Thursday, July 30, 2015

What if I told you that you took the purple pill?

Last week's article garnered many more comments than I was expecting for one that focused so much on classical theology and philosophy. The Right is mostly white men with a true diversity of viewpoints, in contrast to the Left which is a Coalition of the Fringes that marches in ideological lockstep when it comes to sticking it cishet white male shitlords. I'm a firm believer in no enemies to the Right. The Church would have much more success at bringing in converts if she focused on those who are as disgusted with liberalism as we are.

Given the nature of discussions about God's existence, lots of flat earth atheists showed up to vent their spleens about how religion is fairy tales, superstition, bronze age myths (I hear that term "bronze age" come up a lot; did it become a meme a few years back or something?) and of no use for the Nietzschean superman who has liberated himself from the shackles which bound his stupid benighted ancestors.

Men who reject progressivism but also angrily reject God have taken the purple pill. Rather disconnecting, they've pulled up stakes and relocated to another corner of the Matrix. If the red pill means seeing reality as it truly is, then that necessarily entails acknowledging that some truths transcend man or our ability to know it through the scientific method (the most ardent proponents of science on the internet are generally the ones who understand the least.) You'd think that a man who realizes that gender equality and feminism are manifest lies would be open to considering that maybe other things he's been raised with - positivism, post-modernism, materialism - are also lies.

For example, fat acceptance will never sink in among the general population, no matter what they may say to the pollsters. Attraction cannot be negotiated. A 400 pound woman in a wheelchair will not get the same attention from men as an HB10. The fat woman may be a perfectly kind hearted individual with a beautiful soul in the eyes of God, but the great majority of men simply won't find her sexually attractive. Beauty is objective. Men can reasonably disagree on whether Mozart's or Shostakovich's music is more beautiful, but they are both, in fact, beautiful. A man who interjected that he thinks Miley Cyrus's music is more beautiful would be considered having poor taste or ignorant of music.

But if we're simply meat robots, then it doesn't make a lot of sense to speak of the objectivity of truth, goodness, and beauty. If materialism is true and metaphysics is nothing but mystical mumbo-jumbo, then we've nowhere else to turn. Reality is whatever the powerful say it is because they have the most guns. Against Islam in particular, secular liberalism stands no chance. You can only fight an evil and false religion with the true and good religion.

My new post at Return of Kings

This week we examine The Four Cardinal Virtues:
Traditional Christian theology names faith, hope, and charity as the theological virtues. They are directly imparted to the believing Christian by the grace of God and are not attainable through the natural order. They are called theological because they have God for their immediate and proper object; because they are divinely infused; and because they are only known through divine revelation.
Grace perfects nature and the three theological virtues are the flowers of the four cardinal virtues: prudence, justice, temperance, and fortitude. The word cardinal comes the Latin cardo, translated as “hinge.” Whether you’re a lifelong Christian or a Godless heathen, the cardinal virtues are part of the natural moral order and can be cultivated through self-discipline and hard work. We must cultivate them if we expect to live a happy life in this world.
Read the rest there. I rather enjoy quoting myself at length.

Friday, July 24, 2015

March of the cuckservatives

Conservakin is a clever inside joke. Right-liberal sounds like a dispassionate political science term. Cuckservative is a visceral insult and it's blowing up on social media from what I hear. Good.

The cuckservative is someone who publicly identifies as conservative but buys into every major liberal premise. You can easily spot the cuckservative by their willingness to snipe at their own side. They will immediately condemn realtalk that their left-liberal paymasters deem to be racist, sexist, homophobic, and transphobic. That the realtalk is true is no defense. Indeed, voicing hatefacts is even worse than outright lies because it risks the common people figuring out the system, that cuckservatives are controlled opposition.

