Bill Clinton may be done, but that’s not enough

Bill Clinton and the Democratic Party

That’s not nearly enough.

Clinton accused of sexually assaulting four (more) women

As the Daily Mail reports (via ZeroHedge):

Bill Clinton is facing explosive new charges of sexual assault from four women, according to highly placed Democratic Party sources and an official who served in both the Clinton and Obama administrations.

The current accusations against the 71-year-old former president — whose past is littered with charges of sexual misconduct — stem from the period after he left the White House in 2001, say the sources.

Attorneys representing the women, who are coordinating their efforts, have notified Clinton they are preparing to file four separate lawsuits against him.

As part of the ongoing negotiations, the attorneys for the women are asking for substantial payouts in return for their clients’ silence.

A member of Clinton’s legal team has confirmed the existence of the new allegations.

The negotiations in the new lawsuits are said to have reached a critical stage.

If they fail, according to sources in Clinton’s inner circle, the four women are said to be ready to air their accusations of sexual assault at a press conference, making Clinton the latest — and most famous — figure in a long list of men from Harvey Weinstein to Kevin Spacey who have recently been accused of sexual assault.

The new allegations refer to incidents that  took place more than 10 years ago, in the early 2000s, when Clinton was hired by Ron Burkle, the playboy billionaire investor, to work at his Yucaipa companies.

Clinton helped Burkle generate business and flew around the world with a flock of beautiful young women on Burkle’s private jet, which was nicknamed ‘Air F**k One.’

The four women, who have not yet revealed their identities, were employed in low-level positions at the Burkle organization when they were in their late teens and claim they were sexually assaulted by the former president.

There are two additional tidbits worth highlighting.

First, the story quotes a Democratic party official stating that “Bill is distraught at the thought of having to testify and defend himself against sex charges again.”

I bet he is.

Second, while Hillary Clinton is reportedly furious with her hubby for getting entangled in yet another sexual scandal, she “offered to hire private detectives to dig up dirt on the women”. Bill Clinton’s attorneys, however, persuaded her from doing so.

The bionic mosquito thinks that because of this story, Bill and Hillary Clinton are done. While he may be right, I will be far from satisfied if this is all that happens.

Burn the Democratic party to the ground

The American left in general, and the Democratic party in particular, fought tooth and nail to keep Bill Clinton in office, regardless of the accusations against him. Feminists, who would have otherwise been abhorred by men demanding sexual favors of their female subordinates, defended Clinton regarding his treatment of Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, and Monica Lewinsky. Dateline NBC’s 1999 interview of Juanita Broaddrick , who accused Bill Clinton of raping her in the late 1970s (and Hillary Clinton of threatening her to keep quiet), was not aired until after the Senate acquitted Clinton of the House’s two impeachment charges. was created to support Clinton during his impeachment hearings, and became a staple of American politics afterwards.

Ever since, the American left has tried to be two completely opposite things simultaneously: the party of workers, minorities, and women, and the party of power. The left has been made sick by focusing on holding power, primarily through its use of inter-sectional politics. They don’t give a rat’s ass about workers, minorities, or women. What they care about is doing whatever it takes – whatever it takes – to stay in control.

No more.

For the first time in a long time, the American left finds itself needing to make a tactical retreat. That retreat is in the form of media outlets calling into question whether it was a good idea to defend Bill Clinton when the allegations were originally made.


However, the left has a lot more to confront, primarily because it refused to side with the women that Clinton harmed in the first place. If Bill Clinton was forced to accept responsibility for his actions, the culture war in which we find ourselves could very well have been avoided.

The left’s failure to confront Clinton has led to disastrous consequences to American politics and culture. Its hypocrisy have been the primary factors behind the toxic combination of identity politics and social justice warriors with which we find ourselves. Those forces have poisoned American culture, the effects through which we are presently suffering.

It is bad enough that the left has destroyed American finances, industry, and cities. Now we have to contend with the young souls that have been indoctrinated by the left’s overly emotional, Satanic mantras.

It is not enough for the left to finally purge itself of the Clinton legacy. It is far too late for that.

America needs to purge itself of the left.

The American left is bankrupt: financially, politically, culturally, and spiritually. So there’s only one thing left to do.

Without violence, without mayhem, and yet without pity: kill it.

I want the American left dead.

I want its influence dead.

I want it burned to the ground.

And may it rot in the dustbin of history.

