Round VI of the English Civil War & The Will of the People — Guest Post by Ianto Watt

Are we in the Western half of The Empire headed for civil war? It would seem so. But it depends on who you listen to, of course. And who do you listen to? To those you believe, I believe. To those you have faith in. And what is faith? Faith is a belief in the future. A future that comports with your desires. With your choice of possible but empirically unknowable outcomes. But which choice is true? Which faith will deliver us? And how do we gain this faith that we hold? That’s the real question, isn’t it?

Now it’s been said, by those smarter than I, that ‘Faith then cometh by hearing, and hearing cometh by the word of Christ‘. That’s the recipe for me, you know. I believe it, obviously. But that then logically leads me to conclude that ‘disbelief also then cometh by hearing, and hearing cometh by the word of Anti-Christ’. Now we can all know the words of Christ, as they are the most published in all the earth. But what are the words of Anti-Christ? Actually, they are many. They are every word but The Word. And we can find them everywhere as well.

So what? Am I here to identify this speaker? Yes. I’ll show you his picture. Here, look into this mirror. The same one I use daily. See that guy in there? Right next to me? Yep! But in all fairness, you and I are not the One, the Only, the Big Anti-Christ. We’re just his little brothers. And we’re more than happy to blame it all on him.

I too have always been willing to look higher (or lower) on the ladder of life for someone to blame. Someone. Anyone will do. And why not? Remember the Garden scene? Sure you do. Just like it was yesterday. Or even today, eh? Because actually, it is. Every day is a new day, right? Well, no. Every day is Groundhog Day. And while we hope we’re getting better, the evidence is thin. At least in my case it is. I’ll let you speak for yourself. But now, back to the task; how can we undo this mess? No, not our personal mess. I’m talking about the Big Mess. You know, how to avoid this looming civil war, or worse yet, The Big War. With Russia, perhaps.

You think I exaggerate? Just look at the mess the world is in. The mess on the front page, every day. Shootings, bombings, executions, you name it. And then, the inevitable lies that follow. The lies that make it nearly impossible to tell who really did it. And to truly know just what ‘it’ really was. A gas attack kills hundreds? I’m shocked. I truly am. But who did it? Really? Can we believe it? Really? How do we know? And can we really be sure that the inevitable ‘call to action’ (my favorite phrase) is the right reaction?

We’re back at the beginning. Who did what, and who reported it. And finally, who are we listening to? Yes, we have two problems here. But they come back to the real problem, the ever-present problem of faith. Who can we believe? Who are we listening to? Christ, or Anti-Christ? And how can we tell the difference? That’s the real problem, isn’t it? Everyone wants our allegiance, and everyone wants us to act. In lockstep, preferably. And truth be told, the real answer, whatever it is, has to include this demand for unity in action. Otherwise, our individual reactions will be of limited effect. Why? Because they will largely be, based on historical proof, at odds with one another. And that’s not a real solution, is it? Nope, just more Band-Aids. But the patient has already lost at least two limbs. So what is to be done, Komrade? Which Vladimir can be believed? Is it Lenin, the radical collectivist? Or is it Putin, the radical individualist. Is there another Vladimir saying anything worthwhile?

Why have I put this question of a Western Civil war in a Russian context? Well, that seems to be the context that is driving at least one side of our national conversation, isn’t it? And this ‘conversation’ doesn’t seem to be getting any nicer, does it? And it seems that the Russians, from Chaadayev onward seem to be asking, in one fashion or another, ‘What is to be done’? Or, as Chaadayev himself says in his Philosophical Letters, ‘We are an exception among people. We belong to those who are not an integral part of humanity but exist only to teach the world some type of great lesson.’ And just who is he referring to when he cites ‘the world’? Peru? Lapland? Or would that perhaps be The Empire he is referring to? And what kind of lesson might he be thinking of? Swimming lessons? Knitting lessons? Voice lessons perhaps? As in how to say ‘Uncle!’ in Russian?