You can always tell a cuckservative when he says something like, "YOU LIBERALS are the real racists!" or "WE CONSERVATIVES are the true feminists!" He believes we should be willing to spill blood for an ethnic/tribal state like Israel but is horrified at the idea that core Americans should think of themselves as a tribe. He quickly backs down when confronted by left-liberals but he'll go to the mat against his putative allies on the right. They like to talk about marginal tax rates and making life easier for their globo-corporate masters which includes importing lots of cheap foreign labor to improve their bottom line. About our borders, language, and culture they care not a fig so long as their personal status is secure. That's what makes the cuckservative so loathsome. They want to be popular.

If nothing else, we should thank Donald Trump for bringing the concept, if not the word cuckservative, into the public consciousness.

My latest article at Return of Kings

This week we briefly examine some of the classical arguments for God's existence:
Atheist polemicists portray religious faith as an irrational belief that has no supporting evidence at all. Theists reply that of course there is evidence for the existence of God, the atheists respond that it’s not real evidence, and round and round they go. It’s not my purpose here to convert you to Christianity, although I’d be gratified if my writings played a part in that, however small. I suspect most RoK readers already have strong, settled opinions on the question of God’s existence.
My aim is to briefly outline the classical arguments for the existence of God. Some of these arguments are incomprehensible to the secular modern, as they assume a classical background in philosophy and theology, but that says more about the secular modern education system than it does about the arguments.
Christianity is integral to Western tradition over the past 2,000 years and all men should have a basic knowledge of why our ancestors believed what they did.
Read the rest there.

It's a big subject which is difficult to do the proper justice in the space of one column. I expect the comments will be along the lines of, "You don't truly understand X," and, "On the contrary, it is you who doesn't truly understand X or Y."

Very few Catholics are aware that we are doctrinally bound to believe that the existence of God can be proven with certainty with unaided human reason. From her canons:
1. If anyone says that the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema.
Of course this does not mean we are capable of attaining perfect knowledge of God on our own power:
If anyone says that in divine revelation there are contained no true mysteries properly so-called, but that all the dogmas of the faith can be understood and demonstrated by properly trained reason from natural principles: let him be anathema.
Faith is above reason but there can never be any true contradiction between faith and reason.

You can read the entirety of Vatican I's published documents in one day. They're a model of precision, clarity, and force unlike another council of more recent vintage.

 

Thursday, July 23, 2015

You've got no chance! No chance in hell!

Donald Trump speaks for the base on immigration which is why the Republican establishment will actively work to destroy him like they did with Ron Paul. They'll say that Trump is a clown who will self-destruct just fine without their help, but he doesn't strike me as the type to drop out because the media said mean things about him for a weekend or two. He understands one thing about modern politics that the other candidates don't: nobody actually wants or cares about apologies. They want a public confession they can use to beat you over the head.

Of course that doesn't mean we should get too emotionally invested in a Trump campaign. Even if he won every state primary in a landslide, the Republicans would make it a brokered convention to keep him off the ballot. That has one silver lining: it would demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that modern democracy is a sham that is not designed to give the people a choice in how they are actually governed, but is a public liturgy meant to affirm our allegiance to liberalism. To those true believers who still believe they can work within the system to make changes for the better, well, I've got a song that seems written especially for you:



I support Trump purely for the lulz. He may be a right-liberal, but he's got the talent for making left-liberals point and sputter. That alone makes me like him. Go Donald Go.

Wednesday, July 22, 2015

TedDibiaseLaugh.gif

Gay Pride event bans drag queens because it might offend the trannies:
An LGBT pride march in Scotland has banned “cis” drag queens from marching out of the fear that it could offend transgender people.
Free Pride Glasgow is scheduled to take place in August, and bills itself as an alternative to the city’s main Pride event, which has allegedly become too commercialized.
“It was felt by the group within the Trans/Non Binary Caucus that some drag performance, particularly cis drag, hinges on the social view of gender and making it into a joke, however transgender individuals do not feel as though their gender identity is a joke,” organizers said in a statement.
There comes a point where reason fails and the only appropriate response is laughter.

