O Holy night! The stars are brightly shining
It is the night of our dear Savior's birth
Long lay the world in sin and error pining
'Til He appeared and the soul felt its worth
A thrill of hope the weary world rejoices
For yonder breaks a new and glorious morn
Fall on your knees; O hear the Angel voices!
O night divine, O night when Christ was born
O night, O Holy night, O night divine!

Verse 2

Led by the light of Faith serenely beaming
With glowing hearts by His cradle we stand
So led by light of a star sweetly gleaming
Here come the Wise Men from Orient land
The King of kings lay thus in lowly manger
In all our trials born to be our friend
He knows our need, to our weakness is no stranger
Behold your King; before Him lowly bend
Behold your King; before Him lowly bend

Verse 3

Truly He taught us to love one another;
His law is love and His Gospel is Peace
Chains shall He break, for the slave is our brother
And in His name, all oppression shall cease
Sweet hymns of joy in grateful chorus raise we
Let all within us Praise His Holy name
Christ is the Lord; O praise His name forever!
His power and glory evermore proclaim
His power and glory evermore proclaim

• Until quite recently, I was going to vote for Ron DeSantis rather than Trump

• Protest votes are emotional, not rational, and they prioritize our personal feelings over the wellbeing of those we love

• We should vote for Trump today so we can vote for someone better tomorrow

• If principled people withhold their votes, unprincipled people will make all the decisions

• We don’t have to like our choices, but we must make them and we must make them wisely

I wasn’t going to vote for Trump

I came extremely close to not voting for Donald Trump this year. Not that I would have voted for a Democrat, of course, but I almost wrote in Ron DeSantis as a protest vote.

And why not? Trump had caved on pre-natal murder (euphemistically called “abortion”), embraced the sexual depravity movement, signaled openness to marijuana legalization, and effectively told disaffected Christians that they had to vote for him anyway because no one else would have them.

It seemed that he didn’t really want my vote, so I was happy to withhold it. And judging by the Conservative posts on X (formerly Twitter), I was not alone.

But then my brain kicked in

At some point, however, I realized that my reaction was emotional, not rational. I wanted to punish Trump both for these betrayals and for the imbecility of thinking that they would cause Democrats to vote for him.

But withholding my vote wouldn’t really punish Trump, it would punish hundreds of millions in this country and, by extension, billions around the world.

The impending Dem-ocracy

Harris and her Party are openly trying to end our constitutional republic and the freedoms of all those who depend upon it. They want to eliminate freedom of speech, disarm the citizenry, end the Senate filibuster, pack the Supreme Court, eradicate the Electoral College, eliminate our borders, and make elections completely unreliable (which, of course, renders them ineffective). They even have their shills in the press openly calling for an end to the Constitution.

They talk a lot about “democracy,” but there’s nothing democratic about their agenda. Using specious justifications like climate, social justice, and equity, they intend to seize control over every facet of your life. You will live where they let you live, go where they let you go, drive what they let you drive, work where they let you work, earn what they let you earn, own what they let you own, eat what they let you eat, read what they let you read, and say what they let you say.

This isn’t a democracy, it’s a Dem-ocracy: a government that exists solely of, by, and for high-ranking Democrats, and it has no room for your rights.

By effectively eliminating the First and Second Amendments, they take both the pen and the sword, leaving us voiceless and defenseless…just like the unborn children they murder with such delight. And make no mistake: those willing to kill defenseless babies will not hesitate to kill defenseless adults.

Which is more important: feelings or families?

So taking all of this into account, I had to ask myself: am I willing to subject my family, friends, countrymen, and fellow human beings to communist-level horrors for the cathartic pleasure of punishing Donald Trump?

The answer had to be “no.” I had to vote for Donald Trump because the alternative was an undisguised tyranny.

Trump, of course, is not a great candidate, but voting for him today means we can vote for someone better tomorrow. If Harris wins, however, voting, like every other facet of liberty, will likely become a thing of the past, and I’m not willing to risk that for the sake of my feelings.

I don’t like Trump as a person, but there are only two viable applicants for the job of president, and he is the less likely to cause serious, perhaps fatal, harm. To paraphrase Dennis Prager: When my house is on fire, I don’t require the fireman to be a good man, I just need him to be a good fireman.

And unfortunately, that’s where we are. The country is on fire and we need a good fireman. Granted, I’d much rather it was someone principled like Ron DeSantis; and I’m well aware of the fact that our fundamental problems are spiritual, not political — politics is just a symptom. But I also recognize that I live in a world of limited choices, and barring a black-swan event, either Trump or Harris will be the next president. Withholding my vote will not change that, so I may as well contribute it to the cause of liberty.

The wise choice isn’t necessarily a pleasant one

I know there are Christians and Conservatives who say they cannot bring themselves to vote for a candidate who isn’t firmly pro-life. Until a few months ago, I was one of them. But I eventually had to come to terms with the reality that our present choice is not between life and abortion, it’s between limited abortion and unlimited abortion.

Babies are going to be murdered under both Trump and Harris, but far more will be murdered under Harris. The math is grim, but it isn’t complicated: fewer murders is better.

If principled people withhold their votes, America’s policies will be decided by unprincipled people, only accelerating our descent into injustice, oppression, destitution, and carnage.

We don’t have to like our choices, but since we must make them, we are responsible to God and those we love for doing so wisely. We can either oppose evil today, with ballots, or do so tomorrow with bullets, and between these there is only one wise choice. Choose well.

Subscribe now

Dear leftists:

It’s clear from your unified bombardment of social media that you’ve received a new talking point:

Amber Thurman, a 28-year-old mother, died after she couldn’t access legal abortion care in Georgia.

This narrative originated with a ProPublica article and was further amplified by Kamala Harris, who (predictably) went on to blame Ms. Thurman’s death on Donald Trump:

A young mother from Georgia should be alive today, raising her son and pursuing her dream of attending nursing school.

This is exactly what we feared when Roe v. Wade was struck down. In more than 20 states, Trump Abortion Bans prevent doctors from providing basic medical care.

Amber Thurman died because she had an abortion, not because she didn't. Her death was caused by the Kill Pills; you know, the ones you want to put into the hands of young girls everywhere.

So now that you know this, are you still outraged about her death? If so, you’d have to be outraged at the abortion lobby and we both know that’s not going to happen. So no, you’re no longer outraged; her death is now “acceptable.” Your outrage is reserved only for those deaths that can be exploited for your political advantage.

See, you haven’t once complained about the abortion-related deaths of more than a billion babies. In fact, you’ve celebrated them, so it’s clear you don't actually care about the loss of human life. You don’t care about Amber Thurman the human being, you only care about the political capital you can wring out of her corpse.

But, as usual, the truth doesn't work to your advantage. You can’t let people know she died from abortion, you need them to believe she died for abortion -- you need to turn her into a martyr for your political agenda.

Just like you did with George Floyd.
And Michael Brown.
And Trayvon Martin.
And Breonna Taylor.
And Matthew Shepard.

It’s clear that your social media blitz isn’t really about Amber Thurman at all; she’s just the MacGuffin. It’s really about framing the Republican Party for murder just weeks before a presidential election. And if you have to resort to Smolletting to pull it off, you will.

So spare us your phony outrage, the only genuine part of which is your seething hatred for those of us who don’t share your beliefs.

And yes, we know you would murder us as readily as you murder innocent babies. The only reason you don't is because we can fight back. But then that's why you want to take our guns. After all, it stands to reason that those willing to kill defenseless babies will not hesitate to kill defenseless adults.

So pardon us if we decline to take moral correction from those trying to frame the innocent for murder in an effort to further the cause of murdering the innocent.

Subscribe now

• Why are we still listening to known liars?

• Many people prefer lies to truth

• Even liars want to appear honest

• Sometimes there’s no point in arguing

• We must guard against our own biases

Are Americans stupid or do we just enjoy being lied to?

