White Christian Family

As I mentioned in my March blog post, an "Evangelical" is, generally speaking, a Protestant or Baptist who believes that the Bible is God's word and the final authority for faith and life. (That's a gross oversimplification, but it's good enough for now.) Evangelicals have been known for opposing abortion ever since the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade in 1973, but Cuckstianity has been changing that since about, oh, 2017 or so, and the change has really picked up steam this year.

Now, what might have caused a change in 2017, and what might be going on this year to trigger a shift in abortion beliefs among Cuckstians? Why, aren't you a bright student! You guessed it right off!

It's a shame, really, to see how easily people's supposed beliefs are determined by what or whom they love. A man might be totally opposed to abortion until the day comes when he hears that his own teenaged daughter is pregnant. Similarly, people who still call themselves pro-life (which itself is a weasel word) have begun making noises favoring "a woman's right to choose." As expected, these are also the guilty whites who whimper about how bad those other Evangelicals are who are voting for Trump. These things always come in packages; one error brings others in its draft. Their hatred for Trump triggers a hatred for their fellow Christians, which entails a hatred for those beliefs which their fellow Christians use to justify support for Trump.

The Bible basis for killing the unborn is flimsy and greatly outweighed by the arguments against it. That's why Evangelicals have been so united in their opposition to abortion for fifty years. Before Roe, things weren't so clear. Abortion wasn't so common, it wasn't discussed, and embryology (like ALL medical science) wasn't nearly so advanced. An educated Christian might say something like "I just feel like the fetus isn't a person until he breathes air." In light of today's science, such talk sounds like borderline mental retardation, but dumb talk about "feelings" was quite common among intelligent people back then. To boot, opposing abortion was considered a Catholic position, which meant, to Evangelicals, that it must not be biblical.

Abortion has been known throughout recorded history and there have been countless opinions on when it is allowed or forbidden. Now, however, it is scientifically undisputed that the embryo is fully human from the moment of fertilization and that nothing is added after that moment except nutrition; it does not become human at some mysterious time in the future.

What rights does this very young human have? It's a tricky question because it is arrived at philosophically. In savage cultures, a newborn received the rights of citizenship when he was "nested" (accepted) by the tribe. If rejected, he was disposed of. In ancient Rome, the father had all authority and he could reject a newborn and have him "exposed" outside the city where wild animals would kill and eat him. In such cases, the society wasn't denying that the newborn was one of their own species; they were denying that the newborn had a right not to be killed. In fact, the idea of "rights" was hardly known. Savages spoke of their "way," or custom.

The proabortion position reverts to this way of thinking: those who will be inconvenienced by a new baby get to choose whether he lives or dies. In a Christian society, you can't kill someone because he inconveniences you. Christian societies are very different from pagan societies at this point. And because a human's age does not affect his identity as a human, the right to not be killed applies to abortion at every stage of pregnancy. (For a more detailed discussion, see here.)

If Christianity is so clear about the right not to be killed, how do today's Evangelical proaborts justify their position? Well, as the sign supposedly said outside the ornamental iron blacksmithing shop: "All Types Of Fancy Twisting And Turning Done Here."

The first passage they appeal to is Exodus 21:22 where the law says that, if two men are fighting and a pregnant woman gets hit and her baby "departs" from her, but no further harm is done, the offending man will pay a fine; but if it goes beyond that, the offender will owe life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, etc. The debate hinges on the translation. Is there an implied "if the baby departs and survives" in the event? If so, it supports the antiabortion position by decreeing that, if the fighter causes the death of the unborn, he owes "life for life." But the proaborts want to make it say "if he merely kills the unborn baby, then he just pays a fine; but if further injury occurs (to the mother), then he will owe life for life, eye for eye, etc." There are good reasons for rejecting this proabortion interpretation; but even if one accepts it, it is a flimsy argument. See here for more detail.

