Skip to content
September 17, 2018 | 13 Comments

On Supporting Trump

God Bless the UNITED States of America!

President Trompe, as essayist David Warren writes, the spelling doubtless the result of a residual trace of the French foisted upon all Canadians by mandate, diversity is our strength, Trompe, he says, is “a puffball populist”.

This is true. But then it is also true that all presidents in a democracy are populists by design. Populism must needs arise from popular elections. (And populism eventually fails, because crowds are insane.) Le Trompe—or is it Le Trompé?—is a loud populist, not given over much to lying, as we expect in our populist leaders. Warren agrees:

He is candid about his intentions, and is passing honest, however sloppy with the details; robust in his flattery, as too in his abuse. His self-seeking is open, not disguised. He is the dead opposite of a Machiavellian schemer. This is brave because, while it charms his stiff-necked supporters, the majority in any democratic electorate demand to be lied to. Should the entire media say one thing, and Trompe says another, I would think Trompe more likely to be telling (some aspect of) the truth.

I am a stiff-necked supporter. Even though I agree with Warren (and his correspondent) when he says Trompe (and Pope Francis) is “1. Ill-educated and badly informed. 2. Given to constant self-expression…7. In the world and completely of it, in the culture that no longer acknowledges the force of truth…” I agree with the traits in the expurgation, too, but want to save space.

I am supporter because I still recall the alternative, President La Hilare.

Now I’m not saying that under La Hilare I and like members of the dissident right would have been rounded up for permanent vacations in FEMA camps by this time (two years in), though in my less sober moments I can be talked into believing it. I am certain, though, that La Hilare would not have been kind to orthodox Christians and other deplorables.

I can well imagine how every Supreme Court opinion would be led by the affirmative action hire Ruth Bader Ginsburg. “Hate speech” would have become by now a criminal offense, if not by executive order (laws as such now routinely originate in this way), then by SCOTUS decision. On that front, Congress would become even more of a non-entity, the Senate as it was under Augustus.

It’s bad now, but under La Hilare every establishment conservative organization would weekly issue a stream of “The Conservative Case for Surrendering” articles and “studies”. The left could relax as the Conservatives, to show they are team players, complete the purges of the dissident right for them. At least with Le Trompe, we have shaken awake some of these Conservatives. I won’t say these fellows have seen the light, but I do think a minority now perceive faint shadows.

Twitter, Facebook, Google, and other evil tech Orwell Squad entities would still have been invited to Washington, as they were under Le Trompe, but to be praised for contributing to the ever-increasing “health” of our public conservation.

Would this blog even exist were La Hilare President? Or would its servers still be glowing from the aftermath of the nukes launched in her war against Russia? (Not that some on Les Trompers aren’t also hoping for the same thing.)

Le Trompe has done the signal service of showing us who the media really is. The Enemy of the People. True, not everybody believes this. But some do. People are looking outside the Cathedral for news for the first time in a very long time. Under La Hilare, journalists would make Baghdad Bob look like a paragon of forthrightness.

La Trompe has exposed the Deep State. They, too, are the Enemy of the People. Again, not everybody sees this. But some do. This is why we must support La Trompe. If the Deep State beats him, we are doomed. If they take La Trompe down, using all the force and might of the government, they will become emboldened to an unimaginable degree. They will be unstoppable. If would be as if La Hilare had won after all, and our upcoming One Party State had finally arrived. NRO will write “Why the Joint CIA/FBI Secret Assassination of Trump is a Good Thing.”

La Trompe has driven them mad. And in this sweet madness, all our Enemies have declared themselves. The pretense of politeness has dissolved. Openly hating whites and calling for their doom, calling for one-world government, Diversity and Equality as mandatory everywhere, and on and sickeningly on.

Sides must be taken. This is good. I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

It can’t last, though. Trump, as I wrote before the election, is a respite, a brief interlude before we continue our descent. Unless something unforeseen happens, and a hero arises, or the Great Chastisement occurs, we are doomed.

September 16, 2018 | 1 Comment

Summary Against Modern Thought: Ultimate Happiness Comes After Death

Previous post.

Something to look forward to, but with fear and trembling. Share this Chapter with those who believe paradise can be built.


