Categories
Paint me surprised by this Some Red Hot Gospel there! Some Scary thoughts

Paint me surprised by this!

When a 28-year-old person identifying as transgender shot up a Tennessee school in March, killing three children and three adults, the usual grim afterlife of tragedy was underlined by an odd note: One by one, media outlets rushed to apologize for “misgendering” the shooter, who, they explained, had been born female but had recently begun identifying as male.

How to make sense of such a statement? And what to do when a newspaper headline tells you about a “trans woman left sobbing in JFK Airport after TSA agent hit her testicles”? Appealing to reason hardly helps, as J.K. Rowling and others learned the hard way when trying to ask simple questions such as how one might define sex if not according to the chromosomes rooted in literally every cell of our bodies. Instead, anyone wishing to find his way through the thicket of American public discourse these days should start by embracing one simple and terrifying idea: The barbarians are at the gates.

I mean this almost literally. Everywhere you turn these days, pagans are afoot, busily hacking away at the Christian and Jewish foundations of American life and replacing them with a cosmology that would have been absolutely coherent to followers of, say, Voltumna, the Etruscan earth god, or to those who worshipped the Celt tribal protector Toutatis.

If you think the above paragraph is a little bit overblown, consider the numbers. In 1990, scholars from Trinity College set out to learn just how many of their fellow Americans practiced some form of pagan religion. The numbers were unsurprisingly small: about 8,000, or enough to pack your average Journey reunion concert. But the researchers asked again in 2008, and this time, 340,000 Americans said yes to paganism. A decade later, the Pew survey posed the same question, and, if it is to believed, there are now about 1.5 million Americans professing an array of pagan persuasions, from Wicca to the Viking lore, making paganism one of the nation’s fastest-growing persuasions. So fast-growing, in fact, that my colleague Maggie Phillips recently reported in Tablet magazine about the thriving, and officially recognized, pagan faith groups within the U.S. Army. “What’s important now,” one of its leaders, Sergeant Drake Sholar, told Phillips, “is showing religious respect and understanding across the board as Norse Pagans, or Heathens, return to a distinguishable religious practice.”

Amen, selah. But as we respect and understand those who profess paganism outright and sincerely, we should worry about those—many more of them—who go by other names and profess different affinities yet whose worldview is consistently, coherently, and crushingly pagan. There are millions more heathens who would shudder to be called such, yet who offer a vision of a perfectly pagan American future. It behooves us, then, to reckon with the paganism in our midst.

And that, it turns out, is not an easy task, mainly because “pagan” is somewhat of a loaded term. If you have an appetite for good origin stories, you might as well place the birth of the notion with St. Augustine in the fifth century C.E. Pressed to explain to his readers why Rome had been sacked by the Visigoths so shortly after embracing Christianity, Augustine wrote his famous treatise, The City of God. Its full title? De civitate Dei contra paganos, or The City of God Against the Pagans. The latter, he opined elsewhere, had delivered unto mankind nothing but a “hissing cauldron of lusts” that have so spoiled our souls and driven us so far from God that the downfall was imminent. The moral stain of Augustine’s description stuck, and it often colors both our historical vision and the observation that “pagan” describes a dizzying array of peoples and beliefs—from the Slavic tribes who believed that the sky god Perun had beget all other deities that control nature to the Germanic peoples and their complex mythology of giants, dwarves, elves, and dragons, familiar to us from Wagner’s operas.

Leaving permutations and particularities to the pedants, though, it’s quite possible to observe paganism as one sweeping vista and find common themes and threads that haunt us still. Let us begin: Just what do pagans believe?

_____________

The answer, while wonderfully complex, may be distilled to the following principle: Nothing is true, everything is permitted. These were the last words, allegedly, of Hasan i-Sabbah—the ninth-century Arab warlord whose group, the Hash’shashin, gave us the English word “assassins.” And his dictum perfectly captures the soul of paganism, illuminated by the idea that no fixed system of belief or set of solid convictions ought to constrain us as we stumble our way through life.

To the pagans, change is the only real constant. Just consider the heathens of old: Believing, as they did, in the radical duality of body and spirit, they enjoyed watching their gods breathe the latter into a wide array of incarnations. To please himself or trick his followers, a god could become a swan or a stone, manifest himself as a river or adopt whatever shape suited his schemes. Ovid, the greatest of Pagan poets, captured this logic perfectly when he began his Metamorphoses with a simple declaration of his intentions: In nova fert animus mutates dicere formas corpora, or, “I am about to speak of forms changing into new entities.” This was not understood as fickle behavior by the gods’ cheerful followers. To the contrary. With no dogma to uphold, the sole job of deities was simply to be themselves. And the more solipsistic a deity chose to be, the better. Nothing, after all, radiates inimitable individuality more than marching to the beat of your own drum and no other.