And to those who are concerned about the neocon’s influence on American politics, as I am, I have one simple response.

Don’t worry. It’s time will also come.


The post Bill Clinton may be done, but that’s not enough appeared first on A Simple Fool.

Source: A Simple Fool – Bill Clinton may be done, but that’s not enough

SJWs want what they want


A member of the Tom Woods Show Elite’s private Facebook page asked an interesting question. He asked what do SJWs want. He also asked how can libertarians reach SJWs.

These are very good questions, and this post is my humble attempt in answering them.

Basically, what SJWs want is what they want.

And they want it now.

It really doesn’t matter specifically what SJWs want. They don’t have a consistent philosophy or intellectual framework. Rather, their positions – never call them arguments, because they’re not – arise for one of two reasons: 1) it either justifies behavior which, in other circumstances, would be considered degenerate or unethical, or 2) it satiates a need to feel a particular emotion that, for whatever reason, resonates with them when holding that position. They are only satisfied when no one pushes back on their questionable behavior, or they are able to maintain feeling the emotion that they are seeking.

Anyone who pushes back against their position prevents them from either pretending that what they’re doing is socially acceptable or preventing them from keeping calm. Hence, their reaction is purely emotional, and is displayed as anger and/or righteous indignation. However, they’re not angry because they were proven wrong; they’re angry because someone is bursting their emotional bubble. They have no arguments against their opponents. All they have is the emotional state they are trying to preserve. Hence, all they respond with is anger and indignation.

As for how libertarians should reach out to them, I wish I knew. I haven’t the slightest idea.

The left maintains power in the United States by controlling The Narrative, which isn’t based on reason and facts, but stories and fairy tales justifying the prevailing power structure. In many ways, SJWs are foot soldiers for the American Left, in that their constantly-evolving demands based on increasingly-silly reasons keep the non-Left off-balance.

I would be interested in hearing any suggestions on how libertarians can deal with SJWs.


The post SJWs want what they want appeared first on A Simple Fool.

Source: A Simple Fool – SJWs want what they want

Not all gifts are good

Gift or curse?

Over the past few days, I am afraid I have identified something within my personality that is a cross between a talent, a gift, and a curse.

On at least two occasions, I have had conversions that have gone along the following lines:

  • I state position on a particular topic.
  • Someone else states an opposite position on the same topic.
  • We find ourselves at an impasse.
  • I make a remark so tangential so as to sound arbitrary.
  • The other person responds with a caustic remark that indicates a dark soul.

I was surprised by both outcomes. However, the common theme between both folks is that each have an extremely hostile attitude towards those who are: a) Christian and b) believe that each individual has a natural right to defend themselves (a la Second Amendment).

In many ways, what I have experienced is similar to how leftists react to Trump. His alpha behavior brings out the worst of his opponents, much to the left’s dismay, and everyone else’s delight. While Trump doesn’t necessarily act so as to lead to their ridiculous responses, he doesn’t really care how foolish they look, either.

It would be one thing if instances such as these would lead those who make really nasty remarks an opportunity to look in the mirror and reflect on the state where they are. However, my experiences has been none who have found themselves in this trip have been either willing or able to do so.

I honestly do not know what to do with this observation. I am not intentionally baiting these folks into making their remarks, yet the remarks, indeed, are made.

What I do know is the last thing I want to do is purposefully bait people into making nasty remarks.

Because if I were to do so, the other person’s soul may not be the only one that’s black.


The post Not all gifts are good appeared first on A Simple Fool.

Source: A Simple Fool – Not all gifts are good

Donna Brazille: Clinton Campaign Rigged the Democratic Primary

Back in August 2016, I posted about a Bloomberg study suggesting that Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign used the Hillary Victory Fund to launder donations from wealthy individuals to the Democratic National Committee:

In essence, wealthy donors can take advantage of the current framework of campaign finance laws to donate up to $366,000 to the Hillary Victory Fund. The fund then sends the maximum contributions to the Hillary For President campaign, the Democratic National Committee, and state democratic committees.

The beauty of this arrangement is that once the state democratic committees receive the funds, they have the flexibility to send it to the DNC, which can then decide which state and national campaigns, including Hillary’s, to finance.