In any event, I think the Russian element is at least a part of this situation. A bigger one than many suppose, I believe. But the biggest element is a home-grown one. It is this same question of faith, of belief. And once again, we appear to be sliding towards the edge of the abyss of fraternal strife. And let’s be clear; this isn’t simply an American/UK affliction. Just ask Abel about the brotherhood of man. But it seems as if we’re actually wanting such an occurrence. Both sides of the growing divide seem to be calling for it. Is there any way back from the edge? Any way back without backing up from our beliefs? Well, now we’re back at square one again, aren’t we?

Actually, there isn’t a way back without violating our beliefs. Why? Because most of us don’t actually have any beliefs. Not real ones, anyway. Not ones we would die for. Oh sure, we’d be willing to kill for them. But not to die for them. Not today, anyway. No, the only way out is to gain some actual beliefs. Beliefs that would enable us to see the lies that underpin the positions of most parts of each side of our national acrimony. And to do that, we have to examine who we are listening to as we seek to find the faith that is truly pacific to all mankind. One that treats all with dignity while also demanding true responsibility for our own actions. And the way to edge towards this new understanding is to gain a deeper understanding of all those we have been listening to up till now. Both FOX and MSNBC, to put it simply. Because they are both radical sources of understanding life. And radicalism is the key to our undoing in life. So, let’s get busy, and see how we can tell who is lying to us. And how they have crafted their lies.

here’s an initial hint; which side of any secular report is wrong? The first step in solving this secular conundrum is to notice that everyone on every secular side is partial. Oh yes, I know. When there’s a human disagreement, somebody has to be right, right? Well, no. In fact, Hell no. Let me ask a silly question. In any argument, can both sides be right? Of course not. How could that be? Isn’t there a thing called the Law of Non-Contradiction? Sure. But now let’s ask the opposite question; can both sides be wrong? Absolutely. Case in point, the American Civil War. Yes, both sides were wrong. And why wouldn’t they be? After all, both sides were simply fighting Round V of the Anglish Civil War, Cavaliers versus Round-Heads. The King versus Parliament. South vs. North. High-Church versus Low-Church. Now look at the Islamic world today for an up to date version of this same idiocy.

Bear with me here. I know this sounds paradoxical, if not downright insane. But you have to understand the Anglish Civil War before you will ever understand anything about America and her Civil War. At least, if you want to avoid another. And that’s what I’m writing about. You have to understand this because America is the direct result of that Anglish fratricide. And both sides were wrong in Angland. And they were still wrong when the last rounds of this war were fought over here. But maybe Round V (the American Civil War) wasn’t the final round. When I wrote my book, back in 2012, I explained how there had actually been five rounds to this Anglish idiocy (with the last two being fought over here, in the western half of the Empire). I had figured Round V (the American Civil War) was the last round. But that was before The Donald made his appearance. Now things look like there may be a Round VI, and I’m not sure if it can be prevented. But regardless, both sides will (again) be wrong. And the only result, based again on historical proof, will simply be another bloody body count.

Why are both sides wrong? Because both sides are secular and have deviated from the norm. One side said a secular King was Omnipotent. All powerful. The other said a secular Parliament was Omnipotent. But notice this: nobody seemed to openly claim that their secular side was Omniscient. All knowing. Nobody had that much gall. At least, not openly. Because they would have been laughed out of the house. As they should be. But of course, both sides actually believed it.

First let’s get back to the problem of detecting the lies. It’s weird how the Cavaliers, ‘the King’s Men’, fought for the concept of an unlimited monarchy, in the belief that it was better to have a Protestant King than a Protestant Parliament. The craziness lies in the fact that so many of the Cavaliers were Catholics! Idiots. Anyway, the result was the same. Radically the same. And therein lies the root of the lie. Radicalism. As in revolution. Here’s how the revolutions are sold: we’re given two choices, but it is always a false dichotomy. Both choices are poison. They just have different rates of reaction. So let’s look at them a little more closely.

The first false choice, crafted by Cranmer et al., is radical individualism. As in an absolute King. A King with no superior officer, ecclesialy speaking. This removed any limits on the King, and he could do with his people as he wished. For good or for evil. Ask the people of Cornwall if it was ‘for the good’ when Henry slaughtered them after promising a truce. Ask the people of Walsingham if it was ‘for the good’ when he destroyed the most ancient Christian shrine in all Angland. Ask all the commoners who farmed the Monastery Commons if it was ‘for the good’ when Henry stole all these lands and gave them to his fellow thieves, making them his ‘Lords’. Ask Sir Thomas More if it was ‘for the good’ that even his silence was too loud for Henry’s sensitive ego. Then tell me again how it was the Pope that threatened the people and Church of Angland. And so, the natural fruit of radicalism came about. Revolution.