The next passage is Numbers 5:11-31, The Trial by Ordeal for the wife suspected of unfaithfulness. If a woman is suspected of unfaithfulness, she is given a certain potion which will cause her belly to swell and her thigh to rot if she is guilty, but will leave her unharmed if she's innocent. The proaborts twist the passage to say that the woman will show pregnancy and the potion will trigger a miscarriage. The interpretation is untenable because (1) in the nature of the case, the jealous husband is due an immediate answer, not waiting for a pregnancy to begin showing, (2) a pregnancy wouldn't prove unfaithfulness, as the baby could simply be her husband's, and (3) the potion only contains dust from the tabernacle floor, nothing that would cause a miscarriage. The obviously correct interpretation is that the trial would promptly settle the matter through a miracle from God.

Evangelicals do not defend abortion because it's the Christian thing to do. They defend abortion because it might help Harris defeat Trump. An insulting joke has been around for some years now that says "You know you got the right religion when God hates the same people you do." Those who use the joke, though, seldom see the self-referential irony of it.

There's been a flurry of indignation over that wretched Super Bowl ad with the message "He gets us." The ad shows various scenes of modern Christians compromising with antichristians, while traditional Christians are depicted as being on the other side (the wrong side). If you haven't seen it and need some more detail, see here.

I call this error "cuckstianity," which is a portmanteau I made up, although I assume that many others made it up before I did -- I've just never heard it. It combines the word "Christianity" with "cuck," a word first used in the alt-right (remember them?) as a shortened form of "cuckold," meaning a man who is deceived into raising the illegitimate child of his cheating wife's paramour. To the alt-right, it meant Westmen who drank the suicidal slop fed to them by those who would take away their nation, wealth, and daughters -- and not necessarily in that order.

Cuckstianity, then, is my word for Christians who believe that the Christian thing to do is whatever the Marxists demand, and Christian doctrine is whatever the Marxists say we are to believe. This, of course, is not traditional Christianity. The cucks reject traditional Christians as white-supremacist heteronormative patriarchal colonizers. They apologize for the great Christians of the past who bequeathed their heritage to us, and they grovel in shame as they ask today's Communists and perverts to forgive and accept them as they offer up their nation, wealth, and daughters.

That's the background for my essay's topic "Why So Much Cuckstianity?" What on earth has happened to see this wholesale apostasy from original Christianity to a new religion that rejects and apologizes for the old?

My degrees and college teaching were largely in the history of Christian thought, so I am keenly aware that explaining anything requires explaining what went before, and that's a rabbit trail that leads back to the time of the apostles, and even earlier. To economize, let me focus on an era we remember personally: the '60s.

All the world over, so easy to see
People everywhere just wanna be free
Listen, please listen, that's the way it should be
Peace in the valley, people got to be free

There'll be shoutin' from the mountains on out to the sea
No two ways about it, people have to be free
Ask me my opinion, my opinion will be
It's a natural situation for a man to be free

Oh, what a feelin's just come over me
Enough to move a mountain, make a blind man see
Everybody's dancin', come on, let's go see
Peace in the valley, now they want to be free

This was recorded by the Young Rascals in 1968 and eventually sold four million copies. That's the only reason that I heard of it. It was very popular, but what does it mean? Faithful preachers in the '60s and '70s pilloried such babble mercilessly, comparing it to 2 Peter 2:19, "They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of sin and corruption." Ostensibly the song was about civil rights, but Marxists framed anything they wanted in those days as "freedom," as in "I want to be free to drive a Corvette" (therefore I have a right to a Corvette, and that right is being denied) or "I want to be free to live in your house." Using the word that way makes it meaningless. Shoutin' from the mountains, everybody's dancin', oh, what a feelin', all are substitutes for clear thinking. Know this: "They want to be free" means "They want your stuff."

Such nonsense from the '60s became enshrined in our national consciousness. No longer is it seen to be incoherent rabble-rousing. Instead, it has gotten elevated to the status of our guiding star. Like the North Star, we may never get there, but we keep pursuing, 'cause people got to be free.

The culture's mindlessness eventually had to make its way into how people interpret things. Traditionally in the West, interpretation was done through common sense, and disputes were settled by common sense. If the bank called you on the phone and complained that you were three months behind in your mortgage payments, it never occurred to you to respond, "Well, that's your interpretation, it's so easy to see/ it's a natural situation for a man to be free." Such a respondent would soon be living in his car whenever he wasn't shoutin' from the mountains or dancin'. The contract was written in plain language, and a white Christian was expected to read it with common sense and pay what he owed.