Today, Donna Brazille, who served as interim chair of the Democratic National Committee during the Democratic convention, wrote a shocking article in Politico (which ZeroHedge also published) in which she accused the Clinton campaign of taking over the DNC to secure her nomination:

Right around the time of the [Democratic] convention the leaked emails revealed Hillary’s campaign was grabbing money from the state parties for its own purposes, leaving the states with very little to support down-ballot races. A Politico story published on May 2, 2016, described the big fund-raising vehicle she had launched through the states the summer before, quoting a vow she had made to rebuild “the party from the ground up … when our state parties are strong, we win. That’s what will happen.”

Yet the states kept less than half of 1 percent of the $82 million they had amassed from the extravagant fund-raisers Hillary’s campaign was holding … When the Politico story described this arrangement as “essentially … money laundering” for the Clinton campaign, Hillary’s people were outraged at being accused of doing something shady. Bernie [Sanders]’s people were angry for their own reasons, saying this was part of a calculated strategy to throw the nomination to Hillary.

I wanted to believe Hillary, who made campaign finance reform part of her platform, but I had made this pledge to Bernie [to determine whether Hillary had rigged the nomination process] and did not want to disappoint him. I kept asking the party lawyers and the DNC staff to show me the agreements that the party had made for sharing the money they raised, but there was a lot of shuffling of feet and looking the other way.

When I got back from a vacation in Martha’s Vineyard I at last found the document that described it all: the Joint Fund-Raising Agreement between the DNC, the Hillary Victory Fund, and Hillary for America.

The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias—specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.

I had been wondering why it was that I couldn’t write a press release without passing it by Brooklyn. Well, here was the answer.

On the one hand, given how the Democratic nomination process transpired last year, the fact that Hillary’s campaign had rigged it is not surprising.

However, it is clearly shocking that a DNC chair laid out how Hillary rigged the process.

This, my friends, is an earthquake.

While it may get a little bumpy, I hope you enjoy the ride!


The post Donna Brazille: Clinton Campaign Rigged the Democratic Primary appeared first on A Simple Fool.

Source: A Simple Fool – Donna Brazille: Clinton Campaign Rigged the Democratic Primary

Mainstream media protects alleged pedophile while rebuking athlete for racist gestures

The evening of Sunday, October 29, 2017 was one of the most bizarre in this writer’s life. Not only did I observe the Los Angeles Dodgers suffer an agonizing defeat in the 10th inning of game 5 of the World Series (even though it was one of the best baseball games I have ever seen), I also witnessed an incredible story develop on Twitter over Anthony Rapp’s accusation that Kevin Spacey sexually assaulted him when he was 14 years old.

On the surface, neither story should relate to one another. However, if one compares how the media addressed Rapp’s accusation against Spacey with how it covered an earlier incident in the World Series, their actions speak volumes about their priorities.

Before comparing how the media reacted to these stories, let us briefly review the facts about each of them.

Rapp accuses Spacey of sexual assault

BuzzFeed summarizes Rapp’s accusation against Spacey this way:

In an interview with BuzzFeed News, Rapp is publicly alleging for the first time that in 1986, Spacey befriended Rapp while they both performed on Broadway shows, invited Rapp over to his apartment for a party, and, at the end of the night, picked Rapp up, placed him on his bed, and climbed on top of him, making a sexual advance. According to public records, Spacey was 26. Rapp was 14.

Hours after BuzzFeed published the story, Spacey posted the following response on Twitter:

As an aside, Seth MacFarlane, who appears to have been Hollywood’s human version of the Advanced Warning System, included this snippet in an episode of “Family Guy”:

Now that the basic facts of Rapp’s allegations against Spacey have been established, let us now turn to the World Series incident.

Yuli Gurriel makes racist gestures towards Yu Darvish

During game 3 of the World Series, Houston Astros catcher Yuli Gurriel hit a home run against Dodgers pitcher Yu Darvish. After returning to the Astros’ bench, Gurriel made two insulting gestures towards Darvish, who is part Japanese.

In the article Yuli Gurriel’s offensive gesture provokes outrage among Asian Americans, the Los Angeles Times reports:

After hitting a home run off the Dodgers’ Yu Darvish, Gurriel put his fingers to the sides of his face, lifted the corners of his eyes and mouthed the word “chinito,” Spanish for “Chinese boy.” Darvish, who was born in Japan, is of Japanese and Iranian descent.

In response to his actions, Major League Baseball suspended Gurriel for five games. However, his suspension will occur at the beginning of the next regular season; Gurriel has been able to continue playing in the World Series.