The German Church continues to plummet:
In the year 2015, more Catholics than ever have left the Church. As the Catholic Bishops' Conference reported on Friday, the number of people having left the Church has risen 22 percent within the last year to now 218,000. The number of baptisms has remained nearly the same, however, when compared to the previous year: 165,000. The number of new members whom the Church has received either by entrance or by a re-entrance, has further sunken. Taken together, this number – for the first time – is less than 10,000.
The Bishops' Conference did not say anything about the deeper causes for such developments. Its president, Archbishop Marx of Munich, was quoted as saying that these new statistics show “that Church is multi-faceted and has still had a missionary force, even though the high number of exits from the Church makes us painfully aware that we do not reach people with our message.” Archbishop Burger, of Freiburg, spoke of the “irritations caused by the new way of gathering the Church taxes by referring to the capital incomes – which was erroneously then interpreted by many as an 'increase of taxes.'” Originally, the Church tax [Kirchensteuer] was only gathered together with the other taxes, when the tax payer formally requested it. Now, since 1 January 2015, it happens automatically. When, at the end of 2014, the banks started to inform their members about this new procedure, the number of exits considerably increased in the Catholic Church as well as in the Protestant churches.
It's worth noting how much money is driving the German Church to push for changing Church teachings on divorce and remarriage at the upcoming Synod.

And finally, yesterday was the anniversary of the First Battle of Bull Run:


Historically accurate songs are often the best songs. I've been neglecting the blog recently due to my work with Return of Kings and my new day job which is in addition to my side hustles with Amazon. I'm tired but it's a good kind of tired. I feel like I have the strength of five gorillas.

Friday, July 17, 2015

My new article at Return of Kings

This week I briefly examine the life and work of St. Athanasius of Alexandria, and how he exemplified the virtues of courage and fortitude when the Church was riven with heresy. "If the world is against me, then it's me against the world." Check it out there.

Thursday, July 16, 2015

As an evil slave holding white man once said

The tree of diversity must be watered with the blood of core Americans and Marines from time to time. The shooter, Mohammed Youssef Abdulazeez, is apparently Kuwaiti by birth. An ISIS Twitter account gloated over the violence (fortunately the badthinkers Heartiste and Mike Cernovich are suspended.) In the days and weeks to come, the left will wring its hands about one of those anti-Muslim backlashes that never actually happen. We will continue to invite those from the religion of pieces (lies, intimidation, assault, tyranny, and murder) to our shores and the core Americans who are the targets will be lambasted as the real villains, because I'm certain Abdulazeez never would have done this if we weren't racistly, sexistly, and Islamophobically oppressing him so we need to add yet another sin to the long list of white evil. No one except pseudonymous bloggers will question the conventional wisdom about diversity and immigration because too many careers and reputations hinge on perpetuating the policies which get innocent people murdered.

Pray for God to have mercy on their souls.

A man of many hats

One of my first jobs when I came home from the Army was a staff writer for my local newspaper. I had no experience or academic education in journalism, but I was hired because the staff was impressed with my letters to the editor. I covered the 2002 election cycle which proved to be boring. My district is so overwhelmingly Republican that there's no real competition in the general election. The action was in the primaries. My then Congressman faced an unknown challenger who was brand new to politics and it showed. He gave straight answers to questions and made no secret of how he disliked the Congressman personally. The mainstream candidates stuck closely to their talking points, though off the record they managed to come across as human beings. I had the most fun visiting the third parties, the Libertarians and the Greens. Those guys know how to party, no pun intended.

I secured a second job today to supplement my writing income. The manager said I pretty much had the job the moment I walked in and handed them a physical copy of my resume. She was almost apologetic when she said I still had to painstakingly fill out an online application with the same information. But when they spend most of the interview selling the company to you instead of you selling yourself to them, it's always a good sign. I told them right away that I consider my true career to be writing and that I applied in order to make more money. Supposedly that's a big no-no, but the District Manager said he appreciated my honesty and looks forward to working with me.