Why are we still getting our news from the people who told us, right up until minutes before the Trump/Biden debate, that Biden was “energetic” and "sharp as a tack"

and videos showing otherwise were "cheap fakes"
and the border is secure
and there is no immigration crisis
and COVID came from a wet market
and the COVID jabs were safe
and effective
and they were vaccines
and Ivermectin was for horses
and COVID spread asymptomatically
and masks worked
and social distancing worked
and school closures worked
and lockdowns worked
and COVID was a "pandemic of the unvaccinated"
and BLM/Antifa riots were “mostly peaceful”
and Trump colluded with Russia
and he put children in cages
and he banned Muslims
and his tax cuts were for the rich
and there was a pee tape
and the DNC server was hacked by Russia
and Hunter Biden's laptop was Russian disinformation
and Trump called nazis "good people"
and he told us to inject bleach
and he stole the 2016 election from Hillary Clinton
and 2020 was “the most secure election in history"
and January 6th was an insurrection
and Brett Kavanaugh was a serial rapist
and Kyle Rittenhouse was a murderer
and the Border Patrol whipped invaders
and the Covington Catholic kids were racist provocateurs
and there was a noose in Bubba Wallace's garage
and Jussie Smollett was assaulted by Trump supporters
and on and on and on?

Many people prefer lies to truth

Why do so many people continue getting their news and information from the same sources who peddled these lies? Are they stupid?

As a rule, no. There will always be stupid people, of course, just as there will always be intelligent people, but stupidity alone can hardly account for the volume of those knowingly indulging in lies.

The root problem is not stupidity but corruption. People get their information from disreputable sources because they want disreputable information.

Truth is occasionally inconvenient for all of us, but for those who have wedded themselves to lies, truth is not just an inconvenience, it’s an enemy. Such people keep returning to a poisoned well because they want poison — they want to be lied to.

For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.

2 Timothy 4:3-4 (ESV)

The goal is to have their beliefs reaffirmed regardless of whether they are true. This is called “confirmation bias” and it can be thought of as a preference for comfortable lies over uncomfortable truths. People seeking to have their biases confirmed will intentionally get their information from sources they know will never challenge their beliefs, even (and perhaps especially) when they know those beliefs are wrong.

Even liars want to appear honest

But despite their commitment to falsehood, they still want the appearance of truth because truth has a singular, insurmountable authority. They may have no use for truth itself, but they desperately want to wield its power, both to justify their agenda and to stamp out all opposition.

This is why they’ve tried to co-opt science. Truth is both the pursuit and the currency of science, so if they can make an association in the public mind between science and their agenda, their proclamations will be widely regarded as true and therefore authoritative, a perception they will inevitably use to censor all information detrimental to their agenda. I offer as evidence every single event that took place during COVID tyranny.

The speciousness doesn’t end there, of course. As we’re all well aware, truth is frequently mischaracterized as misinformation or disinformation (or the ludicrous “malinformation”), the purpose of which is to make honest men look like liars and liars like honest men.

And then there’s the phrase “my truth,” which is verbal sleight-of-hand intended to ascribe the indomitable, divine nature of truth to some dude’s opinion.

Sometimes there’s no point in arguing

Unfortunately, arguing with such people is a waste of time and an unnecessary driver of ulcers and hypertension. Or so I’ve been told.

If your goal is to ascertain the truth and your opponent’s goal is to evade it, the two of you are headed to polar opposite destinations. Giving him truth will come to nothing because a person who did not choose his position based on truth will not change his position based on truth.

This is why Jesus said:

Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you.

Matthew 7:6 (ESV)

When we’re dealing with someone who refuses to hear truth, our best move is to just back off and pray for him. Nothing good will come of pressing the issue.

And frankly, some arguments are not worth the cost of winning, and thus not even worth having. It’s in our interest personally, nationally, and internationally to pick our battles wisely, particularly when the entire world is a powder keg just waiting for someone to strike a match.

Guarding against our own biases

Finally, we have to realize that confirmation bias is a natural human tendency. It may be standard operating procedure for those with certain worldviews, but it’s still a tendency that appeals to all of us.

For that reason, we have to guard against the proclivity to uncritically accept comfortable narratives. It’s easy to get frustrated with people who resist truth, but we can’t justifiably demand of them a standard we ourselves refuse to uphold.

Subscribe now

Thanks to my brother, Dan, for getting me past a serious case of writer’s block.

It's the most horrible time of the year
When company logos
Get slathered in rainbows
You know that it's here
It's the most horrible time of the year

It's the vile, vilest season of all
When public parades
Feature sex escapades
We're in moral free fall
It's the vile, vilest season of all

When treasonous presidents
Profane their residence
With flags of deviancy
Revealing their hatred
Of what was held sacred
By those who fought for liberty

It's the most demonic time of the year
All the perverts come out of the woodwork
And shout that they’ll make your kids queer
It's the most demonic time of the year

When immoral appetites
Are labeled "civil rights"
And given government teeth
The unholy mission's
To persecute Christians
And criminalize their beliefs

It's the most horrible time of the year
When evil is central and not incidental
Our conscience is seared
It's the most horrible time
Most abominable time
It's the most horrible time of the year

• Conservatives must choose between a baby’s right to life and a state’s right to self-governance

• If a state has the authority to legalize the murder of babies, it has the authority to legalize the murder of anyone

• Morality always trumps policy; and unlike policy, it is not up for a vote

• Moving the abortion issue to the states was good, but leaving it there is not

• The real conflict is not between life and sovereignty but between life and death

There's currently a debate within conservative circles as to whether abortion should be an issue of state sovereignty (i.e., states' rights).

On the one hand, we want to stand up for the sanctity of life by protecting the unborn from murder; on the other hand, we want to respect a state's right to craft its own laws.

But what about states like California or New York whose demonic legislatures are guaranteed to legalize baby murder? Do we respect their laws and abandon children to death or do we run roughshod over state sovereignty and try to impose a national abortion ban? Which is more important: life or sovereignty?

I think the right answer presents itself pretty clearly when we look at the issue from a slightly different perspective. What if, instead of the unborn, we were talking about the murder of some other group of human beings: say Chinese people, or Republicans, or red-haired bilingual shepherds? Would it be acceptable for a state to legalize the murder of any of these groups? I certainly hope not because, if so, California will start executing its Republicans before the governor's signature is dry.

But the question isn't which people the government should allow to be murdered, it's whether the government has the authority to allow anyone to be murdered. And the answer is a hard "no." Just because unborn people can't fight back doesn't mean born people have the right to kill them.

It doesn't matter how many citizens vote to kill the unborn. Even if every last person in the state were to vote for murder, it still shouldn't be legalized because morality trumps policy...every time. And morality, unlike policy, is not up for a vote.

The protection of life overrides any concern about state sovereignty. That doesn't mean state sovereignty isn't important, it just means that it's less important than life. And because it's less important, there's no conflict here -- life wins.

But if the states shouldn't be allowed to legalize baby murder, then why did we remove Roe? Doing so ensured that the states would be allowed to legalize baby murder.

It's a fair question, but we have to bear in mind that removing Roe was not the endgame, it was the beginning. The first step in protecting life is to remove the barriers that prevent us from protecting life, which is what Roe was doing. Now that it's out of the way, the legality of baby-murder is being decided at the state level, and that's advantageous because it means we can also stop it at the state level.

But while moving it to the states was good, leaving it to them is definitely not. In fact, leaving it to the states would the pro-abortion position because all it would accomplish would be to exchange of one group of politicians for another. People with jobs in the federal government wouldn't be able to authorize the murder of babies, but people with jobs in the state government would.

That may advance the ball politically in some sense, but not morally because it completely sidesteps the moral issue of life. It would still allow murder to be legal.

Removing Roe didn't abolish abortion, it only provided us with the opportunity to abolish abortion. We haven't even run that race yet;  we've only removed the thing that was standing in our way. The felling of Roe was the gunshot that began the race, so we're only now crossing the starting line. If we walk away as if we'd already won, we'd lose by forfeit; and, of course, it's not really we who would lose, but the millions of innocent children who would pay for our apathy with their lives.

So let's ban murder in every state we can while also fighting to do so at the national level. We need to remember the stakes here. This isn't a conflict between life and politics, it's a conflict between life and death. And life must win.