You can see the flim-flam at work in the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision on abortion. The Supremes didn't claim that abortion was a legal right under the Constitution. They couldn't even pretend that it was in the penumbra of the Constitution. They just grabbed the idea that the rays that emanate from the penumbra that surrounds the Constitution had in them the right to privacy, so it turns out that you can kill your child so long as you do it in private. That decision was overturned in 2022, the Court ruling that Roe and similar decisions were "egregiously wrong."

Ya think?

It was egregious flim-flam because such a method of interpretation could obviously be used to make anything mean anything. It could make "peace in the valley" mean that people want to be free. (See the lyrics above.)

More to our present point, such a mood of mindless interpreting is inimical to Christianity. Throughout its history, biblical religion has been presented as the revealed religion; and, since Moses (1500 B.C.), that revelation has always been aggregated in a body of texts called "the Scriptures." How do you know what God wants? Either you look in your heart (wrong) or you look in the Bible (right). But what if you look in the Bible and it contradicts what you feel in your heart? If you're a traditional Christian, you're outta luck; you just found out that God disagrees with you and you're going to have to adjust your thinking to his.

But if paganism has infected your thinking, you can just pretend that the Bible really means something that it never seemed to mean before. Then you can start start dancin' and shoutin' from the mountains "People got to be free!" and go ahead and do as you please, assured that God agrees with you. (For some reason, God never disagrees with Christian cucks.)

In American Christianity about seventy years ago there came a movement of men who called themselves "the New Evangelicals." (If you're not familiar with the lingo, "evangelical" in this case is roughly equivalent to a Bible believing Protestant.) They said that they differed from the old evangelicals in that

1. they were going to put a greater emphasis on higher education and intellectualism,
2. they would adopt the emphasis on "social" issues that liberals already had, and
3. they would use a strategy of infiltration rather than separation, believing that they could embrace liberal churches and seminaries and beat the liberals at their own game.

Well, bless their hearts, it didn't work. The whole operation was tainted by the notion that the antichristian world would accept them if they'd just become more like the antichristian world: intellectual, socialist, and tolerant. When faced with an unpopular demand from God's word, they would take a position that might best expressed by, "Why, we can't do that! What would Satan think of us if we did that????"

You may be asking "But if they believed the Bible, why didn't they obey it?" Why, silly child, they DID obey it . . . after they got done making it say what they knew in their hearts it ought to say.

I'm perfectly willing to admit that there have always been some differences between Christians regarding the interpretation of the Bible, but I draw the line at creating new interpretations that contradict 2,000 years of Christian belief and practice. But since the world was drifting in a Marxist direction, the New Evangelicals followed closely behind, hoping to gain the world's approval and win more souls to Jesus.

New Evangelicalism was formulated in the '40s and '50s, but its pernicious effects weren't evident until the national nervous breakdown of the '60s. That's when multitudes of churches, swept along by the mindless enthusiasm of rock music, renounced tradition and began looking, acting, and behaving like the antichristians. Since then the degeneracy has progressed inexorably. As the ship sinks, the cucks frantically try to save themselves by throwing more and more cargo overboard. When you've thrown out enough real Christianity, eventually you wind up with that wretched Super Bowl ad.

There are pastors on Gab who are still uncucked. A Gabber can heed them with profit, but they're still too few to solve our nation's problem. I don't profess to have a general solution, but every reader of this essay can take the first step by following Hebrews 11:7,

By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

Shiny Happy People: Dugger Family Secrets (hereafter SHP) came out this month and its producer Amazon Prime refers to it as America's most popular show. The Internet is currently awash with reviews of this anti-Duggar, anti-Gothard, anti-Christian "docuseries" (a documentary that appears in a series of episodes), but all the reviews say the same thing, basically echoing whatever Amazon Prime tells them to think.

I'm here to tell you that it's a hatchet job, a carefully crafted piece of propaganda, and unworthy of your serious viewing.