The second false Anglish option was the choice of ‘radical collectivism’. Huh? You know. Unlimited parliamentary rule. ‘The Will of the People’. Sound familiar? If only we act in the name of All the People, everything will be fine, right Komrade? No wonder Marx lived in London. And this choice is what gave birth to Round IV of the Anglish Civil War, known also as The American Revolution. That’s when the Puritans (a.k.a. American Roundheads) decided to go the next step by saying that even a constitutional monarchy, as defined in the English Bill of Rights in 1689, was too Catholic. Too popish. Even though George III, that German-Protestant puppet-king was no more Catholic than Cromwell. Eh? Which Cromwell? Either one, take your pick. Weasels both.

In any event, this radical collectivist event known as The American Revolution came forth spouting its arrival with the words we all now know: ‘We, the People…’ And the result has been the radical collectivist experiment that has seemingly, inexplicably, brought forth the latest incarnation of Caesar and The Empire. But wait, you say. How can a radical collectivist experiment turn into a radical individualist result, wherein Caesar rules all with an iron rod? Well, that’s simple, if you understand the nature of revolution. The revolution, you see, must always have a leader. And he will always turn into a Caesar. For the good of The People, you understand. Remember, Julius was the leader of the Plebes. That is to say, The People. And Emperor Lincoln came about in much the same manner.

And so, we are continuously given two choices, and two choices only; radical individualism and radical collectivism. And each results in the same answer. More revolution. Against the previous radicalism. It’s Hegelian, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel-dialectics/ of course. Yet because each side sees the other as the problem (individualism vs collectivism), neither sees that the real problem is not these two concepts. It is the concept of radicalism that is the root problem. Neither side sees that both concepts, both individuality and collectivity, are valid and necessary to the human condition. At least, to the peacefulness of our lives. And only in the Universal Church is each concept given its due place in the creation. And the institution that honors both of these necessary ingredients is The Family.

Revolution begets revolution. Stability is destroyed. Only a tyrant, a strong man, can reverse this trend. How? By destroying the forces arrayed against public order. Just ask Napoleon. It wasn’t his fault he had to become The Emperor. Somebody had to protect the People and their Glorious Revolution, right? Because, you know, the tyrant isn’t doing this for his own pleasure. No indeed, the reactionary forces of the previous monarchy must be destroyed in order to protect the gains of the Revolution. And if that means taking all power into the hands of one man, then so be it. He’s merely the vanguard of The Proletariat. He’ll be happy to return that power to the People’s Representatives when the danger is past. And he’ll be sure to let you know when that time has come, Komrade. Honest. But rest assured, as the wheel turns, this new Caesar will be hilariously surprised when he finds himself, as he always does, in the position of his previous opponents. The revolution is always hungry for new victims. Any flavor will do.

That’s the way power works. Either you keep it or you lose it. And if you want to keep it, you have to fight to do it. And that, my friends, is where we are today. The forces of anarchy are loosed upon us and are growing in intensity. The People have begun to resent this. They understand the need for order. They support this need. They respect authority. But the previous Caesar (and his intended successor) have panicked at their impending eclipse. And so, they have unleashed the forces of anarchy to defeat the New Caesar and to regain their grip on power. It’s instructive to remember that most transitions of power are not, historically speaking, squeaky-clean operations. Only Americans are surprised at this fact.

So, the New Caesar has appeared, leading the Plebian masses against these forces of anarchy. Forces that would further rob the People of their few remaining rights. And the last of these rights is the right of belief, and the rights of the family. The only question now is whether the old collectivist party of the previous Caesar can re-assert itself over the People, or whether the upstart individualist Populists can regain some of their lost freedoms, without the whole scene dissolving into open Civil War. And which will it be?