I suppose it's possible in the future that some crusading SJW will try to get me fired for the badthink I publish online. If you're dying of curiosity and you frame the Google search correctly, anyone can learn my real name in a few minutes. I publish under a pen name more out of long habit than any need to protect my career, although ironically the one time my writing got me in trouble was in the seminary, heh. "Beefy Levinson" is not the first nom de blog I've used. In fact, many years ago one of my pen names appeared in the Los Angeles Times, cited as an example of Catholic pro-life extremism after the California Legislature passed a particularly bad bill. That was back before Livejourna was conquered by its Russian overlords.

I've been a soldier, a journalist, a retail zombie, a seminarian, a secretary, a catechist, a LifeTeen volunteer, and now my latest gig. The one constant has been I've always kept up with my writing. One of my greatest regrets is deleting the old Livejournal blog, and if I could take it back I would. Not because it was particularly great writing or thinking, but because it showed several years worth of growth. I wrote about my conversion to Catholicism as I was going through RCIA. I started it in 2002 as a bog standard neo-con right-liberal, but my beliefs markedly changed as the years when by. Now I'm a Catholic reactionary who thinks mainstream politics is enormously depressing when it's not uproariously farcical.

Monday, July 13, 2015

I want loyalty, you son of a bitch

It sounds counter-intuitive given the nature of my writings on this blog, but in real life I often get along better with Protestants and Godless heathens than I do my fellow Catholics. Protestants and Godless heathens for the most part operate according to their stated principles. I'll ruthlessly skewer their falsehoods and errors, but in person I'll treat them the way they treat me. In fact, they're often interested to hear that I was in the seminary for a time and they'll ask me lots of questions about why Catholics do this or that. I enjoy these teaching moments. You never know on this side of the veil how deeply you may affect someone by laying down the truth.

It's disloyal Catholics who make me see red. As Boniface put it so well, compromise is planning to fail:
Since the infamous gay marriage ruling of June 26th, 2015, I have noticed a very troubling trend in the Catholic world. I'm not sure what to call it exactly, but I think I will say it is a sort of "tactical accommodation." What is this tactical accommodation? It is a degree of measured accommodation to homosexuality that, while stopping short of actually affirming it, allows a certain amount of legitimacy of some of the points of the homo-fascist crowd, thus giving the appearance of compromise to one side while maintaining fidelity to Catholic teaching on the other. I believe the purpose of this accommodation is to save some face with the other side.

In practice, this looks something like, "I believe in traditional marriage, but I also believe that conservative Catholics have generally failed at loving homosexual adequately." 

Or perhaps, "I know we should not encourage people to define themselves by their sins, but Christians should not be so dismissive of the concept of homosexual identity."

Or another favorite, "The Church's teaching has not changed; but at the same time, I think the Church needs to more fully utilize the unique gifts and that homosexuals can bring."

And so on.
It's as if the Supreme Court ruling is being used as an occasion for self-reflection; not a reflection on the corrupt morals of the world or the need for a stronger defense of Church teaching, mind you, but an occasion to reflect on how we can be more accommodating to homosexuality. 
Another good post from Bonald continues the point: 
This blog does more preliminary work than that.  While the great theologians have been thinking about how to raise people to the heights of charity and mystical illumination, they haven’t noticed that the masses have lost even the basic natural attitudes that make for a mediocre Catholic.  I have in mind three preliminaries in particular.  The first is a sense of the sacred, the spirit of reverence, coupled to a sense of God’s revelation in the given meanings of the world.  The second is a horror of nihilism, so that a man fears meaninglessness more than he craves license.  The last is basic tribal loyalty to the Church and her members throughout the ages.  The theologians scorn these attitudes because they are after all natural; one finds analogous or even identical things in any vital religion.  But without them, any spiritual quest is bound to begin in pride and end in apostasy.  Time and again, I’ve seen men of much greater virtue and much greater love of Jesus fall into error for lack of a visceral repulsion to blasphemy and disloyalty.
Heresy implies a degree of faith and knowledge about the faith. You cannot be a formal heretic unless you obstinately persist in rejecting the known truth (it doesn't matter if you disagree that the truth is, in fact, true.) Many Catholics do not rise to the level of formal heresy because they lack even the most basic knowledge of what the Church teaches. Muslims are willing to die for their false religion, whereas most American Catholics are reluctant to suffer mild unpopularity or minor inconveniences.