There's a Bible verse that says everyone's story sounds good until you hear the other side (Prov. 18:17). The Duggar family very wisely, in my opinion, refused to be interviewed for the project, as did the organization they're closely identified with, Institute of Basic Life Principles (hereafter IBLP). That leaves you, the viewer, with only one side of the story.

In the docuseries, you hear testimonies of the wrecked lives of kids who grew up in families (like the Duggars) who followed the teachings of IBLP and its founder, Bill Gothard. If you listen closely, you'll hear them testify of their own sinful behaviour that wrecked their lives -- but they'll assure you that it was IBLP's fault. You get the impression that anyone who finds IBLP's material helpful will wind up the same way -- but, of course, the opposite is the case.

For instance, IBLP has a program called Alert Academy where young men can attend after high school for nine months and receive military-style training in preparation for various vocations. It's a great program; read about it here. SHP makes it look like a terrorist organization.

Another video shows a crew of boys on a construction site running power tools, swinging hammers, and cutting a trench with a mattock. Normal people see that and say, "Wow, look at what those boys have learned and are accomplishing! What a wonderful opportunity." SHP tells you that it's slave labor and child exploitation.

Sometimes they allow their interviewees to simply lie. "You obey your father, your father obeys the pastor, the pastor obeys Bill Gothard and, I don't know, Bill Gothard gets messages from God or something." This type of falsehood is common among malcontents who are criticizing something they've been "delivered from."

I have a long history in the movement represented by the Duggars and Bill Gothard. I understand it thoroughly, I know the lingo, and I've been encountering lies about it since I first heard of it as a teenager. I will concede that IBLP's teachings on authority and chain of command have been twisted by some followers to the point of abuse, but nowadays abuse is found everywhere. So are pedophilia and porn addiction. Those who oppose Christianity blame these perversions on religion not because they can prove it, but because they want to kill Christianity's influence.

If SHP has one good lesson to teach, it is that authority must be checked by other authority. No system is safe if an authority figure cannot be questioned and challenged -- whether it's a family, a church, a police department, or a revolutionary junta. But the other side of that truth is that no system is going to accomplish anything unless there are clear lines of authority with people in positions of leadership who know where they're going and why.

I encourage every reader to check in with the Duggars and IBLP and try to learn from them. Eat the fish and spit out the bones.

When people comment on some news story about yet another instance of assault on the street -- robbery, murder, or what-not -- I commonly see expressions of gravely flawed thinking. The comment will be some form of "She should have had a gun, problem solved."

The problem with such thinking is that a gun does not protect you. A gun is a tool for self defense. Someone (you) has to use the tool.

Carrying a gun in your pocket, purse, or automobile does not create a force field that evil cannot penetrate. Even having a gun in your hand and waving it around like a can of insecticide doesn't give you the magical power to make an attacker submit. An experienced attacker can take a gun away from an inexperienced victim with little difficulty.

Those making these impulsive comments on news stories have no training and no experience in hand-to-hand combat, and they are spreading misconceptions that will hurt good people. The topic of personal security is broad and deep. Let me offer a few insights that can guide you toward a sound understanding of the problems and solutions.

1. The foundation of personal security is situational awareness: you need to know what's going on around you. When you avoid a certain shopping area because it seems a little unsafe, you're using situational awareness. Likewise if you notice some males sitting in a parked car. Your mind is the primary tool for self-defense, and other tools will fail without it.

2. You cannot use a weapon that isn't in your hand. If a mugger holds a gun on you before you can draw yours (probably because you failed in your situational awareness), he will probably take your money and the gun that you're carrying. Likewise with any knife or pepper spray that you were counting on. To defend yourself, you need to be able to deploy your weapon effectively. Ladies, if a rapist gets close enough to you to break your jaw, that cute pink gun in your purse will be small consolation.

3. It's hard to place a shot well with a handgun. It takes practice.

4. Lethal force isn't always justified. If a guy picks your pocket and runs off with your wallet, you cannot shoot him.

5. If you brandish a gun without legal justification, you'll pay.

6. Every round that comes out of the tube has a lawyer attached to it. If you misuse lethal force, you can be bankrupted and sent to prison.