Subscribe now

• Yale scientists have found a way to administer mRNA vaccines and gene therapies through the air

• This technology will allow authorities to medically rape you by implanting substances in your body without your consent

• Those behind the nonconsensual-vaccination agenda believe your body belongs to them, which necessarily makes you a slave

• Their treatment of you as a slave is not limited to vaccination

• If we don’t forcefully push back now, we will forever lose the ability to do so

Yale University scientists recently developed an effective means of distributing mRNA vaccines in an aerosolized form. This means they’re not far from being able to vaccinate mass numbers of people merely by spraying a substance into the air. The Epoch Times provides further details in the following video, courtesy of Vigilant News:

One of the study’s authors, Professor Mark Saltzman, claimed that aerosolized vaccines would make it easier to vaccinate those in remote areas or those who are afraid of needles. That may be true, but are we supposed to believe that that’s why they’re pioneering this research — to make it slightly easier to vaccinate people who are already being vaccinated? To quote Chinese sock-puppet Joe Biden, “Come on, man.”

The primary use case for these products isn’t vaccinating people who fear needles, it’s vaccinating people who fear vaccines — those who, when given the option, refuse vaccination. Following this breakthrough at Yale, however, authorities will finally be able to take away that option and administer whatever vaccines or gene therapies they deem convenient or desirable.

This mindset is summarized well by Parker Crutchfield, Ph.D. and Associate Professor of Medical Ethics at Western Michigan University:

Some theorists argue that moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory. I take this argument one step further, arguing that if moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory, then its administration ought to be covert rather than overt. This is to say that it is morally preferable for compulsory moral bioenhancement to be administered without the recipients knowing that they are receiving the enhancement.

The underlying message is clear: consent is not a prerequisite for vaccination. If those in power want to put a substance into your body, they’re going to do it with or without your permission. They’re going to medically rape you.

Now, if your body is really your own, no one could (legally) do this without your consent. But since bypassing your consent is the entire point of developing this technology, it’s clear that your body isn’t your own, at least from the perspective of the medical-rape advocates. They presume, for whatever reason, that your body is their property; that they have a greater claim to it than you do.

There is a word for a person who is the property of someone else; that word is “slave.” That is how they see you, and it is why they feel justified in using you as a laboratory experiment.

But as terrifying and abominable as nonconsensual vaccination is, it’s merely one symptom of the larger disease of slavery. Once the authorities begin to see you as a possession rather than a person, there will be no limit to what they will feel free to do to you. This is just the beginning.

Slavery isn’t limited to matters of bodily sovereignty; it lays waste to every area of life. Those who see you as a slave are not going to feel obligated to defend you from violence, protect your speech, provide you with legal representation, abide by your vote, or execute any of the other responsibilities typically delegated to an elected government.

Nor are they going to allow you to own anything because ownership is total control, and a slave is not permitted total control over anything. All of your possessions will really be their possessions; you will only be able to rent them1. To quote the World Economic Form, “You’ll own nothing. And you’ll be happy.”

It gets worse from there with total financial surveillance and control, compulsory digital IDs, elimination of private transportation, and more atrocities for which I don’t have the time to gather supporting links.

With all of these playing out simultaneously, I don’t know if it’s even possible to stop slavery’s return, but we must try. Better to suffer because we fought than because we didn’t.

I’m not a strategist of any kind, but it seems clear that if we’re going to push back against the rising tide of evil, we must do (at least) the following:

1. Appeal to God daily for guidance and deliverance.

2. Be people of principle who know not only what is good and evil, but why; and who conduct themselves according to what is good.

3. Explicitly call out this globalist agenda for what it is — the reestablishment of slavery; and elect leaders who will do the same.

4. Appoint only people of principle to positions of leadership. This must be done not just in governments but in churches, schools, companies, and families.

5. Stop each of the slavers' agenda items by any means permitted by God. Ideally, this would play out in the courts, but they are too slow to preserve liberty and often too corrupt to try. Legal battles are necessary, but they cannot be our only means of resistance. We must refuse to comply with injustice; inundate politicians with calls, letters, and visits; protest pro-slavery events; and expose corruption at an individual level, not allowing low-level functionaries to hide behind their agency titles.

Our would-be masters are so confident of our coming enslavement that they’re not even hiding their plans. The World Economic Forum, perhaps the most vocal advocate for global serfdom, routinely publishes videos and papers advocating for an end to government by the people. And while they and their comrades are not using the language of slavery, they are almost done building its infrastructure. Our chains have already been forged; only the shackles remain. It’s now or never.

• Conventional wisdom tells us that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely

• Power does not corrupt character; it reveals it

• Fear of consequence is usually the sole barrier to indulging our darkest desires. Power removes that fear, thus liberating our impulses.

• What we often attribute to an increase in corruption is really just a loosening of restraints

Most of us are likely familiar with some variation of the saying “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” This originated in a letter written in 1887 by Lord Acton, in which he criticized the notion that people in high positions, such as kings and popes, should not be held to the same moral standard as everyone else.

The larger quote reads:

Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority.

— Lord Acton

Noting that a man’s corruption seemed to be proportional to his power, Acton1 concluded that power has a corrupting influence. But is this phenomenon the result of causation or correlation? In other words: does power cause corruption or are the two seemingly conjoined for some other reason?

Power does not corrupt

If we accept the premise that power corrupts (and absolute power corrupts absolutely), then we’d be forced to conclude that God is the most corrupt being in existence because He is the only being with absolute power. But God is not corrupt. In fact, not only is He not corrupt, He is the very antithesis of corruption.

We, however, despite being comparatively powerless, are completely corrupt:

As it is written:

“There is none righteous, no, not one;
There is none who understands;
There is none who seeks after God.
They have all turned aside;
They have together become unprofitable;
There is none who does good, no, not one.”
“Their throat is an open tomb;
With their tongues they have practiced deceit”;
“The poison of asps is under their lips”;
“Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness.”
“Their feet are swift to shed blood;
Destruction and misery are in their ways;
And the way of peace they have not known.”
“There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

Romans 3:10-18

Since God is all-powerful and without corruption, and we are relatively powerless yet full of corruption, it’s clear that power itself does not cause corruption. Nevertheless, we can’t deny that human beings appear to become more corrupt as they become more powerful. But if power doesn’t corrupt, how do we explain this correlation?

Power reveals

I would contend that power doesn’t corrupt character; it reveals it. This is why God’s power reveals goodness while ours overwhelmingly reveals corruption. Power doesn’t make us something we aren’t; it purges everything we aren’t. Our true nature is exposed when two conditions are satisfied:

1. We have enough power to make our desires into realities

2. We have no fear of consequences

Power obviously enables us to do what we want — that’s the nature of power, but it also removes the obstacles that stand in the way of our impulses; primarily, the obstacle of consequence.

Power enables what fear deters

We all have desires we would act on if we weren’t afraid of being held accountable. A lot of banks would be robbed, bosses assaulted, women raped, and men killed. It is the fear of consequence alone that prevents us from acting on these impulses.

Power, however, enables us to distance ourselves from the consequences of our actions. We may not be able to eliminate those consequences, but we can use our influence to conceal them or cause them to impact someone else. And once consequence becomes a distant concern, there’s no barrier to indulgence; we’re no longer afraid to act on our dark impulses, which is precisely why the powerful routinely do so.

So what we often attribute to an increase in corruption is really just a loosening of restraints. Power doesn’t corrupt us, it liberates our existing corruption. Power did not cause anyone to go to Epstein Island, it merely enabled them to do so.

The awful conclusion

We each like to think of ourselves as morally superior to monsters like Adolf Hitler or Josef Stalin, and maybe we are. Hopefully we are. But we can’t say that for sure because we’ve not been given the same opportunity as they were to indulge our inner desires. If power were to unshackle our inner beast, God alone knows what we’d be capable of.

It could well be that men like Hitler were not uncommonly evil, they were just uncommonly powerful.

Subscribe now

About “Simple Truths”

Many beliefs circulating through society are in some way wrong — logically, morally, and/or factually. Once one of these beliefs gains enough acceptance, it is regarded as a fact and no longer questioned. Other beliefs then build on top of that faulty foundation, and the cycle continues, rapidly metastasizing falsehood throughout the entire culture.

“Simple Truths” is a series designed to push back against commonly-held falsehoods by stating fundamental truths in (what I hope will be) a clear and concise manner. Since many false beliefs share a common flawed premise, my goal is to attack the premises rather than every last wrong-headed assertion. As an added bonus, this process may just uncover some of the flaws in my own thinking, thus making the world a better place (if imperceptibly so).