Our Blessed Lord said that the chaff will grow alongside the wheat until the harvest time. That doesn't mean we should entrust known chaff with responsibilities in teaching the faith or having the charge of souls. I've no doubt that as the years go by, many baptized Catholics will happily get their brothers and sisters socially ostracized or fired from their jobs for opposing same-sex marriage. All the while, other Catholics will plead that the bad worldlings will leave us alone if only we're more sweet and winsome and lovable.

I think a better solution would be to reestablish the culture of mediocre Catholicism. Not that we should aim for mediocrity, but as Bonald says we lack the basic attitudes that make it possible. It's going to be hard work - we have to undo 50 years of Vatican II happy talk - but we must reintroduce men to that visceral hatred of blasphemy and disloyalty.

Wednesday, July 8, 2015

Levinson Contra Mundum

Nine lessons from the Obergefell decision:
Second, the true losers in Obergefell are the same as in Windsor: those experiencing same-sex attraction. The blessing is that, post Obergefell, there is no more political frenzy to cover over sadness of soul. Those in homosexual relationships will have to face the hard facts of their lifestyle. Many have already suffered under the normative lie that homosexuality can bring happiness, and many more will suffer now that this lie has been quite literally wedded to state power. Those now given the imprimatur of the federal government on the dead-end slavery of sin—and the children who are condemned to witness this slow-motion destruction of human dignity firsthand—are the true sacrificial victims in this war. If we were not praying for them before, let us start doing so today.
The wages of sin is death but even in this life the pursuit of hedonism leaves one unfilled, anxious, depressed, and prone to substance abuse to dull the ennui. Gays can now "marry," but only 45% of their relationships are monogamous. #LoveWince
Fifth, Obergefell is a chance for repenting of the greatest sexual failure of our generation: not homosexuality, but fornication. For every lost soul searching fruitlessly for love in a gay bar, how many hundreds more are de facto polygamists or polyandrists, shuttling from one wrecked relationship to the next, and increasingly numb to the lies that he or she is telling with body, words, and heart? If there is any moral high ground in the debate over sexual ethics, I for one am utterly unworthy of approaching it. I will stand, instead, beside the gutter from which God’s Grace rescued me, the better to remember, at the very least, who is holy in all of this, and who is made holy thereby. In a very real way, those with same-sex attraction have been fighting, at least in part, for the right to be as flamboyantly promiscuous as all the rest of us. Let us see who among us will dare to cast the first stone.
A lot of my TradCon friends have asked why I associate at all with Return of Kings when it's filled with lots of crimethink that inflicts badfeels. I've encountered a few souls in the manosphere who seem content with embracing a lifestyle of constant fornication. For many of them it was a phase. Even Heartiste reveals a deeply conservative, if not outright traditional, streak once in a while. The pursuit of higher notch counts is in many ways the rational response of the pagan to a feminist world. But a careful reading of the comments reveals that many men yearn for the days of Marriage 1.0. They dream about meeting that 21 year old virgin who will marry them and love them just the way they are. The world being what it is though, they do what they have to do to get sex. It's men like that we Catholics have failed. And I think Holy Mother Church would bring in much more converts if she focused on people who are as disgusted with liberalism as we are rather than the liberal worldlings who always have and always will hate everything we believe in.
Sixth, the majority opinion in Obergefell was a stunning admission of the intellectual poverty of late-stage liberalism. Proceeding by breezy judicial fiat was the only recourse open to the United States Supreme Court, for in seeking to legitimate the paradox of homosexual marriage they could make no honest appeal to reason, truth, Scripture, tradition, common sense, biology, or the natural law. They simply had to harden their hearts and wave their magic wands. Obergefell makes shockingly apparent the impossibility of forming any sort of community based on what is, at the very best, finely-tuned mutual antagonism. Justice Anthony Kennedy therefore has the distinction of having written, not the most insidious or disingenuous opinion in the history of the court (Roger Taney, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Harry Blackmun, and Henry Billings Brown must all outdo Kennedy in this regard), but the silliest. The linty non-sense of the Obergefell decision is a tremendous boon for a United States now coming to the extremities of an unsustainable philosophy. By dint of sheer hokeyness, the Obergefellmajority opinion should be enough to wake whole battalions from their intellectual torpor.
Liberals assure us that we can't turn back the clock. On the contrary, if the clock is telling the wrong time, it can and will be turned back. I accept gay "marriage" in the same sense that previous generations of Catholics accepted Soviet communism: it exists and must be dealt with for now, but it's an irrational and evil perversion of human nature that all Catholics have a moral obligation to publicly oppose and which is doomed to fail if good men are willing to call a spade a spade. This issue is over in the sense that abortion is over: it's going to become even more explosive and divisive as years pass.