Therefore I offer two suggestions:

1. Search the Internet for handgun training in your locale, such as handgun training waycross georgia.

2. Buy and study Deadly Force – Understanding Your Right to Self Defense.

Choose a file to download, either Rich Text Format, Word, or Open Document (LibreOffice).

This white paper is intended for an adult American who has no college degree, or who, having one, nevertheless senses a poverty of real education.

It consists of three parts. The first presents information about tools and sources. The second presents a curriculum of sorts that will plug gaps and greatly improve a person’s knowledge and understanding of “the liberal arts.” The third section contains my brief recommendations regarding general education for adults who wish to wade into sustained courses of study in various subjects. Each of these three sections stands on its own and could be read profitably without the other two.

I write for white Americans who want to know their heritage. Although much of this paper might help a nonwhite reader, his needs and interests are distinct from ours, and only someone dedicated to a nonwhite’s particular culture will be able to address his needs as strategically as I have done here for my own people.

People talk about God a lot. They often talk about proving things. They seldom define their terms. That's one reason why they talk so much. If they knew what their terms meant, they'd have a lot less to say.

"Proof" means various things, depending upon the situation. In mathematics the standards are very high. In a medical exam for a life insurance policy, the standards are pretty low. We used to say in the sales department, "If he can fog a mirror, we'll get him covered one way or another." Proof of insurability was pretty easy to claim.

Suppose I walk into my home with a friend and announce "Someone has been in here" and he asks "How do you know?" If I say "That light is on; I always turn it off," he might reply "That doesn't prove anything; anyone can forget to turn off a light." The burning light proves something to me because I know my habits of life. It proves nothing to my friend.

Proving the existence of God is easy. The philosopher John Locke pointed out the obvious fact that "matter cannot put sense into itself." Since everything in nature is permeated with intelligence, someone with infinite intelligence must be the cause. Otherwise, you are left defining hydrogen (the simplest element, one proton and one electron) as "an odorless, colorless gas which, over time, becomes scientists."

This, however, proves nothing to someone who wishes to deny it. He can watch a spider build a web and believe that the spider and her ability to spin six kinds of silk and to engineer that web came into being through fortuitous random mutations (lucky birth defects) and natural selection over millions of years.

Likewise he can watch a hummingbird beating its wings at the rate of fifty times per second in a figure-eight pattern, hovering perfectly, and believe that it came into being through random mutations and natural selection.

If the intelligence we see all around us doesn't prove the existence of God, what would?

I heard one college student respond, "If God were to appear before me, right here and now, that would prove it." He's wrong, though. As a comparison: if I saw a pink elephant appear in my living room, I wouldn't start believing in pink elephants. Instead, I'd believe that I was hallucinating. A disbeliever in God isn't basing it on observation. If he were, a hummingbird would suffice to convert him.

I can prove the existence of God to someone who accepts my premises (e.g., matter cannot put sense into itself). But if he rejects my premises, saying "Oh no, matter can become intelligent if it has enough time," then he is beyond proof.

I have known of three atheist philosophers who became Christians; two I knew personally. In none of the three cases did any of them convert because of logical, philosophical proofs. In each case it was because he became tired of his sin and guilt. When he quit fighting and surrendered to God, the truth came rushing in upon him.

"They hate you and they want you dead, but they will settle for your submission." Hence this post.

Security and privacy differ. Think of security as locking your doors and privacy as not disclosing your address. An attacker cannot kick in your door if he doesn't know where you live. You should take what measures you can to improve both security and privacy.

A lot of content is available on the Internet regarding these two topics, so it can be overwhelming. This post will not overwhelm you. Following these suggestions will improve your protection against those who wish to destroy you.

1. Use a password manager. A password manager memorizes all of your passwords and fills them in for you when you want to log in to a web site. If you don't use a password manager, you will either use the same password everywhere, or you will use dumb passwords that are easy to memorize, varying them slightly from one website to another. Either choice is trivial for an evildoer to overcome. (Don't believe me? Search for "you need a password manager.")

Your browser probably includes a password manager and offers to remember your passwords. That's pretty good, but you need to allow it to also generate strong passwords like h:N:$@Xlx'Hi9Y instead of something you think up like "Fluffy2021."