How the mainstream media covered these stories

Now let us compare how the mainstream media portrayed these two stories. To the extent possible, I want to focus on two things: 1) media outlets that published articles on both stories, and 2) the original articles the media published in response to the Spacey story.

ABC News


New York Daily News

What is the media really worried about?

Not only is the mainstream media far more upset about Gurriel’s gesture to Darvish than they are about Spacey’s possible sexual assault against Rapp, they are helping Spacey by focusing on his sexual orientation rather than the far more serious nature of the accusation against him.

Spacey made the same move Harvey Weinstein made when he responded to a New York Times’s exposé that documented Weinstein’s payouts to sexual harassment accusers for decades. In his statement, Weinstein vowed to go after the National Rifle Association and Donald Trump, and give millions of dollars to help women directors. Fortunately, Weinstein’s shameless attempt to signal the right virtues did not gather any significant liberal support for him.

However, as can be seen above, Spacey’s disingenuous move was far more successful than Weinstein’s, at least with the media.

The mainstream media is actually more upset with a baseball player making racist gestures than with a Hollywood star allegedly sexually assaulting a teenager.

Or is it that the media is far more concerned about the implications that a Hollywood star sexually assaulted a teenager than a baseball player making racist gestures?

No wonder no one trusts them anymore.


The post Mainstream media protects alleged pedophile while rebuking athlete for racist gestures appeared first on A Simple Fool.

Source: A Simple Fool – Mainstream media protects alleged pedophile while rebuking athlete for racist gestures

Catalonia declares independence from Spain

Well, la mierda ha golpeado oficialmente al fan:

The Catalan Parliament voted to declare independence from Spain on Friday afternoon, with 70 votes in favour, 10 against and 2 blank, in a 135-member chamber.

The Speaker, Carme Forcadell, read out part of the resolution from the Speaker’s chair before separatists voted.

Opposition parties abandoned the chamber. Xavier García Albiol (PP) said separatists were cowards who were afraid of Spanish criminal law and that is why they wanted to vote in secret.

Junts Pel Sí asked for the vote to be secret, and the Speaker agreed, despite opposition protests. Those MPs who had remained behind placed their ballots in a box placed on the Speaker’s table.

After the vote, the members remaining in the chamber sang Els Segadors.

The Spanish government’s response was swift. Within minutes of the Catalan Parliament’s declaration, the Spanish Senate overwhelmingly voted to activate Article 155 of Spain’s 1978 constitution. Spanish Prime Minister Rajoy used this law to dissolve the Catalan government, and announce provincial elections to take place on December 21st.

On the foreign relations front, while the United States State Department issued a statement supporting Spain’s efforts to keep Catalonia within the country, Russia is playing a different game. El País reports that a Russian envoy has opened an office in Catalonia:

A politician from South Ossetia known for his political affinities with Russian President Vladimir Putin visited Barcelona this week, with the goal of establishing ties between Kremlin circles and a hypothetical independent Catalonia, according to Spanish intelligence sources.

Dimitri Medoyev, the de facto foreign minister for the partially recognized republic of South Ossetia, was on an official visit in Catalonia on Monday and Tuesday. During this time he met with business leaders and opened an office “to promote bilateral relations on humanitarian and cultural issues,” according to reports in Russian public news organizations such as Sputnik.

Before visiting Catalonia, Medoyev stopped in the Italian regions of Lombardy and Veneto just as they were holding referendums to ask Rome for greater autonomy. While he was there, Medoyev met with local and regional leaders.

Neither the Catalan government nor separatist authorities in South Ossetia would comment on whether Medoyev met with high-ranking Catalan officials or lawmakers during his Barcelona stay.

While it may be easy to reflexively dismiss such moves by Russia, it may not be wise to do so. Russia is clearly interested in, at the very least, understanding the secessionist movements that are on the rise across Europe. These movements, along with the populist movements, are clearly on the rise. And they’re paying very close attention to what happens to Catalonia.

Take, for example, the statement Scotland’s External Secretary made, even though it has not recognized Catalonia:

“We understand and respect the position of the Catalan Government. While Spain has the right to oppose independence, the people of Catalonia must have the ability to determine their own future. Today’s Declaration of Independence came about only after repeated calls for dialogue were refused.

“Now, more than ever, the priority of all those who consider themselves friends and allies of Spain should be to encourage a process of dialogue to find a way forward that respects democracy and the rule of law. The imposition of direct rule cannot be the solution and should be of concern to democrats everywhere.