• The Left set a trap, and Charlie Kirk walked right into it

• “Whiteness” is a slanderous term intended to depict Judeo-Christian values as inherently racist

• “Black lives matter” was a term intended to put a noble face on ignoble deeds

• Race is often injected into conversation as a means of misdirection

Yesterday afternoon, Charlie Kirk put out the following tweet:

Whiteness is great.

Be proud of who you are.

Now, Charlie is a smart guy who’s done a lot of great work, but this was an unacceptably foolish statement for the following reasons:

1. There is no such thing as "whiteness." By using this poisoned term, he adopted the Left's false premise.

2. He fell into the trap of embracing something not because it was good but merely because his enemy opposed it.

3. Being proud of one’s skin color is always a bad move. There is no moral merit to skin color; no basis for being legitimately proud.

“Whiteness” is a shell game

“Whiteness” is a shell game, and Charlie fell for it. Here’s how the game works:

Leftists are determined to destroy Western Civilization, so they take aim at the values that comprise its foundation (e.g., God, family, country, hard work, individualism). They seek to make these values unpopular within the West, knowing that the culture will collapse if it can be convinced to destroy its own foundation.

To that end, they have taken to referring to this collection of values as “whiteness,” despite the fact that none of them has anything to do with skin color. It would have made just as much sense to refer to them as "penguinism," as they have every bit as much to do with penguins as "white people." Since penguins aren’t regarded as inherently evil, however, “whiteness” makes for more effective slander.

Despite this senselessness, the Left, through relentless repetition, succeeded in characterizing these values as inherently "white," thus setting a trap for anyone who dared to defend them. Now, anyone who stands up for equality of opportunity, merit-based achievement, or punctuality, for example, is said to be defending “whiteness,” and is therefore a white supremacist.

The net effect is to disparage anyone who defends the West (and the US in particular) as morally defective. And though it is a logical fallacy to do so, the Left then uses this allegation of moral inferiority as a justification for dismissing the person’s arguments without considering their merits.

“Black lives matter” was the same ruse

This is the same game leftists played with BLM. They took a collection of objectively evil behaviors and values (e.g., rioting, arson, assaulting police, destruction of the nuclear family) and labeled these "Black Lives Matter." Anyone who opposed these evils was said to be denying the value of "black lives," despite (again) the fact that none of these things has any connection whatsoever to skin color.

Race is misdirection

The game here is to use racial terminology to misdirect from social demolition. The Left knows that when it chums the waters of discourse with racial division, all other issues are forgotten as people abandon their senses for their grievances. It’s shameful that we continue to fall for this trick after having seen it performed countless times and knowing precisely how it works.

Unfortunately, Charlie Kirk, who should have known better, took the bait. Instead of keeping his focus on the Left’s agenda, he foolishly — and quite unnecessarily — waded into the racial quagmire, and in doing so entangled himself in an easily-avoided trap. I sincerely hope he realizes his error soon and doesn't make the prideful mistake of doubling down.

Subscribe now

• Emotion is often used as misdirection when the facts are inconvenient

• Facts don’t care about feelings, and feelings don’t care about facts

• We cannot determine truth using emotion

• Truth determines whether our emotions are valid

• Emotionless truth is cold but truthless emotion is destructive

More hair and fewer pounds ago, I worked for an outspoken Democrat. We didn’t agree on much but we got along well, which made for some great discussions that, outside of getting paid, were easily the best part of the job.

During one of these discussions, I shared with him my belief that liberalism, wherever it is found, is always rooted in ignorance, malice, or both1. I knew he wouldn’t agree, of course, but while I wasn’t sure if he would take issue with the ignorance and/or the malice, I didn’t expect him to evade the issue altogether. But he did. All I got by way of response was: “That offends me.”

He didn’t challenge the veracity of what I’d said; he didn’t even ask how I’d reached my conclusion. Instead, he just told me how it made him feel.

I was flabbergasted. Here was a man nearly three times my age who, when presented with an ideological hypothesis, couldn’t respond with anything more than what amounted to a sad-face emoji. This struck me as a complete non sequitur. What did his feelings have to do with anything? I wanted to ask, “But is it true?” But being so disoriented by his response, and it having been the first time I’d (apparently) offended him, I pivoted to another issue.

But is it true?

“Is it true” is always the first question we should ask and the first answer we should demand. The subsequent conversation could splinter out in a thousand different directions, but none of them are worth pursuing until we’ve first established the facts. How we feel is not wholly unimportant, but it is an infinitely distant concern when compared to the truth.

This is what conservative commentator, Ben Shapiro, meant when he coined the phrase “facts don’t care about your feelings.” But, as I observed with my former boss, feelings often don’t care about facts, either.

Feelings don’t care about facts

Such was the case a few days ago when Ohio Representative, Max Miller, took to Twitter to excoriate a Christian for publicly declaring a basic tenet of her faith. She had tweeted:

There’s no hope for any of us outside of having faith in Jesus Christ alone.

Miller replied:

This is one of the most bigoted tweets I have ever seen.

Delete it, Lizzie.

Religious freedom in the United States applies to every religion.

You have gone too far.

Now, there are a lot of problems with Miller’s response. A lot. But for the purpose of this article, it’s sufficient to point out that instead of addressing the statement’s veracity, he chose to attack its author. To paraphrase CS Lewis2: he told her why she was wrong (she was a bigot) without having first established that she was wrong.

But the question remains: is it true? Is Jesus Christ humanity’s only hope? If not, Miller should have brought evidence to the contrary. But if so, anger was a completely irrational response. Getting upset with this woman for sharing the one way to God would be the logical equivalent of getting upset with your GPS for telling you there’s only one route to your destination.

Similarly, a video was released over the weekend in which Ron DeSantis said the following:

Ultimately, a movement can’t be about the personality of one individual; the movement has got to be about: “what are you trying to achieve on behalf of the American people?” And that’s got to be based in principle.

Because if you’re not rooted in principle — if all we are is listless vessels that [are] just supposed to follow, you know, whatever happens to come down the pipeline through Truth Social every morning — that’s not going to be a durable movement.

This caused a firestorm amongst those in the MAGA faction of the political Right. Just as they branded themselves “deplorables” following Hillary Clinton’s slanderous “basket of deplorables” remark, Trump loyalists are now proudly branding themselves “listless vessels,” apparently unaware that doing so only helps to prove DeSantis’ point. And while they wear this label with pride, they are simultaneously enraged, declaring this statement to be the death nell of DeSantis’ candidacy and proof that he is a member of the RINOs, Swamp, Deep State, GOP establishment, or some other term synonymous with “traitor.”

But the question remains: is it true? Is there a group of people on the Right that has chosen to follow personality rather than principle; that uncritically parrots Trump’s every talking point? Of course. This doesn’t mean that every Trump supporter is such a person, nor is that what DeSantis was alleging; but there is, unquestionably, a large number of people who are effectively drones for Donald Trump. They may not like having it pointed out, but that has no bearing on the fact that it’s true.

And here’s the thing: they shouldn’t like it — they should feel bad; shame is an appropriate response to having our bad behavior exposed. Feeling bad doesn’t always mean that we have been wronged; it may very well indicate that we are in the wrong.

We can’t divine truth from emotion

But the only way to know for sure is to first establish the truth, and we cannot do so by reasoning backward from emotion. Our feelings cannot, to use earlier examples, tell us if liberalism is rooted in malice just as they cannot tell us whether there are people who worship Donald Trump. The only truths they reveal are truths about us as individuals. Max Miller’s anger over the claim that Jesus is humanity’s only hope tells us something about Max Miller but nothing whatsoever about Jesus or the hope(s) for humanity.

Truth determines the validity of emotion

Feelings do matter, but they only matter in light of truth because truth determines their validity. But for all of truth’s strengths, emotion has the strategic advantage of being part of human nature. We don’t have to work at feeling something; we do it naturally. Feelings are largely reflexive, and thus effortless, instantaneous, and unavoidable. Facts, however, are none of those things. As a rule, we don’t come into a situation already knowing the facts, and ascertaining them requires both time and effort.

This is why hot takes are as unreliable as they are prevalent. They reflect an emotional reaction largely devoid of truth, and as such are generally useful only for destructive purposes. So while truth devoid of emotion is often regarded as cold, emotion devoid of truth is quite fiery, if mostly peaceful. This is why our first question about any claim must be: is it true. Without the answer to that question, further discussion is at best pointless and at worst harmful.