Go through all of your logins and change them to strong passwords, different for every site, memorized in your password manager. This requires time. I had to visit over 100 sites and change my login credentials, which usually included confirming the new credentials via email or text.

Back up your passwords by whatever method you prefer. You might use the "sync" function of your browser or you could export the data to a USB flash drive or an online storage site. (You absolutely must back up your passwords. If you're saving them elsewhere, you can encrypt the file by first exporting it into a word processor and saving it with a password. Just write that password down where you can't lose it!)

Once you have done this, you have addressed the most important vulnerability of today's Internet. There are definitely better password managers and better ways to use them, but the most important thing is to get started now, not to delay while trying to find and understand a manager that would defeat the NSA. You can always move your passwords to a new manager if you decide to upgrade.

2. Install uBlock Origin. Your browser probably offers this as a plugin.

3. Stop searching with Google. The problems with Google are many and deep. Just leave. I prefer Duck Duck Go, despite the fact that they have plenty of problems of their own. Your browser gives you a choice for a default search engine, so choose something other than Google.

4. Use a VPN. A virtual private network service allows you to route your internet traffic through their servers so that the sites you contact cannot see your IP address. There are bad VPN services out there, so choose carefully. A couple of highly rated ones are Mullvad and Windscribe. Your browser may offer various VPNs as plugins; choose wisely.

5. Avoid Faceberg. Everybody knows by now that Facebook is Orwell on steroids, right? Say very little of a personal nature on Facebook. If you say of a politician "This guy needs to go!" and he gets assassinated the next day, you can bet that Big Data has your number and the FBI will get that info immediately. In this case. I allow, you're in no ultimate danger, but do you really want to be explaining yourself to men with badges? Avoid Faceberg.

Meanwhile, when you do have to use Faceberg, note that Firefox has a feature called "containers" which can isolate something from the rest of the browser. Give FB its own container to minimize its spying.

Other tips. It's a struggle to stop talking/writing about security :-)

Proper security measures are gauged according to your risk profile. For instance, you lock your doors before going to bed, but you don't hire a security guard to patrol your property while you sleep. But a Prime Minister or a boss of organized crime (did I repeat myself?) does have security guards while he sleeps; he has a higher risk profile.

In the above paragraphs, I have given simple and easy things to do, but there are other valuable things to consider.

What would happen if you lost your phone and some bum found it and sold it (wholesale) to a technician? What could he find before he resells your phone? If your phone is encrypted, he finds nothing.

If you lose your laptop, or a burglar steals your desktop, what could a technician find? Search for "full disk encryption" as protection in such a case.

Consider having your browser clear your cookies at the end of each session. I do that and it causes very little inconvenience.

Encrypted email services are probably overkill. (1) Your correspondent has to be using the same encryption, which means that 99% of your email traffic will remain unencrypted. (2) The email headers have to remain unencrypted so that all of the computers that transport the message can see where it came from and where it's going; that means snoops can at least see who's talking to whom.

For those rare cases when you need encryption, you and your correspondents might decide to use Tox, Telegram, Signal, or Session. (Facebook also offers Whatsapp; it's encrypted and it's totally free! Hahahahahahahahahahah!)

In sum, there are sick twisted freaks out there who have (1) deep understanding of Internet sleuthing and (2) a fierce hatred of Trump, nationalism, biblical authority, and the continued existence of the white race (10% of the world's population). These sickos spend countless hours scanning the Internet, identifying people they'd like to destroy, and working to slander and doxx them into oblivion.

To respond properly: (1) avoid doing or encouraging anything illegal; (2) assume that anything you write on the Internet (including email) is read by people who hate you and want you dead; (3) assume that you will be identified, despite any false identity you use to delay it; and (4) minimize your exposure by using good security and privacy measures.

Here's a music video of the song I featured in the last post:

(Inspired by Paul Simon's "Slip Sliding Away")

SLIP BIDEN AWAY

Slip Biden away, slip Biden away
Far and near across the nation
They wanna slip Biden away

I know a preacher man
Instead of walking, he prefers to crawl
He wears his guilt for being white
Like it was a prayer shawl
He says "Deplorables,
We still might be saved;
We could enthrone us a Jamaican
If only they'll slip Biden away."