1 If, then, ultimate human felicity does not consist in the knowledge of God, whereby He is known in general by all, or most, men, by a sort of confused appraisal, and again, if it does not consist in the knowledge of God which is known by way of demonstration in the speculative sciences, nor in the cognition of God whereby He is known through faith, as has been shown in the foregoing; and if it is not possible in this life to reach a higher knowledge of God so as to know Him through His essence, or even in such a way that, when the other separate substances are known, God might be known through the knowledge of them, as if from a closer vantage point, as we showed; and if it is necessary to identify ultimate felicity with some sort of knowledge of God, as we proved above; then it is not possible for man’s ultimate felicity to come in this life.

Notes Even if you’re rich.

2 Again, the ultimate end of man brings to a termination man’s natural appetite, in the sense that, once the end is acquired, nothing else will be sought. For, if he is still moved onward to something else, he does not yet have the end in which he may rest. Now, this termination cannot occur in this life. For, the more a person understands, the more is the desire to understand increased in him, and this is natural to man, unless, perchance, there be someone who understands all things. But in this life this does not happen to anyone who is a mere man, nor could it happen, since we are not able to know in this life the separate substances, and they are most intelligible, as has been shown. Therefore, it is not possible for man’s ultimate felicity to be in this life.

Notes The sin comes from thinking man knows best in all. Or a man.

3 Besides, everything that is moved toward an end naturally desires to be stationed at, and at rest in, that end; consequently, a body does not move away from the place to which it is moved naturally, unless by virtue of a violent movement which runs counter to its appetite. Now, felicity is the ultimate end which man naturally desires. So, there is a natural desire of man to be established in felicity. Therefore, unless along with felicity such an unmoving stability be attained, he is not yet happy, for his natural desire is not yet at rest.

And so, when a person attains felicity he likewise attains stability and rest, and that is why this is the notion of all men concerning felicity, that it requires stability as part of its essential character. For this reason, the Philosopher says, in Ethics I [10: 1100b 5], that “we do not regard the happy man as a sort of chameleon.” Now, in this life there is no certain stability, for to any man, no matter how happy he is reputed to be, illnesses and misfortunes may possibly come, and by them he may be hindered in that operation, whatever it may be, with which felicity is identified. Therefore, it is not possible for man’s ultimate felicity to be in this life.

4 Moreover, it appears inappropriate and irrational for the time of generation of a thing to be long, while the time of its maturity is short. For it would follow that a nature would be without its end, most of the time. Consequently, we see that animals which live but a short time also take but a short time to come to perfect maturity.

Now, if felicity consists in perfect operation, in accord with perfect virtue, whether intellectual or moral, it is impossible for it to come to man until a long time has elapsed, And this is especially evident in speculative pursuits, in which man’s ultimate felicity is placed, as is clear from what we have said. For man is barely able to reach perfection in scientific speculation in the last stage of his life. But then, in most cases, only a little part of human life remains. So, it is not possible for man’s ultimate felicity to be in this life.

5 Furthermore, all men admit that felicity is a perfect good; otherwise, it could not satisfy desire. Now, a perfect good is one which lacks any admixture of evil, just as a perfectly white thing is completely unmixed with black. Of course, it is not possible for man in the present state of life to be entirely free from evils, not only from corporeal ones, such as hunger, thirst, heat and cold, and other things of this kind, but also from evils of the soul. For we can find no one who is not disturbed at times by unruly passions, who does not at times overstep the mean in which virtue lies, either by excess or defect, who also is not mistaken in certain matters, or who at least is ignorant of things which he desires to know, or who also conceives with uncertain opinion things about which he would like to be certain. Therefore, no person is happy in this life.

6 Again, man naturally shrinks from death, and is sorrowful at its prospect, not only at the instant when he feels its threat and tries to avoid it, but even when he thinks back upon it. But freedom from death is something man cannot achieve in this life. Therefore, it is not possible for man in this life to be happy.

Notes Amen.

7 Besides, ultimate felicity does not consist in an habitual state, but in an operation, since habits are for the sake of acts. But it is impossible to perform any action continuously in this life. Therefore, it is impossible for man in this life to be entirely happy.