Subscribe now

• When we define a word, we put limitations on it

• Those who exploit terminology avoid definitions because definitions limit their scope of influence

• Definitions provide a defense against false accusations

• Our lives are being sacrificed for causes that have no clearly defined meanings

When we define a word, we put boundaries on it. And once we do that, there are people to whom, and situations to which, it no longer applies. For example, if we define racism as "dehumanization on the basis of skin color1," then it can no longer be sensibly applied to completely unrelated matters such as punctuality or musical preference.

This is why race hustlers never define racism; doing so would mean losing their ability to exploit it. They know that once they’ve defined what racism is, they've also implicitly defined what it isn't; and once everyone knows what it isn't, those falsely accused of racism will be able to prove their innocence.

It's this ability to prove one's innocence that threatens to demolish the racial protection racket that's intimidated and divided our nation for decades. The whole enterprise depends upon us being defenseless, so once we’re able to conclusively shut down its false accusations — once we can point to the definition of racism and show that it doesn't implicate us — the race thugs lose all their power. Definition is defense, and that is precisely why no conclusive definition will ever be forthcoming.

Of course, racism is just one of many undefined terms with tremendous manipulative power:

• Fundamental sectors of our society, such as government and banking, are now being shaped into totalitarian cudgels in the name of "diversity, equity, and inclusion"

• People with no connection whatsoever to the National Socialist German Workers' Party are routinely slandered as "nazis"

• Women are being replaced throughout society under the banner of “trans rights”

• The simple comforts and basic needs of the individual are being systematically outlawed in the name of “climate justice”

• The entire Western World has been brought to its knees (and, likely, to its end) in the name of "science"

And on and on. Everywhere we look, our rights are being violated and our freedoms eradicated for reasons that literally cannot be defined.

There's no reason we should stand for something so simultaneously destructive and absurd. So let's not. When you hear someone level an allegation of racism (or any other politically useful but conspicuously undefined term), demand a definition. It’s time to stop letting these tyrants get away with alleging things they can’t even define.

Subscribe now

• Freedom guarantees problems, but it does not cause them

• Human problems are caused by human corruption

• Tyranny removes all restrictions from human corruption

• Human nature makes Utopia impossible

• Liberty, even with all its problems, is still the best deal going

Freedom guarantees problems

It’s safe to say that most people would like to do away with poverty, disease, corruption1, racism, sexism, and a host of other such unpleasantries. But free societies will never be able to eliminate a single one of these because doing so would come at the expense of freedom.

For example, a society truly committed to ending poverty would have to abandon its commitment to liberty because when people are free, they are free to make choices that result in poverty. The only way to truly end poverty would be to take away a citizen’s right to make his own decisions. In short: we cannot eliminate poverty — or any other social problem — without eliminating liberty.

Similarly, free societies cannot guarantee such things as rates of home ownership or the racial composition of university classrooms. Achieving these results would require government to put its thumb on the scale in favor of some citizens and in opposition to others.

Whether measures like this are moral is debatable, but the fact that they’re tyrannical is not.

Liberty is not the cause of problems

Now, some may conclude that liberty should be eliminated if doing so would bring an end to society’s ailments. But the problem isn’t that we’re free, it’s that we’re corrupt, and this corruption often leads us to abuse our freedom to destructive ends.

Making people less free does not make them less corrupt for the same reason that prison does not make bad men good. All it does is restrict the ways in which their corruption can express itself.

Tyranny only makes things worse

That may sound like an acceptable compromise. After all, if we make the entire society into one big prison (i.e., a tyranny), that will have the effect of suppressing corruption nationwide. In practice, however, the opposite occurs.

When liberty descends into tyranny, the power that was previously distributed throughout the entire population is suddenly concentrated in very few hands. Leaders previously accountable to the people are now unrestricted, allowing them to indulge their corruption to breadths and depths never before possible.

When the people were free, they were able to resist these abuses. They could vote their leaders out of office, expose their corruption through media, hold protests, and, if necessary, take up arms. Under tyranny, however, the people are ripe for abuse as their ability to resist has been stripped from them.

So while freedom enables each of us to indulge our corruption to some extent, it also enables our fellow citizens to oppose and curtail our corruption. The result is a balance of power that prevents the kind of atrocities typical under tyrannical regimes.

There are no solutions

In the end, the corruption inherent in human nature makes utopian visions impossible. We will never be able to excise any form of corruption from within society because we cannot even excise it from within ourselves. In the words of Thomas Sowell:

There are no solutions; there are only trade-offs.

Liberty is simply the best deal available given the reality of human nature. It may not be able to guarantee particular outcomes, but it does guarantee who gets to determine the outcomes. Tyranny may come with more guarantees, but all of them are bad.

Subscribe now

About “Simple Truths”

Many beliefs circulating through society are in some way wrong — logically, morally, and/or factually. Once one of these beliefs gains enough acceptance, it is regarded as a fact and no longer questioned. Other beliefs then build on top of that faulty foundation, and the cycle continues, rapidly metastasizing falsehood throughout the entire culture.

“Simple Truths” is a series designed to push back against commonly-held falsehoods by stating fundamental truths in (what I hope will be) a clear and concise manner. Since many false beliefs share a common flawed premise, my goal is to attack the premises rather than every last wrong-headed assertion. As an added bonus, this process may just uncover some of the flaws in my own thinking, thus making the world a better place (if imperceptibly so).

• A former New York Times journalist is appalled that the Times favors censorship

• He is overlooking the fact that leftism inevitably leads to censorship because leftism is human nature, and human nature is censorious

• Censorship is also a leftist survival instinct. Their claims cannot withstand scrutiny, so scrutiny must be prohibited.

• As the West falls ever farther from its Judeo-Christian founding, censorship will become increasingly popular and increasingly common

In his newsletter “Unreported Truths,” former New York Times journalist, Alex Berenson1, recently wrote about the sense of betrayal he felt upon seeing the Times effectively endorse censorship.

Unreported Truths

The New York Times has lost its mind. And by mind, I mean principles and understanding of the First Amendment.

You may have heard that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. testified yesterday at a Congressional hearing about censorship. But unless you read the New York Times, you probably did not see how the Times - the world’s most important newspaper, the outlet that sets the agenda for ALL non-conservative media …

Read more

3 years ago · 392 likes · 110 comments · Alex Berenson

Leftism inevitably leads to censorship

Berenson is incredulous that a major media outlet — his outlet — would attack the very law that allows it to exist; that it would use its First Amendment protection to undermine First Amendment protections. But what he fails to realize is that leftism always leads to censorship because:

1. Leftism is simply raw, uncivilized human nature dressed up as a political philosophy. It always calls for greater indulgence; never restraint.

2. Human beings are naturally tyrannical. We don't need a reason to censor, we need a reason not to.

There is nothing in leftism that resists the temptation to censor; no principle that says I shouldn't silence inconvenient information. And without God (whose existence the Left either denies or disregards), there is no moral law to curb my impulses; nor is there any basis for the belief that other people have inherent value that I am bound to respect.

In short: leftism’s natural trajectory is toward censorship, and there are no stop signs along the way.

Censorship is a leftist survival instinct

Another, more obvious, reason why the Left endorses censorship is that leftism simply can’t win in a fair fight. When opponents are given equal time, and allowed to ask probing questions and provide contradictory evidence, leftism collapses like the house of cards that it is. Not one of its claims can withstand scrutiny because all of them, being derived from a flawed God-premise, are fundamentally untrue.

So because it can’t win in a fair fight, leftism does its best to prevent one. If it can’t prevent the fight, it will settle for preventing the fairness. Just a few examples:

• Presidential debates are always moderated by a left-of-center panel

• Conservatives are never debated, they are simply de-platformed

• Leftists have spent years in apoplectic fits over the existence of Fox News. This despite their total control over every other major outlet in the media industry.2

• Many leftists fled Twitter the moment it stopped censoring Conservatives. Note that it didn’t start censoring leftists, it merely stopped muzzling everyone else. For the Left, however, this proved an intolerable state of affairs.

• The leftist federal bureaucracy conspired with Big Tech to censor every true piece of information about COVID (origins, mortality, early treatment, mask efficacy, vaccine efficacy, vaccine injury, etc.)