If that’s your understanding of the gods, or whatever you’d like to call the hidden forces that arrange the known universe, how should you behave? Again, lacking a prescribed credo passed down from generation to generation, pagans began answering this question by casting off the tyranny of fixity. The gods are precarious and ever-changing? Let us follow their example! We should sanctify each sharp transformation in our behaviors and beliefs not as collective madness but as a sign of the wisdom of growth.

Still, change alone does not a belief system make, and pagans, despite differences galore, unite by providing similar answers to three seminal questions: what to do about strangers, how to think about nature, and how to please the gods.

First, the question of difference. What to do with those who are not like us? Easy enough, argued the pagans: Observe any group of humans, no matter how small, and you’ll see it striving to differentiate itself from the group next door. The nomadic Bedouins expressed this idea neatly in an idiom: me and my brothers against our cousins, us and our cousins against our neighbors. Tell children at summer camp that a color war’s afoot, and pretty soon Team Red is likely to develop healthy disdain for Team Blue. Rather than seek to transcend this basic instinct, the pagans sanctified it: It wasn’t for nothing that the Slavs, for example, named their top god Perun, an Indo-European word meaning to strike and splinter, and portrayed him as swinging a mighty axe and engaging in ongoing battles with his fellow divines.

The same spirit, alas, is alive and well among our newest pagans: For them, tribal warfare isn’t just a way of life—it’s a system of divination, with power and privilege waxing and waning to reveal who is pure and worthy and who evil and benighted.

Consider, for example, intersectionality, the academic doctrine that is as close as contemporary paganism gets to a formalized gospel. Its ideas, like most of academia’s excretions these days, aren’t worth studying in any real depth, but the key concept is simple. We each have several components to our identity—sometimes referred to, in the flowery language of assistant professors, as “vectors of oppression and privilege”—and their interplay determines the discrimination we suffer or the violence we may be tempted to wield against others. This means that each introspection is nothing more than an invitation to a fight with those who have more power, real or imagined, than you.

This is what gave Lori Lightfoot, Chicago’s grotesquely inept mayor, the temerity to avoid blaming her recent defeat on, say, the fact that she had called on her city to defund the police, then watched crime soar—with more than 800 murders in 2021 alone, the highest rate in nearly 30 years—and then begged the federal government to help her out of the predictable mess she created. No, she had been defeated for being “a black woman.” For a pagan, tribal identity isn’t the beginning of the conversation; it’s the end, an affiliation beyond which lies nothing but battle for dominance.

Still, merely affirming their own and rejecting others and spending their days trying to decipher who belongs to which group is hardly the sort of theological engine that can power faith for long. Next, then, the pagans turn their lonely eyes toward nature, asking themselves how to understand the creations in their midst. Here, too, a relatively straight forward answer presents itself immediately: If the boundaries between the human world, the natural world, and the divine world aren’t clearly defined—if Zeus, say, can transform himself into a beautiful white bull so that he may rape Princess Europa—then nature should be revered as the repository of divine revelation and rebirth. The Roman historian Tacitus, for example, tells us that the ancient Germanic tribes often worshipped in groves rather than temples. It’s easy to figure out why: Observe the oak in winter, and it stands, barren and leafless, a pillar of death. Visit it some weeks later, when spring is in full bloom, and you see it flourish again. The oak, like the gods, is change embodied, and therefore deserving of worship.

Scan the modern pagan cosmology, and you’ll see much that would have made those ancient Germanic cultists nod in recognition. Consider the eco-protestor who, last year, stormed the court just before Roger Federer’s last career tennis match and set his own arms on fire to protest climate change. Or the Brit who, shortly thereafter, poured human feces on a statue to call attention to environmental causes. Or the lunatics from Just Stop Oil, a radical environmentalist group, who slung soup on Van Gogh’s Sunflowers. Just like the Scandinavian pagans who offered precious gifts to appease the Askafroa, the spirit of the Ash Tree, a vengeful entity that demanded sacrifice lest it wreak havoc, many of today’s green activists seem much more intent on appeasing an angry god than solving a scientific conundrum. And the scientists themselves aren’t helping much either: In 2018, for example, one prominent Columbia University climate scientist took to Scientific American to write that she refuses to debate…climate science. “Once you put established facts about the world up for argument, you’ve already lost,” she wrote, capturing the opposite, more or less, of the scientific method, which is little more than a constant and unfettered argument about established facts, new evidence, and the possible correlations or contradictions therein.

