestows Mercy

I stumbled upon some good news for a change.

A terrified householder grabbed a carving knife and fought a ‘fencing match’ with machete-wielding burglars, a court heard yesterday.

During the struggle, an intruder was stabbed and died from his injuries later.

Grandfather Peter Flanagan, 59, was arrested on suspicion of murder but prosecutors ruled he should face no charges because he had acted reasonably to defend himself.

The decision followed a pledge by [PM] David Cameron that homeowners who defend themselves against intruders should not be prosecuted provided they use ‘reasonable force’.
-- Daily Mail Online

Isn't that grand? UK has been in the forefront of intimidating its citizens from defending themselves, notoriously persecuting and imprisoning home defenders for eliminating, without a badge, state-terror agents home invaders.

Well, here's a thanks to God for Peter Flanagan's good fortune. He was the lucky one to be graced with what meager mercy Downing Street offers its subjects. The Queen's wielders of force took a holiday from their jealousy as sole arbiters of justice.

Precautionary Principle Tyranny

Understanding the Implacable Enemy Within the West -- part 4.

Christinewjc: I apologize if I am not "getting" your point regarding the "precautionary principle." I read your recent blog post about it and have concluded that perhaps I need an example?#

Someone charges that your ideas are a threat to humanity. Your normal defense is that they must prove it. They counter that IF they are right, the danger is so bad that the burden of proof shifts to you. They, under color of authority, go on and ban your normal operations, demanding that you first prove that your efforts are not a danger before they allow you to proceed. Rights guaranteed by the US Constitution, "freedom of speech and assembly and of religion" and "innocent until proven guilty," have been discarded wherever the Precautionary Principle has been recognized.

Judeo-Christian ethics and the Western tradition views innocent human life with sanctity. Human life is holy. Under the cover of the Precautionary Principle, Greens insist that Malthusianism has to be given the upper hand; that a human's usefulness must be weighed in order to determine their innocence; and that old line moralists are a threat to those who seek to supersede Judeo-Christian morality with morality founded upon those who worship Sustainability.

Thanks for that explanation, Pascal. #

I must say that it is kind of ironic that some leftist secular progressives (especially the celebrity types) might use such an idea against Christian Conservative viewpoints, but ignore the dangers of Islam and label it "the religion of peace" when, for the most part, it has been quite the opposite for centuries.

Kind of ironic, yes. There is little true irony when it comes to the implementation of renewed authoritarianism. When each new bar to individual freedom is preceded by the implementers claiming to be achieving the opposite of what you are witnessing, the only irony (unless it's duplicity) is to be found in those who sincerely believe they are watchdogs as those consequences unfold right before their eyes.

Want a new approach to fight each attempted new breech of individual rights? Discover how your adversaries have employed the Precautionary Principle, then go on to reveal how their plans are a greater threat to humanity than anything you might do. Defeating the tactic and turning the tables becomes easier when more people comprehend how they're under attack because you've stripped the facade away from the attackers.

Cross-Posted at Crusader Rabbit.

Happy New Year: Implacable Enemy Within the West -- part 3

Understanding the Implacable Enemy Within the West (part 3)

Exactly ten years ago today, a comment appeared at Free Republic in a thread based on the publication “Human Sacrifice Rationalization in 7th Grade Curriculum .” The Precautionary Principle was not directly mentioned, but it was clearly present in the thinking of those who scoff at men filled with faith, optimism and the love of mankind. 

Here is the summary of that comment:

A fundamental disparity appears to set up the battleground, the reason, the cause celebre, for the confrontation predicted in Revelations known as Armageddon.

• The God-fearing belief they must be allowed to procreate, to obey what they see as God’s wishes, that the choice to have children ought be left solely to the couple and providence. They note that no matter how many people on the planet, God has provided when man is free to worship freely. The overwhelming success of this country is testament to that.
• Those without faith in God have a different belief: the unshakable, Malthusian driven fear that believers in God must be neutralized in order to save the planet from the inevitable geometric growth of humanity if the wishes of “the great unwashed” are left unchecked. They fear the planet cannot stand further human growth, and are therefore dead-set against any who promote it. So they have aided, abetted and employed the God-scoffers to indoctrinate our children against God and belief in Him. Our children are being indoctrinated to not have this faith in God, to believe man must limit himself. Our children will be warned not to believe that God said be “fruitful and multiply.” Our children will think it patriotic to not have children of their own. Our children are being taught to believe that those who “breed” are traitors.

Even non-believers ought be able to see how this conflict sets the God scoffers against the God believers.

Institutional rot concomitant to advancing authoritarianism have only gotten worse since then.

Over the last week I’ve been flogging how the Precautionary Principle is at the core to morphing Western culture into accepting authoritarian rule. And that authoritarian rule is deliberately regressive in nature because true progress causes humanity to thrive — as happened when the ideas from the Age of Reason led to the toppling of authoritarian rule in British America.

The Precautionary Principle is the prime reason for the new morality that views population reduction as a moral necessity. The useful idiots who actually believe that “we must assume Malthus was right so we can prevent massive uncontrolled deaths” are delivering the West (the progenitor and protector of individual liberty) into the hands of power mad monsters. History is quite clear: power mad monsters always rain death.

More anon.

Comment cross posted at TrueblueNZ. (Great additional comments there too.)