• Big Tech conspired to take out Parler, the only social media platform on which Conservatives were not being censored

Look, when it comes down to it, anyone who asserts that men can become women is someone who is simply not equipped to play intellectual defense. He and his comrades are going to do everything they can to either avoid or rig any kind of competition.

Censorship is likely to become more popular

The Left is always going to censor, both because it’s naturally compelled to do so and because doing so is in its interest. Many long-time liberals like Berenson are just figuring this out, and they’re appalled. But many leftists, like those at the New York Times, are excited. They want the government suppressing speech because they don’t believe that such restrictions will ever be leveraged against them; that there might come a time when they want to say something that isn’t government-approved. They just see censorship as a means of advancing their ideology and eliminating their competition.

As our society falls farther from its founding principles, censorship is only going to increase in popularity. The only reason it was ever unpopular in the West is because Western Civilization was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, which are a repudiation of human nature, and thus, of its impulse to silence opposing viewpoints. But now that those principles have been cast aside, we are guaranteed to return to man's natural state of unmitigated oppression. Censorship is only the beginning.

Subscribe now

• Evil behavior may be sickening, but that doesn’t mean evil people are sick

• Morality excludes evil, but normality includes it

• Since we continue to regard increasingly vile behaviors as normal, there’s a good chance Epstein will eventually be retconned into a martyr

For several decades we psychologists looked upon the whole matter of sin and moral accountability as a great incubus and acclaimed our liberation from it as epoch making. But at length we have discovered that to be free in this sense, that is, to have the excuse of being sick rather than sinful, is to court the danger of also becoming lost… In becoming amoral, ethically neutral and free, we have cut the very roots of our being, lost our deepest sense of selfhood and identity, and with neurotics, themselves, we find ourselves asking: Who am I, what is my deepest destiny, what does living mean?

— Hobart Mowrer, former President of the American Psychological Association

Evil isn’t sickness

Predators like Jeffrey Epstein1, Jerry Sandusky, and Jimmy Savile are frequently described as “sick.” But while there’s no doubt that their actions are sickening, such men are not actually sick. That characterization minimizes their crimes by painting them as unwitting victims of an affliction rather than what they really were — cunning victimizers who afflicted others. These men are not sick. They are, like the rest of us, sinful, which is to say evil. And evil is a spiritual condition, not a medical one.

Why is this distinction important? Why does it matter whether we refer to them as evil or sick? It matters because these terms represent two different approaches to morality, and those approaches send society in opposite directions and incur vastly different consequences.

Morality as a fixed standard

When morality is an unchanging standard — when evil behavior is explicitly called evil and dealt with accordingly — society becomes more cohesive and stable because morality:

1. allows for a culture that is held together not by force but by shared values,

2. keeps would-be tyrants accountable by placing the definitions of right and wrong outside of their control, and

3. provides a constant, reliable foundation for politics, economics, law enforcement, and every other aspect of human society.

Morally-anchored societies punish evil behavior, both to serve the cause of justice and to provide a disincentive to any who might be inclined to similar lawlessness. The net result of all of this is a society whose members are relatively free, safe, and prosperous2.

Normality as a replacement for morality

The results are markedly different when we regard evil not as a moral problem but a medical one. As Dr. Mowrer describes above, America has psychology to thank for changing its perspective on the matter.

As an inherently atheistic discipline, psychology began with the faulty premise that there is no God, and from there it was a short distance to eliminating morality altogether. The reasoning goes something like this:

1. Given that God does not exist, there is no objective moral standard.

2. Without an objective moral standard, there are no such things as good and evil.

3. Without good and evil, behavior cannot be classified as right or wrong, but only as normal and abnormal. Or, in medical parlance, healthy and sick.

When a society adopts this mindset, it cuts the line that anchored it to morality, freeing it up to accept behaviors it previously rejected. And since man’s natural trajectory is toward immorality, the behaviors it comes to accept are far more likely than not to be immoral.

Including evil

Consequently, a moral deviant such as a pedophile will not be coerced into conforming to society, as he would under a system of morality. Instead, society will be coerced to conform to the pedophile, which is achieved by redefining "normal" to include pedophilia. In modern America we call this "being inclusive," and it is predicated upon the belief that it is society, not the pedophile, who is in need of correction.

Armed with this worldview, we’re forced to conclude that the fundamental tragedy of a Jeffrey Epstein or a Jerry Sandusky is not what they did but when they did it -- before society was sufficiently inclusive. These men were not criminals but pioneers; and in Epstein’s case, a martyr for the cause of marginalized "minor-attracted persons."

Who knows, one day they, like pederast Harvey Milk, may have American naval vessels named in their honor. How does the USNS Jeffrey Epstein strike you? In a world where the White House gives greater prominence to the sexual-depravity flag than the American one, no debasement is outside the realm of possibility.

Subscribe now

I’ve already posted this to my notes, but it’s important enough to send out through email, as well. This is a two-hour video of attorney Aaron Siri laying out the reasons why US vaccine oversight is effectively nonexistent.

Every American needs this information, especially now that we know there’s a concerted effort to force vaccines into all of us regardless of consent, necessity, accuracy, safety, and basic human rights. Vaccination is not an abstract scientific debate, it’s now a matter of social control.

For those interested in the source material cited by Mr. Siri, links are provided in his related Substack article:

Injecting Freedom

How Did Our Vaccine Oversight System Get So Broken?

I was asked to testify before the Arizona State Legislature regarding several topics related to Covid-19 vaccines. So, last week, I did just that. I had a lot to say and got to say it on a panel that included the heads of the Arizona Senate and House health committees…

Read more

3 years ago · 351 likes · 62 comments · Aaron Siri

Addendum

If you don’t have time to watch a two-hour video, you can listen to the audio recording via The Highwire’s podcast (Episode 326: Systemic Failure).

Subscribe now

• No amount of truth will dissuade the Left from its agenda of global serfdom

• Good arguments are not enough to stop what is coming

• Evil will not stop itself; it must be stopped

• Slavery is an intolerable evil that we must be ready to resist by force

Truth is irrelevant to desire

We cannot successfully appeal to someone with truth if he is primarily animated by desire. Infinite facts, crystal-clear logic, and explicit moral prohibitions are all insufficient to dissuade such a man from doing what he wants. The only way to prevent him from carrying out his agenda is through physical force.

This is why we imprison thieves, rapists, murderers, and the like. These are people who, knowing the law, have chosen to disregard it, and any society intent on survival cannot allow such people to run amok. They must be physically stopped.

Leftism doesn’t care about truth

This is where we are on a cultural level today in the US. Roughly half the country subscribes, in varying degrees, to an ideology that knowingly suppresses truth in pursuit of desire. It knows it is wrong, and it doesn’t care.

We have argued with it for decades, repeatedly showing it to be morally, logically, and factually bankrupt. Yet it persists. Faced with its deficiencies, it fights all the harder. Not to be better — not to mend its errant ways — but to silence every voice that exposes them.

At this point, it’s clear that arguing — at least with the leftist faithful — is a fool’s errand. Words have failed. This isn’t because leftists don’t know that they’re wrong, it’s because they don’t care that they are. They’re going to continue their totalitarian pursuits no matter the cost in blood or treasure.

They are going to claim ownership of your children, normalize pedophilia, criminalize Christianity, restrict your movement, restrict your gatherings, restrict your living quarters, control your money, contaminate your food, medically experiment on you, seize your assets, and effectively deny all of your rights. Just to name a few things.

How far will we let evil go?

For this reason, America is once again forced to contend with the issue of slavery. Not as an abstract moral debate, but as an imminent physical reality. So on this Independence Day, it's worth asking whether we, like our forefathers, have the courage and ability to unite against tyranny.

What are the lines that, if crossed, will compel us to take up arms against the coming enslavement? If there is no limit that we agree on — no Rubicon; no point at which we say, "Here, and no farther" — then we are guaranteed to find ourselves either slaves or corpses. Evil does not stop of its own accord; it can only be stopped.

But how and when we take physical measures to stop it is a matter that must be determined before the onset of conflict, not in the heat of the moment. We need to operate as a single, principled entity, standing firm against the rising tide of evil. If we instead wait until shots are fired, until the mass arrests and gun confiscations, it will be too late. As Benjamin Franklin wryly noted when he and his compatriots found themselves in similar circumstances: "We must all hang together or, most assuredly, we will all hang separately." In more modern terms: Leeroy Jenkins cannot defeat the Empire.