“The European Union has a political and moral responsibility to support dialogue to identify how the situation can be resolved peacefully and democratically.”

Basically, Scotland is telling the European Union that it better work to peacefully address the tensions between Spain and Catalonia. Otherwise, it will seek out partners who indicate that they will listen to secessionist movements.

Such as Russia.

Meanwhile, libertarians, while encouraged by the possible breakup of a larger political entity, do not exactly see Catalonia becoming a free market paradise anytime soon. As Robert Wenzel notes:

Catalonian secessionists are mostly hardcore leftists, who would push for an oppressive leftist government in a separate Catalonia. On the other hand, Spain is putting on display its iron fist and its desire to rule.

While this is certainly the case, if Catalonia were to actually break free from Spain, there would be knock-on effects that could be positive for freedom that we haven’t contemplated at this point.

For example, as smaller regions breakaway from larger political units, it will become that much more challenging for larger countries to service debts incurred to maintain their welfare states. If welfare states actually buckle under, while there could be intermittent turmoil, there would also be opportunities to dismantle welfare programs, thereby allowing for greater freedom.

However, that is getting ahead of the current situation. What matters now is that Spain and Catalonia are at an impasse. Whatever happens going forward, let us hope that, at the very least, there is very little if any violence.


The post Catalonia declares independence from Spain appeared first on A Simple Fool.

Source: A Simple Fool – Catalonia declares independence from Spain

Vox Day: Mark Shea is a shameless liar

Day makes the strong accusation against Shea in response to a blog post that included the following passages:

Alt Right worshippers of blood and race have made an idol of whiteness. As though your skin is a culture and, worse, as though your skin is a god. They subordinate the God of the universe to a mere prop authorizing the skin idolator to fall down in worship of his race and, accordingly, to excuse the oppression and destruction of those he deems inferior to his Master Race.

The contempt of the Alt Right for “Cuck Christianity” relies on a narrative that confirms what I have come to call “Herreid’s Law”. My friend John Herreid observed some time ago that when people bedeck their Facebook page with pictures of knights, crusaders, or paladins, they tend to be kooks. The Alt Right Christian invariably does this, and their race kookiness is manifest. They only value the Christian tradition for giving them an iconography of white people killing brown ones. But of course, the Faith (and especially the Catholic faith) is chockablock with brown people–and brown saints.

Not surprising really since her Lord was brown–a standard Middle Eastern Jew of the first century. Somebody who would have been on one of Steve Bannon’s travel bans and deemed a danger by the Race Theorist of the Alt Right. Happily for us northern European stock, he put no stock in Alt Right racist crap and declared membership in his Body, the Church, open to anybody–even white supremacists idiots if they would only repent their white supremacist idiocy and confess that in Christ Jesus there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, black nor white. That’s a tall order for some of these idiots. But repentance and salvation is open to anyone, even members of the Alt Right.

While Day makes strong rhetorical punches at Shea in response, I would like to summarize the substance of his claims:

  1. The Alt-Right argues that “DNA exists, race exists, and that difference in DNA and race have a profound effect on culture and society alike”.
  2. The Alt-Right values Western civilization. In fact, Alt-Righters who are not Christian “value the Christian tradition as one of the foundational pillars of the West, without which it cannot survive.”
  3. Day refers to Matthew 15:24-26 when arguing that “Jesus Christ did put at least some stock in ‘Alt Right racist crap’”. In this passage, Jesus informs his disciples that he “was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel”, notwithstanding a gentile woman’s plea that He heal her daughter. (Which He does.)
  4. Day calls out Shea for deceitfully adding the words “black nor white” to Paul’s famous passage in Galatians 3:28 that in Christ Jesus there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave and free, male and female. Day argues that Shea’s move gave the false impression that those various differences do not exist. After all, Paul “told slaves that they remain slaves” and “condemned men having sex with men”.

Day concludes his argument thusly:

I submit that this is conclusive evidence proving that Mark Shea is a liar, a deceiver, an accuser, and a false follower of the Truth. There is no truth in him. No man who considers himself to be a Christian should pay this wormtongue any heed or respect, and he should be confronted by his church authorities and called upon to publicly repent of his lies and false accusations.