8 Furthermore, the more a thing is desired and loved, the more does its loss bring sorrow and sadness. Now, felicity is what is most desired and loved. Therefore, its loss holds the greatest prospect of sorrow. But, if ultimate felicity were possible in this life, it is certain that it would be lost, at least by death. And it is not certain whether it would last until death, since for any man in this life there is the possibility of sickness, by which he may be completely impeded from the work of virtue: such things as mental illness and the like, by which the use of reason is halted. So, such felicity always will have sorrow naturally associated with it. Therefore, it will not be perfect felicity.

9 However, someone may say that, since felicity is a good of intellectual nature, perfect and true felicity belongs to those beings in whom a perfect intellectual nature is found, that is, to separate substances, but that in man there is found an imperfect happiness, in the manner of some sort of participation. For, in regard to the full understanding of truth, men can attain it only through enquiry, and they are utterly deficient in regard to objects which are most intelligible in their nature, as is clear from what we have said.

And so, felicity in its perfect character cannot be present in men, but they may participate somewhat in it, even in this life. And this seems to have been Aristotle’s view on felicity. Hence, in Ethics I, where he asks whether misfortunes take away happiness, having shown that felicity consists in the works of virtue which seem to be most enduring in this life, he concludes that those men for whom such perfection in this life is possible are happy as men, as if they had not attained felicity absolutely, but merely in human fashion.

10 Now, we have to show that the foregoing reply does not invalidate the arguments which we have given above.

Indeed, though man is by nature inferior to separate substances, he is nonetheless superior to irrational creatures. So, he attains his ultimate end in a more perfect way than they do. They achieve their ultimate end with such perfection because they seek nothing else, for the heavy thing comes to rest when it has occupied its own place; and even in the case of animals, when they enjoy sensual pleasures their natural desire is at rest. So, it is much more necessary for man’s natural desire to come to rest when he has reached his ultimate end. But this cannot come about in this life. Therefore, man does not attain felicity, understood as his proper end, during this life, as we have shown. Therefore, he must attain it after this life.

11 Again, it is impossible for natural desire to be unfulfilled, since “nature does nothing in vain.” Now, natural desire would be in vain if it could never be fulfilled. Therefore, man’s natural desire is capable of fulfillment, but not in this life, as we have shown. So, it must be fulfilled after this life. Therefore, man’s ultimate felicity comes after this life.

12 Besides, as long as anything is in motion toward perfection, it is not yet at the ultimate end. But all men, while learning the truth, are always disposed as beings in motion, and as tending toward perfection, because men who come later make other discoveries, over and above those found out by earlier men, as is also stated in Metaphysics II [1: 993a 31]. So, men in the process of learning the truth are not situated as if they were at the ultimate end.

Thus, since man’s ultimate felicity in this life seems mainly to consist in speculation, whereby the knowledge of the truth is sought, as Aristotle himself proves in Ethics X [7: 1177a 18], it is impossible to say that man achieves his ultimate end in this life.

13 Moreover, everything that is in potency tends to proceed into act. So, as long as it is not made wholly actual, it is not at its ultimate end. Now, our intellect is in potency in regard to all the forms of things to be known, and it is reduced to act when it knows any one of them. So, it will not be wholly in act, nor at its ultimate end, until it knows all things, at least all these material things. But man cannot achieve this through the speculative sciences, through which he knows truth in this life. Therefore, it is not possible for man’s ultimate felicity to be in this life.

14 For these and like reasons, Alexander and Averroes claimed that man’s ultimate felicity does not consist in the human knowledge which comes through the speculative sciences, but through a connection with a separate substance, which they believed to be possible for man in this life. But, since Aristotle saw that there is no other knowledge for man in this life than through the speculative sciences, he maintained that man does not achieve perfect felicity, but only a limited kind.

15 On this point there is abundant evidence of how even the brilliant minds of these men suffered from the narrowness of their viewpoint. From which narrow attitudes we shall be freed if we grant in accord with the foregoing proofs that man can reach true felicity after this life, when man’s soul is existing immortally; in which state the soul will understand in the way that separate substances understand, as we showed in Book Two [81] of this work.

Notes This is the point at which all new knowledge will come by revelation. No more cramming!