But if pagans have always found the questions of how to treat others and how to live in nature relatively uncomplicated, the third question—that of how to please the gods—is infinitely more shaded. What do the gods want? Study pagan mythologies and you’ll emerge none the wiser, in part because the gods, like their human worshippers, seem to consist of little more than appetites and caprices. But while they may not be understood, they have to be appeased—and this left classical pagans with a question of a more practical order, namely what might they possess that the all-powerful deities could possibly want.

Gold, silver, and other dear things were frequently the answer, but rarely exclusively: Being the creators of the natural world, after all, the gods could hardly care that much about things that they can easily forge themselves, ex nihilo, by virtue of their divine will. And so the pagans scanned the horizon for something truly precious and exquisite, something whose sacrifice would be an unmistakable sign of devotion. And, across time and across cultures, they alighted on exactly the same thing: kids.

At once the embodiment of innocence and the object of our deepest and most sincere emotions, children, the most vulnerable of mortals, were the ultimate offering to the gods—proof that the pagan believer was so certain in his belief that he would offer up his own offspring to show the gods the strength of his faith, appeasing them and avoiding potential punishment. So prevalent among the heathens of antiquity was the practice of child sacrifice that the Torah issued a strongly worded prohibition against it, in Leviticus 18:21: “Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molek.”

Child sacrifice, alas, is alive and well in America these days, too. We may not, like the Vikings, toss our young into wells as offerings to the heavens, but turn over every rock in our craggy contemporary political landscape and you’ll find some pagan policy offering up the well-being of children to the gods of virtue. In March 2020, to choose one stinging example, Sweden bucked the global trend and responded to Covid-19 by keeping schools open. The results of this experiment were available shortly thereafter: Zero dead kids, almost zero kids sick, and very little, if any, risk to teachers. By January 2021, a study published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention affirmed that Covid rates in schools that had reopened were 37 percent lower than the rates in the same communities at large. The Biden administration largely ignored this evidence; it took some liberal cities such as New York a full 18 months to reopen their schools.

The results: dramatic upticks in juvenile mental-health crises, sharp declines in basic academic proficiency and just about every other metric of human misery visited on our children. A rational society, to say nothing about one guided by traditional values, would have curbed this suffering long before it blossomed so terribly; the pagans instead composed a fanciful narrative of what constitutes righteous behavior and then forced it on their children, whose pain was then explained away as a necessary evil if one wanted the forces of science to vanquish the darkness and cleanse the soul. When Anthony Fauci said, “I am the science,” he couldn’t have sounded more like the mighty Perun had he worn a cape and a crown.

Maybe you’re a kinder person than I, one more inclined than I am to give fellow human beings the benefit of the doubt. Pandemics are stressful times, and even the most well-meaning public health officials may be forgiven their missteps when the entire world is crackling. No sooner had the wrath of Covid subsided, though, than our pagan witch doctors jumped in with another way to sacrifice the well-being of the young on the altar of ideological convictions. According to a recent Reuters report, for example, 15,172 Americans ages six to 17 were diagnosed with gender dysphoria in 2017; by 2021, that number nearly tripled. How to explain this stratospheric rise? Have doctors gotten better at detecting this particular medical condition? Has the science simply improved?

A 2018 study by Lisa Littman, assistant professor of behavioral sciences at Brown, addressed this very question. Teens, Dr. Littman concluded after studying 256 subjects, were highly susceptible to what she called “rapid-onset gender dysphoria.” When spending time, particularly online, with groups of people who favorably discussed the idea of being transgender, teens were much more likely to become gender dysphoric, a phenomenon Dr. Littman described as “peer contagion.”

The paper was accepted by PLOS One, a peer-reviewed scientific journal, but after transgender activists protested, the article was removed, and a Brown dean explained that censorship had been necessary because Dr. Littman’s findings “invalidate the perspectives” of the transgender community. Meanwhile, the Reuters report also confirmed that the past four years have seen a doubling of the rates of both hormone therapy and puberty blockers prescribed to teens. This uptick, coupled with school policies that now actively seek to exclude parents from conversations about their child’s gender identity, has led lawmakers in 27 states to draft 100 bills to halt so-called gender-reaffirming care.

Meanwhile, the intellectual-industrial complex continues to push its pagan convictions. The University of Pennsylvania recently announced an anonymous $2 million gift that would allow it to hire Alok Vaid-Menon, a self-identified “non-binary transfeminine person,” as a scholar in residence. Vaid-Menon is the author of Beyond the Gender Binary, a children’s book encouraging young readers to understand that “man” and “woman” are but two of an infinity of gender-related options.