One can certainly debate the merits of Day’s arguments. (Personally, I believe the third reason is his weakest; the passage in Matthew should be read in a far more nuanced manner than he does.) Nevertheless, his points are consistent with the sixteen points he articulated about the Alt Right in August 2016.

While point 14 does state that “the Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children”, point 15 states:

The Alt Right does not believe in the general supremacy of any race, nation, people, or sub-species. Every race, nation, people, and human sub-species has its own unique strengths and weaknesses, and possesses the sovereign right to dwell unmolested in the native culture it prefers.

Further, point 16 states:

The Alt Right is a philosophy that values peace among the various nations of the world and opposes wars to impose the values of one nation upon another as well as efforts to exterminate individual nations through war, genocide, immigration, or genetic assimilation.

However, rather than address these points directly, Shea uses moronic stereotypes of the Alt Right to thrust “drop-the-mike” criticisms against it. The thought that the Alt Right “only value the Christian tradition for giving them an iconography of white people killing brown ones” is not only without basis, but repulsive. The laughable “insight” that Christianity “is chockablock with brown people–and brown saints” is such a No-Shit-Sherlock statement, it should almost pass without comment.

This is not the first time Shea has hurled vile diatribes against his opponents. In April, I lambasted him for accusing libertarians of holding their political views solely to rationalize their selfishness. I called his criticisms of libertarians “inaccurate, uncharitable, and, frankly, grotesque”. I’m afraid Shea’s treatment of his opponents hasn’t changed one whit since then.

In the post that led to Day’s strong condemnation, Shea writes that “repentance and salvation is open to anyone”.

I couldn’t agree more.


The post Vox Day: Mark Shea is a shameless liar appeared first on A Simple Fool.

Source: A Simple Fool – Vox Day: Mark Shea is a shameless liar

The Narrative must die so that civilization may live.

Civilization without The Narrative

For those of us who yearn to live in civilized society, there is this gnawing feeling that society is not well-ordered because the framework in which it functions is not well-ordered. In fact, there is a clear sense that the framework is based on nothing but a basket of lies. That is because the framework upon which contemporary society rests is The Narrative.

Vox Day describes the Narrative in his book SJWs Always Lie in this way:

The Narrative is the story that the SJWs want to tell. It is the fiction they want you to believe; it is the reality that they want to create through the denial of the problematic reality that happens to exist at the moment. And there is no one definitive Narrative. Instead, there are many Narratives, all of them subject to change at any time, thereby requiring the SJW who subscribes to them to be able to change his own professed beliefs on demand as well.

My issue with Day’s description of the Narrative isn’t that it is too broad; if anything, it is not broad enough. SJWs are merely foot soldiers for the ruling elite. Politicians, crony capitalists, lazy academics, mainstream journalists, and the like ultimately benefit from the many Narratives, because they justify their continuing control over society. However, these Narratives are based on the flimsiest of reasons, and in far too many cases, lies.

Narratives may be helpful to those in power, but they ain’t no way to run a civilization. If falsehood is the basis of power and authority, the simple result is continuous conflict and violence across society. Stefan Molyneux, in his book The Art of the Argument, summarizes the challenge well:

In the hurly-burly of human interactions, we will always have disagreements, which is nothing to be upset about, as these productive conflicts produce the very sparks of progress. The fundamental question is: how will we resolve these disagreements? Historically, two “answers” have been implemented – fundamentalist religiosity, and government power. The third alternative – far more civilized – is The Argument, the reasoned debate, the honest willingness to submit to the higher standards of reason and evidence.

In the absence of this mutual surrender to a higher standard, we end up surrendering to lower standards – superstition, government force, bullying, intimidation, sophistry, you name it. In human society, it is literally The Argument – or else.

We all possess an animalistic side that seeks power over others, over resources. Curbing this side is the essential task of civilization, and the only tools it has at its disposal are philosophy, reason, evidence, and empiricism – the anti-madness magic of clear and critical thinking. We either surrender to facts, or we must be forced to surrender to each other. We are either dominated by reality, or by force and lies. As the old song says, you have to serve somebody.

In the current conflict between The Argument or The Narrative, The Narrative is the prevailing force throughout society.

And what havoc has it wrought.

The Narrative’s primary strength is it is impervious to The Argument. It could care less about reason and evidence. Rather, it seeks the highest rhetorical ground from which to destroy its intellectual opponents, otherwise known as enemies. To those who convey The Narrative, what matters isn’t finding the truth, but holding power.