16 And so, man’s ultimate felicity will lie in the knowledge of God that the human mind has after this life, according to the way in which separate substances know Him. For which reason our Lord promises us “a reward in heaven” and says that the saints “shall be as the angels… who always see God in heaven,” as it is said (Matt 5:12; 22:30; 18:10).

September 15, 2018 | 10 Comments

Insanity & Doom Update LV

Item The first item is the image which heads this post. Lady Gaggag with all living ex-Presidents. She is standing, they are sitting. Who is in charge? This picture may be adopted as the iconic Insanity & Doom image. (Hat tip to James True, who originally posted the image.)

Image Conor Daly loses Lilly Diabetes sponsorship over remark his father made over 30 years ago

Lilly Diabetes has pulled its sponsorship of Conor Daly’s No. 6 car in the NASCAR Xfinity race at Road America, citing a racially insensitive remark made by the driver’s father in the 1980s that surfaced this week.

Which reminds me. Have they fully purged Mark Twain yet? We wouldn’t want some poor child to stumble across Tom Sawyer and be shocked into a fit by seeing racially insensitive remarks.

Incidentally, “racially insensitive remark” means “words spoken ill of a non-white.” We have already seen words spoken ill of whites are celebrated as sensitive and non-racial.

This story brings up a question you can help me with, dear reader. What is the statute of limitations on “racially insensitive remarks”? At least 30 years, as the story proves. But is it 40? 50? Unlimited? If it was unlimited Mark Twain really would be gone. Is the limitation dependent on time? Meaning, this Current Year it’s 30 years, but due to progress, next Current Year it’s 40 years?

Item People Are Calling For An In-N-Out Boycott Because Burger Chain Donated To GOP

In-N-Out Burger is shaking up social media this week but not in a good way: Its $25,000 donation to the California Republican Party has led some people to call for a boycott of the burger chain…

The company also gave $30,000 last year and $50,000 this year to a PAC called Californians for Jobs and a Strong Economy, which supports pro-business Democratic candidates, as Fortune pointed out.

Word is, as you probably heard, this boycott failed. It was a small, one-day furor. But that it happened at all is what is of interest. Of course, donating to a political cause in California is how they got Brendan Eich. I’m sure that lesson encouraged others, especially since many political donations are on-the-record.

Donating to Republicans—who are thisclose to Democrats—is a thoughtcrime; at least, to some. It will be interesting to (a) watch how and when this happens again, and (b) to discover, as we just discussed, the statute of limitations on donations. How many years in the past makes a donation a valid thoughtcrime.

Probably depends on exactly who the donation went to. Generic Republican party is probably the shortest; whereas, groups that, say, recognize actual marriage is unlimited.

Item STDs continue rapid rise in U.S., setting new record, CDC says

Sexually transmitted diseases are on the rise in America, according to new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In fact, nearly 2.3 million cases of chlamydia, gonorrhea and syphilis were diagnosed in the U.S. in 2017, surpassing the record set in 2016 by more than 200,000, CDC scientists reported Tuesday.

Experts say many factors have contributed to the rapid rise, though the biggest one may be less frequent condom use. It’s less clear whether dating apps, like Tinder, have contributed in some way to the spread of STDs, though some researchers think they have.

Lord save us from “experts”.

In the past, the majority of syphilis infections were seen in gay men, bisexual men and other men who have sex with men, Bolan told NBC News. “More recently, there have been increases among heterosexual men and women, including among pregnant women, which means we’re starting to see these infections in their babies.”


Item Shocking memo reveals George Soros behind Google, Facebook censorship

Never, even in my fertile imagination, would I have guessed that we would find a smoking-gun 49-page memo revealing how George Soros operatives, including David Brock, were there at the genesis, the planning stages, with their hands on the ignition key, of the most concerted, well-funded, diabolical attack on free speech in the history of America.

I know what you’re thinking. That guy has a limited imagination. Here is the link to the memo, which, amazingly, still has not been wiped.

Now this is old news; the only reason I post it is to emphasize that of course it takes money and planning to conduct such wide-scale censoring. If I were incautious, I’d call this a conspiracy. And I’d remind you that not all conspiracies are theories.