But it’s not merely the hotly debated issues in the center of our cultural skirmishes that point to the pagan propensity for child sacrifice; it’s the pagan style of politics itself. A study published in 2022 and led by Columbia epidemiologist Dr. Catherine Gimbrone examined the longitudinal data collected by the Monitoring the Future project, which asks high-school students a wide array of questions about attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors. Dr. Gimbrone’s findings were alarming: Before 2012, there had been no differences between boys and girls, and none between self-identified conservatives and liberals, when it came to mental health. Then, depression scores began to soar for liberal girls and rise considerably for liberal boys. Conservative children registered a far less significant spike. Put crudely, the obsessive and relentless pagan emphasis on gender, ideology, and other divisions was literally driving kids crazy.

Writing about the roles schools played in destabilizing the mental well-being of children, NYU psychologist Jonathan Haidt and journalist Greg Lukianoff argued that our academic institutions were practicing “reverse CBT.” While Cognitive Behavioral Therapy teaches its adherents to catch catastrophic thoughts before they turn into full-fledged panics, schools were now teaching children to see the world in black and white, perceive opposing viewpoints as harmful, and surrender to their worst fears.

_____________

What, then, are we to do when confronted with so much lunacy? Three urgent steps come to mind.

First, let us realize that all of the above-mentioned permutations are far from random. They’re not aberrations to be gawked at separately. They’re part of a cohesive belief system, paganism, that is gripping those who have rejected monotheistic ethics and mores. This recognition is particularly important because the pagans themselves vehemently deny it. They print stickers with slogans like “believe the science,” not realizing that they have just admitted, however tacitly, that theirs isn’t a logical and rational product of the Enlightenment but a religious system like any other, complete with its quirks and its zealotry. Only when it is understood as such can it be confronted; only if we deny the pagans the right to don a white lab coat or a tie and claim impartiality can we provide a sober accounting of their actions.

Second, we must understand that the good, old-fashioned faith traditions that the pagans so often reject as oppressive, patriarchal, racist, misogynistic, or any number of other trendy terms have seen it all before. Judaism has been facing down pagans for millennia now and answering each of their deathly dicta with sound, humanistic alternatives. Here’s a taste: We were all, the Bible tells us, created in God’s image, and even though God elected one people to preserve and protect his Torah, the arc of history bends toward togetherness. God’s house, Isaiah wisely reports, “shall be called a house of prayer for all nations.” In other words, while people are different, and while their differences are meaningful and instrumental in shaping their unique experiences, they also form the bridge that could one day lead to a common house of prayer. The biblical story begins and ends with a universalist message; its meaty middle, the story of the chosen people and their travails, is a crucial reminder that cultivating our own tribal beliefs and rituals is, ultimately, an exercise in self-awareness without which we can never truly empathize with anyone anywhere. Know thyself so you may know others—as credos go, this one is unimprovable and so much more compassionate than the pagan call for perpetual warfare.

Which leads us to step three, the most urgent yet most difficult one: Save your children by shielding them from an ideology that perpetually seeks ways to harm them; root them instead in traditions that nurture them and give them dignity, hope, and a future. At the very least, this means refusing to enlist your children in political crusades, no matter how just they may appear. Resist hagiographical books about activists and rabble-rousers. Realize that taking your kids to a march or a demonstration doesn’t make them better citizens—as if civic duty can be learned by osmosis—but merely ladens them with the anxiety of ideology, a burden no child should ever have to bear. If you can, rescue them from pagan schools as well, or, at least, teach them that there are better options.

When pagans waving the banner of diversity, equity, and inclusion insist that we judge others by the color of their skin, not the content of their character, tell your children that the Hebrew prophets offered a much more transformational vision of racial justice, one that inspired everyone from Frederick Douglass to Martin Luther King Jr. When pagans calling themselves environmentalists tell your children to worship the earth, introduce them to the Talmud for a superior attitude that is as mindful of production as it is of conservation. When pagans quarrel and cancel, teach your children the value of building real communities, and of the tried-and-true blueprints for real human happiness given to us by our faith traditions.

If we do that, we may very well discover that history, God bless, always repeats itself: The heathens ululate and then fold, subdued by the demonstrable advantages of better faith traditions. We’re long overdue for another cycle of pagan defeat; let’s do our best to bring it on soonest.