Well, here’s what I think. I think that we are currently on the road to another iteration of radical individualism, led by a new Caesar who refuses to back down. But this new Caesar is conflicted. Conflicted in his desire to make America great again. But great in what sense? Materially great? Militarily great? Or perhaps, as reflected in his recent speech in Poland, spiritually great? And if that is the case, how would it be great again? Because, if you believe as I do, that the American State, a.k.a. The Empire (as distinct from its people) has never been spiritually great, then how can this be? Isn’t this a delicious moment in time—that a man who has behaved so low can now set his sights so high? To the absolute consternation of ‘the resistance’!

So there it is. The man who recently gained Caesar’s office by talking about restoring material and military might, has just traveled to Poland, the one nation that refused to spiritually succumb to the Bolshevik collectivists. And there in Poland, Caesar recalled another man who spoke to the Poles, in 1979. And this man said greatness lies beyond material might. This man told us what the people really want. He said they wanted God.

Not the god of a nationalistic church. Not the god of an Imperial state. Not the god of materialism, whether it be scientific (Marxist) or financial (Capitalist). No, he said they want the God of The Family. The God that has told us that we are all unique individuals, but that we each must have a familial relationship with each other. Why? Because we all come from the same parents, and they came directly from him. And that our proper destiny is to be part of The Family, again.
And who was this man that Donald was referring to in Poland? The Pope, of course. The successor to Peter. The same Peter who was told by Jesus that ‘whoever hears you, hears Me. And whoever despises you, despises Me, and the One who sent Me.

We’re back where we started. Who are we listening to as we seek to gain the faith that will form us? The faith that will give us hope? The faith that will move us to charity? Will we listen to the approved single voice that speaks what Jesus taught him? Or will we despise that voice? And will we despise it by resorting to the age-old argument that says that the original Peter is no longer among us? And that Peter had no powers to pass on to his successors? Isn’t it hilarious that men want and expect there to be a peaceful and fully legitimate transfer of power and authority in the affairs of our secular governments, but they deny that this same thing should occur in the Church?

The same people then use this same denial of legitimate Universal Ecclesial authority to conveniently open the door to the nationalistic churches that divide the people. And this same argument then leaves the divided, weakened peoples as prey to the radical individualism of absolute Kings (or Presidents or Caesars)? Or to the radical collectivity of the Parliamentary Politburo? And that result of this same argument then inevitably leads to the formation (and continuation) of the bloody Empire, where each Caesar becomes the god of the State? Because that’s exactly what this refusal to listen to Peter leads to. Why? Because no national ruler who is unrestrained, spiritually, will be able to resist the lure of the Empire. And there’s always a surplus of contestants.

Make your choice, America. You can become great (again), but only by becoming humble. How? By admitting that we are not each our own Pope. By admitting that the President must not be Caesar. And neither should Parliament, in any of its forms. Become great by renouncing the idea that radicalism in any form is desirable. By understanding that radicalism only leads towards revolution. And that revolution always leads to either the death or enslavement of The Family. And that can never lead to greatness.

If you want to avoid the possibility of a civil war, America, stop listening to Anti-Christ. Stop listening to the voices of radicalism, of any stripe. Stop listening to Caesar. Stop listening to Parliament. Stop being a captive of the media, of either side. Start thinking for yourself. Start thinking about what you love instead of what you hate. And finally, start listening to Peter. Most importantly, listen to him with your family, together. On Sunday. It’s the only way you’ll stay together. Forever. Isn’t that what you really want?

Latest Leftest Lunacy: Science Can Say Which Speech Is Violent

Hate speech?

Stream: The Latest Inanity: Science Can Measure Which Speech is Violent

If academic psychologist Lisa Feldman Barrett is right, we should be able to find the precise combination of words to cause a destructive chain reaction of a person’s telomeres. Words can shorten telomeres, she says. And when your telomeres “become too short, you die.”

Telomeres are little bits of genetic material capping off your chromosomes.

“Words can have a powerful effect on your nervous system,” she says in the New York Times “Words can cause stress,” and stress shortens telomeres, and since shortened telomeres will kill you, “it seems that speech — at least certain types of speech — can be a form of violence.”

This has to be true. Every time I’m forced to listen to hip-hop, or to watch CNN carping about the super-duper double-secret machinations of Russia, or I’m made to read some asinine theory purporting to be science in a major newspaper, I can feel my life force ebbing.