Slip Biden away, slip Biden away
We got a chance at salvation
If only they'd slip Biden away

I know a woman
She blames Trump for her weight
She's as crazy as a bedbug
And her husband hopped a freight
She lives on welfare
Watches TV all day
She feels a sisterhood with Harris
And she's hopin' they'll slip Biden away

Slip Biden away, slip Biden away
Yeah she believes she could get movin'
If only they'd slip Biden away

The dementia is real
The Dems have their plan
I see a female commie bipoc
With a knife in her hand
She worked her way up from the bottom
She knows it's time for her pay
He may not see it when it's comin'
But they're gonna slip Biden away

Slip Biden away, slip Biden away
Now that they've snagged the election
They're gonna slip Biden away

Slip Biden away, slip Biden away
You know, it's the queerest situation
They're gonna slip Biden away

An old quotation of uncertain origin spoke of a certain political execution as "worse than a crime, a blunder" (which is merely an attempt to be cute; a mistake could never be considered worse than a sin). Multitudes are decrying the riot at the Capitol as a crime. Very few are seeing it clearly. It was, above all, a blunder. Its fallout is beyond calculation.

A lot of video footage was recorded. The rally at which Trump and Giuliani spoke was tame. The crowd was peaceful and sensible. Unquestionably their intentions were honorable as they proceeded to the Capitol. But some bad actors decided to defy the barricades which were manned by the Capitol police and they violently struggled, breached the barrier, and flooded to the Capitol building, drawing others in their train. Then mob psychology took over. Large numbers crowded the steps and porches, stupidly thinking that they were going to intimidate the Congresscritters to "stop the steal."

The police tried to drive them off with tear gas, but the high winds rendered the tactic ineffective. I suppose that this emboldened the protestors even more. Not just the strongest man in the world, but even God himself was apparently on their side.

They got in and behaved very badly (although it could have been much worse). The Capitol police, overwhelmed, were in danger--how much danger, they couldn't know--and they were responsible for protecting the Congresscritters. The mob attacked the door to the Speakers Lobby and were smashing their way through when a cop fired once and killed Ashli Babbitt. They quit smashing after that.

A mob is a well-known phenomenon in human history. There's nothing modern about it, nothing new, and therefore nothing surprising about January 6th, 2021. Another thing that is well-known is the vicious mendacity of the mainstream media. Also well-known is the statistical probability that the crowd would include a few delusional lunatics who came to the event with the intent of staging an armed insurrection, such as the guy with the Molotov cocktails in his truck and perhaps the one photographed with the zip-tie handcuffs.

Trump was oblivious of it all. Instead of carefully warning and instructing his crowd, he proceeded as if nothing could go wrong.

As I write, rats are scurrying for cover. Not the protestors, I say, but professional politicians who are trying to get ahead of the aftershocks. One after another is calling for impeachment of the President, who is leaving office in ten days. Plainly, they are just making mouth noises for effect. A number of staffers are resigning, another virtue-signaling gesture without substance. The news media, never averse to using words in violation of their meanings, are shrieking about "insurrection" and "coup." They do it, of course, because it works.

The dissident movement which saw in Trump a possibility of stopping our national suicide made its first colossal blunder in Charlottesville, Virginia in 2017. Although the protestors, generally, were prepared to be attacked by a Communist mob (as had happened previously in places like Sacramento, California), the movement didn't anticipate that the police would stand by and permit the attack (and even block the protestors' escape route so that they had to pass through the mob) and that the news media would report the event exactly backwards, as though the protestors had attacked the Communists, and that they could make the story stick. But the media did make the story stick, and the lies about that event are now the official party line which no one may contradict. Because the rally organizers never saw it coming and, for whatever reason, were not able to regain control of the narrative, Charlottesville was a blunder of incalculable loss.

But whatever the cost of that blunder, it cannot approach what we have suffered from this one. I hope that we can recover, but God must be with us if that is to happen. These blunders tempt me to doubt. Enoch Powell, in his famous "Rivers of Blood" speech, quoted an ancient Greek proverb: Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad. How deep and wide our current national madness is remains to be seen, but the prospects are not encouraging.