Categories
Some Red Hot Gospel there! Some Scary thoughts

The Destruction of the American Male by Paul Craig Roberts

The backbone and principal resource of every country is the male heterosexual population.  Without them there is no country, no births to take the place of deaths.  Men have the temperament and strength to fight and to lead. They protect women and children, property, borders.  They lead families, communities, businesses, and governments.  That has always been their role throughout history.  When men become effete, the society collapses.  In America this indispensable resource is being destroyed.

It begins with boys, which means they never become men. I remember when boys were trained for leadership.  They received more discipline and were given more independence than girls, who were trained for nurture and motherhood. The roles of the sexes were as distinct as the sexes.  There was no such thing as a girl who wanted to be a boy or a boy who wanted to be a girl. Transgenderism is an invention of a sick and dying society.

Everything related to becoming a man has been banned.  School playground fights, today an excuse to call police and arrest children, were part of growing up.  Sports were where you developed confidence as you learned to catch a high fly, field a grounder, throw a strike, hit a single or a home run.  Boys were encouraged. They had their own space, sandlot teams, Little League, Boy Scouts.  They had after school jobs–newspaper routes, bagging groceries, cutting lawns, washing cars.  Girls developed cooking skills, sewing skills, artistic skills, chaste demeanor.  None of this meant that women were barred from professional lives.  They were authors, Registered Nurses, accountants, para-legals, teachers, scientists, scholars.

The destruction of the male began with feminism.  The feminists were the first transgender advocates. They insisted on no difference in the role of men and women.  It was the feminists’ insistence that the male role was better than the female’s and that women assume male roles and male sexual promiscuity, combined with their attacks on men as misogynists, that destroyed the role of men in society.  All of a sudden it was not alright for boys to have their spaces.  Boy Scouts had to have girls.

Little league teams had to have girls.  Think about this for a minute.  Parents felt they had to support the girl players.  Effusive praise would follow a girl catching a high fly, fielding a grounder, getting a hit.  But as these are things the boys were expected to successfully do, they didn’t get the praise, and it went on from there. As “diversity” and “multiculturalism” progressed in America, it was less safe for girls to be as independent from home as boys.

The equality on which feminists insisted meant that the independence of boys had to be curtailed. Today American parents who allow their male children the independence my generation had are arrested for child endangerment.

The feminist desire to turn women into men meant a diminution of male leadership roles in society as women entered politics and corporations were pressured to create “gender balance” in executive roles and in academia.  Just as white people are sidelined by the accusation that they hold back blacks, men are sidelined by the assertion that they held back women.

Years ago Christina Hoff Sommers addressed the destruction of the male role in family and society.  But nothing came of her warning.  No lesson was learned.  Today behavioral problems of boys, declining academic performance, depression and suicides arising from the loss of their role is falsely explained as girls having better self-control, as boys’ slower development, and attributed to alleged hormonal and neurological causes.  No one notices that these blamed causes are new as are the conditions.  Neither cause nor conditions were present when boys had leadership roles.

The facts are bald-faced.  Normal young white heterosexual males grow up in a non-merit-based society.  They witness preferences for females, preferences for blacks, preferences for sexual perverts.  What do the normal white men get out of it? The theft of their leadership role and blame for holding back others.

Recently I heard men of the passing generation comparing women of their time with those of today.  The adoption of young women of the stripper’s G-string as beach attire, the female use of four-letter words, and so on.  They all agreed that the emotional support a wife gave a husband is a thing of the past.  They wondered what this means for the marriages of the younger generations.  Divorce which once implied failure now has no negative connotation. Are marriages becoming commitment-free?  Has marriage become a temporary sexual and economic contract that once a better one is found becomes void?

In my day boys were forbidden to bully girls.  Today men are bullied by women.  The role of men today is to get out of the way of women and preferred racial minorities. This is not a picture of a society that is succeeding.

Hon. Paul Craig Roberts is the John M. Olin Fellow at the Institute for Political Economy, Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute. A former editor and columnist for The Wall Street Journal and columnist for Business Week and the Scripps Howard News Service, he is a nationally syndicated columnist for Creators Syndicate in Los Angeles and a columnist for Investor’s Business Daily. In 1992 he received the Warren Brookes Award for Excellence in Journalism. In 1993 the Forbes Media Guide ranked him as one of the top seven journalists.

He was Distinguished Fellow at the Cato Institute from 1993 to 1996. From 1982 through 1993, he held the William E. Simon Chair in Political Economy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. During 1981-82 he served as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy. President Reagan and Treasury Secretary Regan credited him with a major role in the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, and he was awarded the Treasury Department’s Meritorious Service Award for “his outstanding contributions to the formulation of United States economic policy.” From 1975 to 1978, Dr. Roberts served on the congressional staff where he drafted the Kemp-Roth bill and played a leading role in developing bipartisan support for a supply-side economic policy.