Seeing through a glass darkly

Our dedication to Tradition must be total, we cannot settle for anything less:
Will anything change in the Church? Will we see the end of the modernist crisis? Will we see the Church return to Tradition? Humanely speaking, we have to say no. This crisis has been going on far too long for a probable rebirth on the human level. Catholics with a taste for the things of the world are so widespread now and Tradition so scant that it is discouraging from a human point of view. So, we may well say that we’ll not see a return to Tradition according to human predictions. 
Yet, we pray and work every day for Tradition to return as the universal patrimony of the Church. We ‘do’ Tradition for this reason, we ‘do’ it so that everyone will return to it and that the Church will be rid of the modernist poison in Her doctrine and pastoral work.

Would there be any logic in embracing Tradition and passing over to the Old Mass just out of personal taste? What sense is there in “doing” Tradition if there is no desire for its return and total reign in the universal Church? This would be a senseless game to play! And we won’t play it!
I fall into this trap myself. Humanly speaking, the Church is a hopeless mess. She's infected with Modernism, feminism, and liberalism. A great number of the bishops are practical atheists or Kasperite heretics. Many of our priests are social workers who can't have sex. And us lay people go along to get along.

Atheist polemicists often describe faith as being an irrational belief in something despite a complete lack of evidence. This is, of course, wrong. Christianity is based on the historical birth, death, and resurrection of Christ. Catholics must hold it as an article of faith that the existence of God can be proven through human reason alone. Faith is more like trust and confidence. Faith means believing in something solely based on the authority of God who revealed it.

That means believing that the decline of the Church and the fall of Western civilization is part of God's plan. It means Catholics must hold fast to the faith handed down by the Apostles no matter how lax the Church herself may have become or how wanting is episcopal leadership. We won't know with any great certainty the exact steps of God's plan in this life but he has given us everything we need to know about attaining salvation during our time on earth.