We must be clear: slavery warrants death

At some point very soon, we principled patriots need to officially draw a line in the sand and dare our oppressors to cross it. In essence, we need to boldly reassert the principles outlined in the Declaration of Independence, thus forcing our would-be slave-masters to make a decision on our timeline and our terms. Either they back down or we step up.

The hope, however remote, is that they back down; that we the people regain majority control of our lives without the need for bloodshed. They won’t back down, of course. They’ve come too far and accomplished too much in their campaign against liberty to just walk away. But we must nevertheless make it clear that an attempt to enslave us will be met with an attempt to kill those who try. Contentious liberty is preferable to peaceful slavery, as noted in the words of Patrick Henry:

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

If we do nothing in the face of such overt malice — if we continue to give these antichrists the benefit of the doubt, acting as if they are well-meaning but mistaken rather than intentionally evil — their agenda of global serfdom will have already succeeded. Unless the current trajectory is changed, we common people (at least those of us not imprisoned or killed for resisting) will own nothing. The elitists at the World Economic Forum have told us as much. They, meanwhile, will own everything. Including us.

Subscribe now

• Morality is a reflection of God’s nature, not just a list of dos and don’ts

• Every disagreement we have with God is an indictment of His character and deification of our own

• Our society is busy crafting a new god to replace the true God

Morality is God’s nature

We often make the mistake of believing that morality is a list of dos and don’ts1; that God put His finger to the wind and arbitrarily decided that some things, such as loving your neighbor, would be good while others, such as murdering your neighbor, would be evil. Since each of us is tempted by certain vices, we’d all prefer that some of the evil things had made it onto the “good” list, but alas God is God and we’re not, so we’re stuck with the rules as they are.

But while it’s true that whatever God declares to be good or evil is respectively good or evil, His declaration is not the determining factor here. Morality is not fundamentally a list of God’s proclamations, it’s a reflection of His character. Charity, for example, is good not because God said so but because God is charitable. Similarly, murder is not evil because God said so but because God is the source of life and justice, both of which are violated by murder.

An altered morality is an indictment of God

Morality is not a product of God’s invention, it is His nature; and because He is both eternal and unchanging, morality is eternal and unchanging, as well. It doesn’t matter what we as individuals or churches or entire civilizations have to say on the matter because it isn’t up for a vote.

We can, of course, choose to live by a different moral standard — one not in keeping with God’s character. Perhaps we prefer a modified morality that accepts most of God’s character, but tweaks it around the edges — fixing what He got wrong. Maybe we believe that homosexuality is no less moral than heterosexuality, or that stealing from the rich is redeemed by giving to the poor. We may regard these moral customizations as minor and harmless but they are far from it.

Whenever we substitute our moral judgement for God’s, we don’t just reject His laws, we reject Him because morality is a reflection of who He is. Every deviation from the moral law — every instance in which we reject the biblical standard — is an indictment of God’s character. We are effectively accusing Him of falling short of moral perfection. We are accusing Him of sin.

And who is therefore sinless in this scenario? Who is the standard of moral perfection? Why, we are, of course. If our moral sense is better than God’s then we are necessarily His superiors. And if we are His superiors then He, by definition, isn’t God.

Out with the old God, in with the new

God and morality are a package deal — we take both or neither. Any attempt to tailor morality to suit our predispositions is really an attempt to fashion for ourselves a new god — one made in our image.

We in the developed world may not have much use for deities made of wood or gold but those made of hash tags are all the rage. Whether it be #SocialJustice, #Equity, #Diversity, and #Inclusion or #MAGA, #Patriotism, and #USA, we are desperately attempting to raise some kind of flag above the Cross2; to find a god more palatable to our fallen nature.

Some of those gods bear a better resemblance to the actual God than do others, of course. A moral system that claims God is mostly right is clearly more accurate than one that claims He is mostly wrong, but a counterfeit is still a counterfeit no matter its accuracy.

So as we enter what our society now calls “Pride Month,” know that when you see a church flying the (modified3) rainbow flag you aren’t seeing a church with a different view of God, you’re seeing a church with a different god. And false gods cannot deliver us from hell, they can only deliver us to it.

There is only one moral standard because there is only one God. We may pretend otherwise — we may even believe otherwise — but reality is not affected by belief, no matter how sincere, or by social pressure, no matter how intense. Man may judge us in this life, but God will judge us after; and that god will be the true God, not one of our own making.

• It’s tempting to prohibit bad ideas from being expressed

• The problem is that we can’t agree on what constitutes “good” and “bad”

• If only good ideas are allowed then whoever decides what is “good” will control society

• Human nature will exploit any opportunity to silence opposition

• The censorship debate is not about which ideas are palatable, it’s about whether government should be permitted to criminalize thought

Some people have really bad ideas. Not merely "bad" in the sense of being incorrect but also in the sense of being evil. Most of us would prefer that these ideas weren't in circulation, of course, so that raises the question of whether we should allow government to forcibly silence them.

This would be censorship, obviously, and that doesn't have a particularly good reputation in the West. But just think of all we could accomplish -- of all the good that could be done -- if we weren't constantly having to combat bad ideas. How many lives could have been saved if nazism, fascism, and communism had never been permitted to take hold?

Given these examples, it seems clear that we should only allow the expression of good ideas. Lives would be saved, and we could get down to the serious business of social progress.

But there's a problem. To paraphrase Thomas Sowell: the most basic question is not what is good but who shall decide what is good.

Who shall decide?

It turns out that people have very different notions of what constitutes "good" and "evil." Christians, for example, believe that the Bible is good and certain activity, such as homosexuality, is evil. Leftists, however, believe that the Bible is evil and homosexuality is good. These are not reconcilable differences.

If we as a society decide that only good ideas may be expressed, then one group is going to get a megaphone while everyone else gets a muzzle. If Christians get to decide which ideas are good then homosexuality isn't going to make the cut. If leftists get to decide, the Bible isn't going to make the cut.

In the former case, gay bars are going to be shuttered. In the latter, churches.

"Hate speech" = "bad speech"

It's simply impossible to limit expression to only good ideas when we can't even decide what "good" is. Any attempt to do so will inevitably result in an oligarchy ruled by whomever gets to define "good." If that's the kind of society you're looking for, you needn't wait for it to fully materialize in the US; you can move to any communist, socialist, fascist, or islamist country right now. Paradise surely awaits you.

Of course no one wants to live in such a society unless, of course, he is controlling it, which is the Left's intention. The scenario I've described above -- one in which a small ruling class maintains its power by prohibiting opposing ideas -- is precisely what leftists are attempting to bring about through so-called "hate speech" laws. The question here as before, is not what is hateful but who decides what is hateful. And, as before, the same answers and consequences apply.

Can't we just silence the really bad stuff?

But might lives be saved by preventing the spread of evil ideas like fascism? In theory, yes, but not in practice. Here again we have the same problem: the question is not what is fascist but who decides what is fascist. That sounds absurd until we realize that we've been living this reality every day for several years.

As we're all aware, a major disruptive element in our society (and that is putting it kindly) is a group called AntiFa, which is short for "anti-fascist." But while this group claims to oppose fascism, it perpetuates the same principles and tactics of those who, just a century ago, called themselves fascists. What's more, they label "fascist" anything and anyone they disagree with regardless of whether that person or thing has any conceivable connection to fascism.

They take it upon themselves to decide what is fascist because doing so justifies what would otherwise be unjustifiable; namely, committing acts of violence against their political opponents. This is something they intend to do regardless of whether their opponents are fascists. Labeling them as such just puts a more socially-acceptable face on the violence.

And this gets to the heart of the issue: human beings are natural tyrants who will seize on any opportunity to silence their opposition, even if they have to cite a specious basis for doing so. Once society or government provides a means to impose that silence -- no matter how limited its intent -- we are going to exploit it. If the only kind of acceptable punching is nazi-punching, then everyone we want to punch becomes a nazi. If the only kind of illegal speech is "hate" or “disinformation,” then all speech we dislike is going to fall into one of those categories.

It's not about desire, it's about rights

The censorship debate is not fundamentally about whether certain ideas such as fascism are desirable, it's about whether the government should be permitted to criminalize thought. It's about whether politicians, bureaucrats, and their monied puppet-masters should be allowed to violate our God-given rights in order to solidify their power. Everything else is misdirection.