Bonus Item Catholic College Leaders Who Are Part of the Problem

…most of the 230 Catholic colleges and universities have strayed far from their Catholic roots. This all began in 1967 when Catholic college leaders—including the now-disgraced former Cardinal Theodore McCarrick—gathered in Land O’Lakes, Wisconsin, to create a manifesto that declared their “true autonomy and academic freedom in the face of authority of whatever kind, lay or clerical.”

As a public service to graduates of those universities, here is a link to the definition of irony.

September 14, 2018 | 14 Comments

UK Universities Threatened: Give Blacks More Degrees Or Else

Headline: Universities [in the UK] must give more top degrees to black students, under new proposals by regulator

Universities could be punished unless they give a higher proportion of top degrees to black students, under new proposals drawn up by the regulator…

If institutions fail to comply with the regulator’s new “tougher” national targets for increasing the number of disadvantaged students, they could be penalised through a fine or even de-registered.

Play along with the new quotas, or lose the ability to award degrees.

Blacks in the UK did not, ever, have the same difficulty as blacks in the US. It is those difficulties which, to many, justify “affirmative action”, i.e. gift giving to blacks because they are blacks. “Cut ’em a break: they’ve been through a lot. Besides, it’ll help ’em catch up, and then we can forget all these ‘racism’ crap.”

Didn’t work out that way. Did it?

So why would the UK’s ideology bosses think affirmative action would work there, when the only reason for giving blacks gifts because they’re blacks is because blacks haven’t performed well academically?

Answer: you’re a racist.

Mr White (in somewhere-well-north-of-Yorkshire accent): Say, Mr Black, what’s that shiny new thing you’re holding?

Mr Black (in posh London accent): That’s my new degree.

Mr White: Ah, right, then. I heard about that. They’re giving blacks degrees because they’re black.

Mr Black: Hold on. That’s racialist. I earned my degree.

Mr White: Did you, though? I see. But how do I know you earned it? The Office for Students specifically said that if the proportion of degrees awarded to blacks didn’t “improve”, that unis would lose their charters. How do I know you’re one of the few who passed on his own merit? When we know many are given an advantage by some quaking administrator just because they’re black?

Mr Black: It is racialist to even think this. I’m surprised at you.

Mr White: Well, maybe you’re all right. Maybe not. But at least some blacks who would have been tossed, instead of being tossed, are walking out holding degrees just like you have. How can I tell which black was given a gift and which not?

Mr Black: I stick by my accusation that you’re a racialist.

Mr White: Hold on. Maybe I’m thinking about this wrong. Maybe you are all right, and all blacks are all right. I mean, maybe all blacks with degrees did pass their exams and whatnot according to the old standards. Maybe the standards weren’t lowered for blacks.

Mr Black: I’m glad to see you’re—

Mr White: —Maybe all blacks passed at the old rates. But then maybe standards were raised for whites.

Mr Black: I don’t follow, old boy.

Mr White: Well, if you are forced by ideology czars to increase black degree rates, there’s only three things that can be done. One, make it so that whites perform worse or that blacks perform better academically. And there’s no evidence that happened, on average.

Mr Black: Like the OfS said. Blacks are at a disadvantage.

Mr White: Two, lower standards for blacks while keeping the same standards for whites. If you lower standards for blacks to match their average academic performance, then they’ll be awarded degrees at the same rate as whites. But you say that didn’t happen with you.

Mr Black: Rather not.

Mr White: Number three: keep the same current standard for blacks, and raise it for whites. Make it much harder for them to graduate. You can tweak the standards so that, again, you get the same graduation rates for blacks and whites.

Mr Black: Brilliant!

Mr White: But that doesn’t solve our problem. Because who then—which group, I mean—would be the better class of graduates, whites or blacks?

Mr Black: I was wrong. You’re still a racialist.

Perhaps the best summary to the article is provided by somebody calling himself SW Stokie, given on 7 Sep 2018 10:20AM:

The whole thing is a shambles now any way. When I did mechanical engineering in the 70’s it took 4 years including industrial placement time to gain practical experience. Today’s super intelligent students can complete the course in two years.

Are you telling me they are all twice as clever as the engineering students of the 70’s or perhaps the standard of the Degree has been diluted.

In the 70’s you needed a degree to become a member of the engineering institutions and to acquire chartered engineer status. These same institutions now demand a masters degree to allow entry and to acquire chartered status. What does that tell you!