In 1987 the French government recognized him as “the artisan of a renewal in economic science and policy after half a century of state interventionism” and inducted him into the Legion of Honor.

Dr. Roberts’ latest books are The Tyranny of Good Intentions, co-authored with IPE Fellow Lawrence Stratton, and published by Prima Publishing in May 2000, and Chile: Two Visions – The Allende-Pinochet Era, co-authored with IPE Fellow Karen Araujo, and published in Spanish by Universidad Nacional Andres Bello in Santiago, Chile, in November 2000. The Capitalist Revolution in Latin America, co-authored with IPE Fellow Karen LaFollette Araujo, was published by Oxford University Press in 1997. A Spanish language edition was published by Oxford in 1999. The New Colorline: How Quotas and Privilege Destroy Democracy, co-authored with Lawrence Stratton, was published by Regnery in 1995. A paperback edition was published in 1997. Meltdown: Inside the Soviet Economy, co-authored with Karen LaFollette, was published by the Cato Institute in 1990. Harvard University Press published his book, The Supply-Side Revolution, in 1984. Widely reviewed and favorably received, the book was praised by Forbes as “a timely masterpiece that will have real impact on economic thinking in the years ahead.” Dr. Roberts is the author of Alienation and the Soviet Economy, published in 1971 and republished in 1990. He is the author of Marx’s Theory of Exchange, Alienation and Crisis, published in 1973 and republished in 1983. A Spanish language edition was published in 1974.

Dr. Roberts has held numerous academic appointments. He has contributed chapters to numerous books and has published many articles in journals of scholarship, including the Journal of Political Economy, Oxford Economic Papers, Journal of Law and Economics, Studies in Banking and Finance, Journal of Monetary Economics, Public Finance Quarterly, Public Choice, Classica et Mediaevalia, Ethics, Slavic Review, Soviet Studies, Rivista de Political Economica, and Zeitschrift fur Wirtschafspolitik. He has entries in the McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Economics and the New Palgrave Dictionary of Money and Finance. He has contributed to Commentary, The Public Interest, The National Interest, Harper’s, the New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, Fortune, London Times, The Financial Times, TLS, The Spectator, Il Sole 24 Ore, Le Figaro, Liberation, and the Nihon Keizai Shimbun. He has testified before committees of Congress on 30 occasions.

Dr. Roberts was educated at the Georgia Institute of Technology (B.S.), the University of Virginia (Ph.D.), the University of California at Berkeley and Oxford University where he was a member of Merton College.

He is listed in Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who in the World, The Dictionary of International Biography, Outstanding People of the Twentieth Century, and 1000 Leaders of World Influence. His latest book, HOW THE ECONOMY WAS LOST, has just been published by CounterPunch/AK Press. He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com

Categories
Born again Cynic! Grumpy's hall of Shame Paint me surprised by this Soldiering Some Red Hot Gospel there! Some Sick Puppies! The Green Machine War You have to be kidding, right!?!

The Washington Post’s Editorial Board Are Pieces of Elitist Shit For Their Proposed Elimination of Veteran Rights by Chaps

America must keep faith with its military veterans. We owe the greatest debt to those who risked their lives to keep us free.

But the promises America has made to the women and men who have served in uniform are due for a review. The budget for the Department of Veterans Affairs has grown at a dramatic pace since 9/11 — from roughly $45 billion in 2001 to more than $300 billion this year.

 

None of these steps would be politically easy. Proposing and voting for new benefits for veterans have long been among the few policy areas that both Democrats and Republicans support. We also know that the array of benefits offered by the VA plays an important role in attracting and retaining the all-volunteer force — especially in an era of low unemployment and rising wages in the civilian sector.

 

But the moral responsibility Americans have to those who fought for the country is of diminished value if it does not align with the fiscal responsibility Americans have to keep their financial house safe and sound.

I haven’t been enraged reading a news article in a long, long time. Why am I enraged? Because of these Ivy League, snot-nosed fucks at the Washington Post.

These ones. 
That’s the publically available editorial staff’s information about the board who wrote one of the most disrespectful articles I have ever seen about veterans. There are so many awful opinions in this opinion piece that it’s difficult to break down each and every one. I’ll lead with some words from the VFW, ya know, the VFW that helps in leading the charge against bullshit like this. The VFW that was a huge driver in getting the PACT act passed.