Friday, July 3, 2015

Gettysburg: The third day


“It's all now you see. Yesterday won't be over until tomorrow and tomorrow began ten thousand years ago. For every Southern boy fourteen years old, not once but whenever he wants it, there is the instant when it's still not yet two o'clock on that July afternoon in 1863, the brigades are in position behind the rail fence, the guns are laid and ready in the woods and the furled flags are already loosened to break out and Pickett himself with his long oiled ringlets and his hat in one hand probably and his sword in the other looking up the hill waiting for Longstreet to give the word and it's all in the balance, it hasn't happened yet, it hasn't even begun yet, it not only hasn't begun yet but there is still time for it not to begin against that position and those circumstances which made more men than Garnett and Kemper and Armistead and Wilcox look grave yet it's going to begin, we all know that, we have come too far with too much at stake and that moment doesn't need even a fourteen-year-old boy to think This time. Maybe this time with all this much to lose than all this much to gain: Pennsylvania, Maryland, the world, the golden dome of Washington itself to crown with desperate and unbelievable victory the desperate gamble, the cast made two years ago; or to anyone who ever sailed a skiff under a quilt sail, the moment in 1492 when somebody thought This is it: the absolute edge of no return, to turn back now and make home or sail irrevocably on and either find land or plunge over the world's roaring rim.” 
― William FaulknerIntruder in the Dust

Thursday, July 2, 2015

Gettysburg: The second day


"When the enemy occupies high ground, do not confront him. If the enemy attacks from the high ground, do not oppose him." - Sun Tzu

Joshua Chamberlain won the Medal of Honor for ordering the charge from Little Round Top, one of the most famous actions of Gettysburg and the entire Civil War. John Buford is one of the great unsung heroes of the Union side. It was he who selected the field of battle at Gettysburg. It was his tenacity and tactical acumen that ensured the Union maintained the high ground outside the city.

Saying that the Civil War was about slavery is kind of like saying that the American Revolution was about taxes: it's true as far as it goes but it's so reductionist as to be misleading. The South seceded in order to preserve slavery which was integral to their economy. They inadvertently ensured that "United States" became a singular rather than the plural which it had been for the entire antebellum period. Before the war, the only contact most people had with the federal government was the post office. After the war, the states have gradually become merely convenient subdivisions of the federal government.

You can tell a lot about a person's politics by asking them when the United States started to go wrong.  Mainstream conservatives and neocons, aka right-liberals, usually say either the Great Society or the New Deal. Paleocons blame the US entry into World War I or the Federal Reserve or the Union victory in the Civil War. Libertarians blame either the Union victory or the passage of the Constitution over the objections of the Anti-Federalists. Personally, I blame William of Ockham for everything.

Regardless, the 14th Amendment has been the vehicle used by progressives to transform the laws of the United States into enemies of God and nature, and to mutate the old Republic into the creaking multicultural empire it is today. It guarantees "equal protection of the laws," which strikes me as a meaningless abstraction. Laws against trespassing are not going to equally protect us at 123 Fake Street if you own a home there and I do not.

Studying American history has always been something of a melancholy experience. You can almost taste the boundless optimism of the Founding Fathers. You almost envy the early Republic where men took great interest in public affairs and vigorously discussed the issues in countless newspapers and public forums. Wherever you believe the decline began, it's all downhill from there, culminating in Obergefell.

When the United States breaks apart later this century, it's difficult to imagine it being as bloody an affair as the first Civil War. No matter who secedes or for what reason, a good number of whites will be thinking, "Good riddance." The Coalition of the Fringes might think otherwise, but I honestly don't believe our fabulous overlords have got the balls for a serious campaign of persecution involving red martyrs.

Wednesday, July 1, 2015

Gettysburg: The first day


"Take that hill if practicable." The battle might have gone much differently if Lee had given more forceful orders. Lee was a great general fighting a war against long odds. Gambling was necessary to achieve victory but he should have listened to Longstreet at Gettysburg. The Confederacy simply didn't have the manpower to continually fight long battles of attrition. By the third day Union soldiers were crying, "Fredericksburg!" because their positions were reversed: it was the Confederates marching uphill against an intrenched position.

A Southern victory at Gettysburg is one of the most popular topics for alternative history speculation. Newt Gingrich and William R. Forstchen turned it into a trilogy of novels. I think they spin the most likely outcome of a Southern victory: the Confederacy still loses the war and sooner besides. It was the fall of Vicksburg in the West that sealed the Confederacy's fate.