Barrett is trying to find a way to scientifically measure which speech is violent and which is merely, in her word, offensive. She thinks science can tell us the difference. That’s how she arrived at the idea that hearing certain word combinations will chip away at your telomeres until you keel over.

I can see it now. We take DNA samples from some kiddies, then strap them into a chair while white-coated scientists holding clipboards read to them words suspected to be violent. As a precaution, the scientists will wear earmuffs. We then measure the kiddie’s DNA after and correlate the amount of life removed with the list. Words with high correlation will be banned by government.

It won’t be words with ‘k’ sounds. Those are supposed to be funny. Science says so. Kite, quacky, zebeck. Those words probably grow telomeres, especially zebeck, which has the benefit of a hilarious ‘z’ sound. She doesn’t know it, but Barrett might inadvertently have stumbled onto the secret of eternal life.

We have to be careful not to make combinations of words too funny, though. They can kill, too, as this clip scientifically proves.

Anyway, Barrett is sympathetic to the brats at elite American universities who find any opinion but their own to be “acts of violence”, a.k.a. “microaggressions”. Since these by-definition uneducated children never learned their math, they do not realize that it takes one million microaggressions to equal one aggression. That means that even if Barrett is right and words can be violently harmful to human health, these kids are going to have to hear about 250 speeches by Ann Coulter until even one of their telomeres are shortened, assuming each word in each 4000-word speech is laced with telomere-shortening power.

[…]

Click on over, you bigot.

New Paper! A Volatile Discourse

Here’s the abstract from the peer-reviewed (so you know everything in it must be true and sworn to by every rational human being now and forever) paper “A volatile discourse — reviewing aspects of ammonia emissions, models and atmospheric concentrations in The Netherlands” by Jaap Hanekamp, WM Briggs, and Marcel Crok in Soil Use & Management.

In the Netherlands, there is a vigorous debate on ammonia emissions, atmospheric concentrations and deposition between stakeholders and research institutions. In this article, we scrutinise some aspects of the ammonia discourse. In particular, we want to improve the understanding of the methodology for handling experimentally determined ammonia emissions. We show that uncertainty in published results is substantial. This uncertainty is under- or even unreported, and as a result, data in national emission inventories are overconfident by a wide margin. Next, we demonstrate that the statistical handling of data on atmospheric ammonia concentrations to produce national yearly atmospheric averages is oversimplified and consequently atmospheric concentrations are substantially overestimated. Finally, we show that the much-discussed ‘ammonia gap’ — either the discrepancy between calculated and measured atmospheric ammonia concentrations or the difference observed between estimated NH3 emission levels and those indicated by atmospheric measurements — is an expression of the widespread overconfidence placed in atmospheric modelling.

Since that might be obscure to some of you, Hanekamp has written a popular article “The logic of scientific discourse and the ammonia debate in the Netherlands“. The article has a large header in Dutch; be sure to scroll down (if you are like me and your Dutch is sketchy) for the English. Hanekamp, incidentally, speaks better English than I.

My heart soared like a hawk when I read the following:

Empiricism and logic

Conversely, scientific arguments start from empirical premises and draw probabilistic conclusions prone to correction. What the empirical sciences produce are contingent propositions, not necessarily true or false: “chemical A interacts with protein X resulting in effect Y”; “the element thallium has the atomic weight of 204.38”; “the lethal dose of X for rats is Y”; “the consumption of this food adds to our health and longevity”.

These and many other propositions generated by the empirical sciences are all (as in all) conditionally true, given various facts and evidence. None of the four propositions above are logically necessary. It is logically possible for these statements to be false, say, due to measurement errors, mistakes in experimental setups, incorrect starting materials, the limitations of available facts, and so on.

Already well into the upper reaches of the troposphere, I ascended to the outer reaches with this:

Reification

The use of mathematics thus unearthed quite the errors in this discourse. And only one such paper is needed to do so. Obviously, mistakes can be made in mathematics, but such mistakes have nothing to do with e.g. contrasting empirical results that outnumber our paper. Reducing the former to the latter is a serious, yet much-practiced, category mistake.