It is laughable that the employees of one of the richest individuals in the world have the audacity to suggest disabled veterans should be the persons responsible for balancing the federal budget – instead of their wealthy billionaire benefactors who notoriously skirt their tax liabilities.

 

You would think with all the collective Ivy League degrees held by The Washington Post Editorial Board they would understand basic economics. Instead, they recommend that veterans be subjected to means tests or outright forfeit their earned benefits if they manage to constructively cope with these life-altering disabilities.

If you don’t remember, the PACT Act was established to secure health care and entitlements for thousands of veterans who are being diagnosed with various cancers, lung diseases, and much much more. Health care was also improved for dozens of other causes and ailments.

We have been making great strides in helping or honoring those who served in the longest fucking war in American history. We went to a place where we could have been blown up at any moment. We went to a place where we had to watch someone point a gun at us before we were allowed to return fire. We fought in places where we had to put our battle buddies on choppers in body bags and watch them head back home to their families without breath or a heartbeat.

Vast numbers of us have terrible back problems, difficulty breathing at times, PTSD, Traumatic brain injuries, and on and on and on. These are things that we did for our country and we only ask for what was promised which is payment for the sacrifices to our bodies and minds that no reasonable government or dumb-ass editorial board could ever imagine stripping away with a means test.

Just like the VA’s motto until a few weeks ago, the terminology is what is outdated, not the benefits. Over the years, entitlement has become a bad word that implies laziness or the wanton use of funds by the government. The VA is the opposite of that. The VA provides entitlements based on the injuries you sustained while serving. Those injuries do not go away simply because you got a job. Veterans are entitled to these payments in the purest sense of the word.

Those injuries do not go away simply because the fiscal state of the United States is in dire shape. The injuries remain and will remain for the rest of our natural lives. Injuries like the aforementioned are something those entitled- the bad version now- people who have cushy jobs writing nonsense about some of the hardest working people in this country.

People that while they were typing or doing some kind of financial news stories, we were in sands above 100 degrees for months at time with packs that weighed over 60lbs on the regular. People who while the WP Board was polishing their Pultizers were calling family members on satellite phones from the rooftop where another person was standing watch with a machine gun ready to protect you while you talked to your kids.

People that had no problem walking near and over IEDs so that we could locate, close with, and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver while you were at the latest James Beard award-winning restaurant. While they were in their posh environments, many of us were marching to the sounds of the guns.

The injuries sustained by veterans and active duty members should be one of the last wells that we fill our buckets with simply because the well is closer and easier to draw water from. Walk to the next village over and look in that well of governmental waste. While I type this blog, my hands shake. My hands aren’t shaking because I am mad, which I am, my hands shake because I sustained an injury to my fucking brain when I was blown up by an IED. Does that change because I have a good job? No.

Does the veteran with PTSD lose it when she works in an accounting job now? No.

Does the Washington Post editorial board deal with any of that? I’d imagine not. While we were going to MOS schools, they were going to Harvard, Yale, Columbia, and Cornell. There is absolutely nothing wrong with going to one of the most prestigious universities in the world.
There is something wrong, however, when you sit there on your ivory fucking tower and scoff your nose at those with injuries, whether you believe they are true or not because you read a congressional budget office proposal and were bored on a Friday afternoon.

While I dont think this type of idea has or ever will get any legs, it’s beyond insulting when a huge newspaper like the Washington Post writes an opinion piece that can mislead and manipulate readers with a lesser understanding of the inner workings of both the VA and the veteran service organizations.

There are plenty of ways to improve the VA, the costs associated with the care of veterans, and the budget without ripping away the entitlements veterans are owed.

It is not only insulting but it also is completely untenable. Homes would go into foreclosure, cars would be repossessed, and families would struggle even more to put food on the table, a concern I’d imagine those Harvard, Yale, and Cornell graduates have never felt in their entire fucking lives.

The Washington Post editorial staff is an abomination to veterans. The Washington Post editorial staff seemingly are terrible people who target those who have served while not being personally impacted in any way. The Washington Post deserves to be shamed on the corner of every street in America. Still though, the military members who have served, are serving, or will serve are going to continue to serve so organizations like the Washington Post can write utter rubbish.
Freedom of the Press is a right guaranteed by the Consitution and those who you are trying to remove benefits from are the guarantors of that right. While invoking your absolute right to free speech, sometimes it’s better to invoke your Fifth Amendment right of shutting the fuck up. 

Categories
Some Red Hot Gospel there!