I don't want leftism to spread for the same reason I don't want cancer to spread, but its bad ideas can be stopped by good ideas. They cannot, however, be stopped by silence.

Subscribe now

• Before bothering to determine who is committing censorship, we first need to determine whether censorship is wrong

• Americans have historically considered censorship a problem, but the Left considers it a solution

• Censorship is a symptom; leftism the disease

• This war with the Left is fundamentally moral, not political

• Losing to evil means Hell on Earth

Censorship: problem or solution?

Both the Left and Right accuse one another of censorship, though both claims are not equally true. But before we determine who is actually doing the censoring, we have to first establish whether it even matters. After all, if there’s nothing wrong with censorship, it doesn't matter whether anyone is doing it.

Prior to the communist takeover of the Democrat Party, we wouldn't have had to question whether censorship was immoral; it was a given. Both sides of the political aisle accused the other of censorship, and neither wanted to be associated with it.

But where these past generations regarded censorship as a problem, today's Left considers it a solution. They don't refer to their speech suppression as "censorship," of course; that term comes loaded with too much baggage. Instead, they claim to be opposing an epidemic of misinformation, disinformation, and "malinformation." But censorship by any other name is still censorship; and regardless of what it may be called, we can be sure to find it present within every institution controlled by the Left.

Censorship is a symptom, not the disease

This isn't to say that all censorship is the product of leftism, but it is to say that leftism always produces censorship. And this shouldn't surprise us because leftism has no basis for opposing censorship. Leftists do not believe, as we do, that their opponents should be given a fair hearing because they do not believe their opponents have a right to speak.

Trying to shame them for speech suppression is like trying to shame a pig for wallowing in the mud. The pig is just being a pig and the leftist is just being a leftist; both are merely being true to their nature. The leftist is not going to be talked out of censoring so long as he remains a leftist, so our problem is not censorship, per se, but leftism.

On a practical level, we need to push back against censorship in the courts and legislatures. This is essential because if we lose this battle, bloodshed is inevitable. If we lose our ability to defend ourselves metaphysically with ideas (the First Amendment), our only remaining option will be to do so physically with weapons (the Second Amendment). No sensible person wants this. It is always better to spill ink than blood.

But stopping censorship is not the fight, it merely keeps us in the fight. The real fight is against the immoral worldview of leftism that rejects God and everything derived from Him, including the inherent and equal value of all human life -- the basis of our civilization. The leftist worldview is not just un-American, it is anti-American. An argument for America is an argument against leftism, and vice versa. Thus, the Left and Right are not divided by how to pursue Americanism, they are divided by whether to pursue it.

Either leftism or Americanism, not both

Those of us on the Right are effectively making the case for America's existence. We are arguing, as our forefathers did, for the principles in the Declaration of Independence and their practical outworking, as enumerated in the Constitution. But our challenge is greater than our Founders' because they had a common biblical foundation to which to appeal in their dealings with England. There was at least a shared belief in God and therefore in the inherent value of human life.

This, however, is not the case in our dealings with leftists. We and they share no common ground; no basis for parlay. The Left is an insurgent force within the United States; one necessarily committed to its downfall. Each of its victories comes at the expense of American principles -- the two cannot peacefully coexist. Either leftism or Americanism will be defeated.

The war is fundamentally moral, not political

This war is currently being waged on the battlefield of morality. The Left, by virtue of rejecting God, has an inverted moral perspective -- it sees good as evil and evil as good. For this reason, it is not enough to fight on an issue-by-issue basis; doing so is like cutting the heads from a hydra -- new ones sprout to replace those that have been severed. We need to instead stab at the heart of the beast by attacking its (im)moral premises. It is not, for example, sufficient to attack the Left for being censorious, we have to attack censorship for being immoral.

Leftism is not mistaken, it is evil, and if we are not willing to say so, we will lose. Failure to expose evil as evil is tantamount to accepting its premises, and since both culture and politics are downstream from morality, accepting evil's premises redounds to total surrender. We will not merely lose the censorship battle, we will lose every battle and ultimately the war.

Losing to evil means Hell on Earth

What does losing look like? It looks like the Soviet Union. Like North Korea, like China, like Nazi Germany. It looks like mass extermination, indoctrination, and deprivation. It means that slavery will not only return, it will dominate. Total surveillance, complete censorship, secret police, unjust courts, sudden disappearances, and so on will become the New Normal.

The United States was created as a haven for those seeking to escape this kind of evil, and it remains the only place on earth remotely capable of serving in that role today. In the words of President Ronald Reagan:

If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.

Leftism is evil. We must deal with it accordingly.

Subscribe now

• Leftists’ attitude toward “free speech” is that you are free to repeat the speech they’ve prescribed for you

• Conservatives’ attitude toward “free speech” is that every person has a God-given right to freely speak his mind, and that this right cannot be violated by the lesser authority of government

• “Free speech” is a dangerous term that advances the Left’s tyrannical agenda

• The Constitution protects the people’s “freedom of speech,” not “free speech.” It’s about people, not words.

• Conservatives must stop using terminology weighted in favor of tyranny

Free speech: Content vs. context

Given that leftists and Conservatives have different and completely irreconcilable goals for society, it should surprise no one to learn that the two sides also have different and completely irreconcilable definitions of "free speech."

Leftists are concerned with the content of speech -- the specific ideas being expressed. They want the law to discriminate in their favor such that leftist ideas flow unimpeded through every sector of society while all other ideas are forcibly silenced and thus inaccessible.

To that end, they define "free speech" as the collection of ideas they will permit you to express -- those that won't get you canceled, fired, imprisoned, tortured, or executed. Coincidentally, these ideas just happen to be their ideas, so, in practice, "free speech" is just another way of saying "leftist speech." Their attitude is: you are free to speak our ideas. They are the ventriloquist; you are the dummy.

Conservatives, by contrast, are not focused on content but context. Their goal is to ensure that speech takes place within the context of a free society; one in which any person may express any idea. When they reference "free speech," the word "free" does not, as the Left insists, describe a kind of speech but a kind of environment for speech.

"Free speech" is dangerous

Unfortunately, the phrase "free speech" naturally plays into the Left's hands by giving the impression that "free" is a kind/category of speech (as if you could walk into Barnes and Noble and find a section called "Free" nestled somewhere between Folklore and Gardening).

And once we accept the premise that "free" is a category of speech, it's only natural to conclude that anything outside of this category is not free and therefore not protected by the Constitution. This reasoning is the basis for the Left's claim that “hate speech is not free speech,” and for its corollary that “hate speech” can be legally suppressed or even punished.

"Free speech" is not constitutional

The Constitution, however, does not distinguish amongst types of speech; in fact, it doesn’t even allude to the existence of types of speech. Whatever it has to say about speech it says about all speech, regardless of content. Consequently, all speech — hateful or otherwise — enjoys equal protection, as seen in the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The Constitution doesn't protect "free speech," it protects "freedom of speech" because its concern is people's freedoms, not their words. We can openly express our ideas not because they are free but because we are.

Like the rest of the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment was written to prevent the government from infringing on the God-given rights of citizens -- the very thing the Left is trying to do when it claims that certain kinds of speech can be censored. Their claim is not just unconstitutional, it's anti-constitutional and thus cannot go unchallenged.

Watch your language

It's not without an appreciation for irony that I end an article about freedom of speech by encouraging people not to say certain things, but here I go anyway:

We Conservatives need to stop using language that works against us. When we repeat words and phrases like "free speech" that are weighted in favor of the Left, we unnecessarily place ourselves at a disadvantage before debate even begins. We end up having to first crawl out of the hole leftists have dug for us before we can even think of meaningfully engaging them. Obviously, it's better to avoid these pitfalls in the first place by simply being more precise in our wording.

I'll go one step farther and say that such precision is our duty. When we allow leftists’ deceptive terminology to metastasize throughout our culture, their tyrannical premises gain a foothold that is increasingly difficult to dislodge. We've seen this with "free speech," "white supremacy," "love is love," "trans-women," "minor-attracted persons," "disinformation," "The Science™," and a host of other phrases specifically crafted to undermine truth. If we care about restoring liberty, we must push back. If we don't resist tyranny with words we are doomed to do so with guns, and that's not an outcome any of us should wish for.