Another issue that should be addressed is the reification fallacy, found in many environmental debates that rely heav-ily on modelling. Reification is a widespread and classical fallacy dubbed by Alfred North Whitehead (1925) as the ‘fallacy of misplaced concreteness’. Reification is making something that is hypothetical or abstract physically real. The ammonia gap is one such reification, where models to calculate national ammonia emissions or atmospheric concentrations, as if by magic, denote the concrete reality of actual emissions or actual concentrations that do not fall in line with physical measurements.

Not only that, but he tackles “Unquantifiability leads to begging the question”, “Wholesome skepticism”, “Scientism” and even “Epic scientism”.

Go there to read the rest.

Diversity, I.E. Mandatory Uniformity, At Universities

Artist rendering of the god Diversity.

Regular readers will recall I lost one university job when I gave an incorrect answer to the two gentlemen interviewing me. The question put was, “Have you been involved in any Diversity initiatives?”

I said that since I was a one-man shop that therefore I was “maximally diverse.” There was a warm chuckle from my judges, and my application was forwarded to human “resources” with the box being unchecked. That was the last I heard from them.

This was for the best because, if hired, I would have refused to participate in any such “initiatives”, because, I say, they cause vastly more harm than any good they might do. And then I would have got fired, which would be worse than never having had the job at all.

This brings us to the now-unsurprising headline: “Universities require scholars pledge commitment to diversity“. The headline is inspired by a report from the Oregon Association of Scholars, an affiliate of the National group, “The Imposition of Diversity Statements on Faculty Hiring and Promotion at Oregon Universities.”

According to the news report:

More than 20 colleges have a stated requirement that faculty must show their commitment to the ideals of “diversity, equity, and inclusion,” reports the Oregon Association of Scholars. The actual figure is likely much higher, however. A quick google search of a school’s name and “diversity statement” reveals that many institutions require such statements for entrance into PhD programs or application for faculty positions…

Similarly, the 10-campus University of California system implemented mandatory diversity statement for all new hires, and the specific criteria used to evaluate a candidate’s commitment to diversity includes whether a scholar’s research addresses “race, gender, economic justice or inequality,”…

So the only hires will be ideologues and those willing to fib—or lie—about their undying love and devotion of Diversity. A stimulating intellectual environment this will not engender.

Before looking at the Oregon report, let’s cast our eyes dimly back to the 2009. Then, Virginia Tech University “recently modified their list of tenure criteria to include (try not to be drinking anything as you read further) that professors demonstrate a ‘commitment to diversity.'”

The guidelines (then, I haven’t rechecked them) said “The university and college committees require special attention to be given to documenting involvement in diversity initiatives” before tenure is granted.

Ideological purity is thus nothing new.

The Oregon report emphasizes this. “As these new ideological litmus tests spread throughout the state, faculty will spend more time signaling their zealous support and making sure not to challenge students in ways that might be construed as a threat to this ideology.”

Lowlights from the report:

Universities today, including all major colleges and universities in Oregon, are pouring millions of dollars each year into “diversity training”, “diversity action plans”, and “diversity councils” even as student tuition rises…

Faculty are being coached by paid “diversity consultants” on how to survive the ideological minefield of the diversity statement, learning how to signal their zealous support for this ideology and how to write hyperbolic “contribution to diversity statements.”…

…diversity statements are a de facto tool to weed out non-left wing scholars… a former anthropology professor at the University of Oregon wrote that her diversity statement would include discussions of “how to keep the white students from dominating all classroom discussions”, how not to “thoughtlessly reproduce the standard white and Western model of legitimate knowledge”, and how to “reflect a commitment to queer visibility.” [Queer in the original meaning of the word, yes.]…

…A conservative who wrote a diversity statement that rejected victimization and entitlement narratives would make it easy for a typically left-leaning department “to determine whether you are going to be the kind of colleague the department wants to have.”…

The University of Oregon even insists with Orwellian candor that campus thought-police should implement measures that “incentivize the desired behavior while also consistently interrupting behavior that is inconsistent with equity and inclusion” so defined…

OHSU’s Diversity Action Plan introduces Orwellian requirements for unit leaders to “track and report individual and group participation in diversity events” among their staff.

Oh, there’s no point to going on.

Update Colleges Pay Diversity Officers More Than Professors, Staff. Golly.