Commentary: Red Flag Laws Are Not Designed for Anything But Gun Control

by John Harris

 

Following practically every mass public shooting, the gun control advocates call for “reasonable” responses to “gun violence”. One of the present favorite alleged solutions of the those who seek to ban guns in society is the incrementalism that includes the opportunity to leverage a tragedy by calling for “Red Flag” laws.

A “Red Flag” law is nothing more than a gun confiscation order. That is its failure as a solution to violence. But, that is the very reason why gun abolitionists proffer it at every opportunity.

Those who advocate for Red Flag laws will claim that it is a mechanism which allows families, friends, co-workers, and even law enforcement to bring a complaint to some category of judge. Typically, the complaint asserts that the individual is an immediate risk of harm to himself/herself or to third parties if they are allowed to have possession of a firearm. The complaint seeks an ex parte order from the judge to direct law enforce to go out and seize the individual’s firearms. That seizure can be temporary or permanent. That order may or may not result in the individual either temporarily or permanently being able to purchase a firearm. It is important to note that usually the complaint is filed and the order is issued with no notice or opportunity to be heard before the order is issued and the firearms seized.

A “Red Flag” law is not effective because it operates under a delusion that the firearm is a necessary element to the person’s capacity for violence or willingness to hurt themselves or others. Its a lie just like Satan telling Eve everything would be ok if she just ate the apple. Just like Satan’s lie, the Red Flag law lie is not designed to do what the advocate claims, it has an ulterior goal. For Red Flag laws, the lie is that it would stop or avert violence but the ulterior goal is to have the government seize firearms.

The problem with the Red Flag law is the true goal of its advocate. The advocate’s true goal is gun abolition and gun control. The goal is not in stopping, reducing or preventing violence. It is not in interceding with someone who has a mental or emotional crisis that makes that person an immediate risk of harm to themselves or others. The Red Flag law literally ignores and could care less about the risk which is not the gun but the person’s mental or emotional situation. The real risk is ignored because the gun control advocate’s objective is not to deal with the REAL problem. The only goal is increased and ultimately total gun control.

But there are steps that are designed to deal with the risk – the individual who poses an imminent risk of harm. There are already laws in Tennessee and most other states which are designed specifically to deal with the situation where an individual is an imminent risk of harm to themselves or others.

Tennessee’s existing laws regarding “emergency involuntary committals” provide a means to deal with a situation where a person poses an imminent risk of harm to himself/herself or to others. Under these emergency orders, a petition can be filed with a judicial magistrate or judge. The petition has to be supported by a preliminary mental assessment by either doctors or other qualified individuals. If the court finds that the person does pose a risk of harm, the court can order that the person be involuntarily held in a mental health facility for up to perhaps 2 weeks for professional observation and assessment by mental health professionals. The procedure focuses on the individual and whether the individual is a risk. It takes the risk, the person, and gets them help by having professional medical assessment and if necessary treatment.

Emergency committal proceedings place the focus on the real risk – the person. Red Flag laws do nothing but advance a gun control myth and agenda. Red flag laws make progressives and some Republicans “feel good” but leave the real risk – the individual – unsupervised and free to pursue their agenda by any means of their selection.

Another problem with consideration of Red Flag laws is whether they are even constitutional After the United States Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen in June 2022, there is a serious question of whether a Red Flag law would be an intentional violation by the state and the proposing legislators of the 2nd Amendment, 14th Amendment and whether it would constitute a knowing federal civil rights violation if enacted.

The Supreme Court clearly placed an affirmative burden on the state to show that a law of that type existed in 1791. Legislators who propose such laws but who are unable to put forth clear and convincing proof that a Red Flag law or a clear analogue was part of the “national historical tradition” in the states as of 1791. Although the reported cases applying Bruen to mental health issues have generally not advanced to the appellate level at this point, at least one New York Court has already ruled in partial reliance on Bruen that New York’s Red Flag law violates the constitutional protections and thus declared to unconstitutional.

– – –

John Harris is the Executive Director of the Tennessee Firearms Association.
Photo “Gun” by Karolina Grabowska.

Categories
Some Red Hot Gospel there!

I can!

Categories
Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Some Red Hot Gospel there!

Who watches the watchers? Who guards the guards? | Neil Oliver

Categories
Dear Grumpy Advice on Teaching in Today's Classroom Some Red Hot Gospel there!

Another Grumpy Public Service Announcement

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Gun Fearing Wussies Some Red Hot Gospel there!

Yeech!

Categories
Some Red Hot Gospel there!

Can I get an Amen out there?

Categories
Some Red Hot Gospel there! This great Nation & Its People

Damn right Mr. President!