Such Narrators see interactions with intellectual opponents in martial terms because to them, engagement with such opponents is not a dialogue but a battle to win. Vox Day observed that the Narrator’s primary tool is to play upon the emotions of their audience to get them to agree with The Narrative in question. Arguments per se don’t work with them; narratives, stories, and fairy tales do.

Does that mean that all is lost to stories and fairy tales based on nothing but lies? By no means! Rhetoric needs to be met with rhetoric as fire needs to be met with fire. In a conflict set in the world of ideas, bad ideas communicated through Narratives need to be mocked, scolded, jeered, and just plain old rejected.

However, rhetoric that confronts The Narrative must be based on truth. The Argument needs to support any narrative that attacks The Narrative. Otherwise, there is the risk that, just as in The Who’s We Won’t Be Fooled Again, the new boss is the same boss, and society operates on just another set of lies.

That does not mean Narrative-crushing rhetoric can’t evolve over time, or be supported by arguments from other perspectives that, while complementary to one’s world view, is not wholly consistent with the author. On the contrary. Honest conversations between such voices can only help strengthen their respective positions while sharpening the attacks against those lies that they commonly abhor.

For far too long, the ruling elite have been able to maintain power while the purchasing power of money continues to decline, foreign wars continue unabated, migration patterns suffocate already-suffering welfare states, poverty and homelessness increase in both town and country, and high taxes and bloated administrative states throttle the entrepreneurial spirit. These antisocial forces have been justified by many Narratives. However, the value these Narratives provide to the elite decline with each successive statement. The Age of the American Empire is nearing its end. What matters now is what will replace it. Will it be a society based on The Narrative, or The Argument?

To anyone who values the truth in any meaningful way, and is concerned about the future for their children and their progeny, there is only one side to take.

Civilization itself depends on it.

The post The Narrative must die so that civilization may live. appeared first on A Simple Fool.

Source: A Simple Fool – The Narrative must die so that civilization may live.

An anxious Europe awaits

the presumably eventual announcement by the president of Catalonia, Carles Puigdemont, of the region’s secession from Spain.

Puigdemont has vowed to press ahead with his independence drive and is due to address the regional Parliament Tuesday. Rajoy, who will address the Spanish parliament on Wednesday, pledged that “national unity will be maintained” by using all instruments available to him. That includes suspending the regional administration and sending in security forces.

While Rajoy’s opening position is not surprising, what has raised the eyebrows of many is the not terribly-veiled threat made by a Popular Party spokesman:

Popular Party spokesman Pablo Casado, the party’s deputy secretary for communications, said during a press conference on Monday that Carles Puigdemont, the current First Minister of Catalonia, could “end up” like former First Minister Lluis Companys, who also declared the independence of the region on October 6, 1934.

Mr. Casado was referring to the 83rd anniversary, which was last Friday.

“Let’s hope that nothing is declared tomorrow because perhaps the person who makes the declaration will end up like the person who made the declaration 83 years ago.”

Casado did not specify if he was referring to what happened in the months following October 6, 1934—when Companys was arrested, tried and sentenced to 30 years in prison for rebellion—or what ultimately happened to the former Catalan leader.

After leaving Spain for exile in France during the Spanish Civil War, Companys was handed over by the Nazis to the Francoist regime, tried before a war council and executed at Montjuic (Barcelona) on October 15, 1940.

Casado’s idiotic remark naturally led to swift condemnation, and indicates that chances for a peaceful resolution remain low.

However, that does not mean that such a resolution should not be sought out. Gerry Adams, president of Sein Féin, provided a refresher on what a framework for a peaceful agreement would look like:

While no two disputes are the same, the broad principles to address and resolve differences are very similar and can be adapted to suit specific needs. These principles have at their heart the centrality of dialogue and mediation: the process must tackle the causes that lie at the core of the dispute. The process must be inclusive, with all parties treated as equals and mandates respected. All issues must be on the agenda, with nothing agreed until everything is agreed. There can be no preconditions and no vetoes. There can be no attempt to predetermine the outcome or preclude any outcome, and there should be a timeframe. This will provide a dynamic. Participants must stay focused and be prepared to take risks and engage in initiatives to advance the process.

The problem with Spain’s Catalonian problem is that Catalonians, in many ways, are very Spanish, particularly in their temperament. As Eric Margolis writes:

The national government in Madrid now threatens to block any further votes, dissolve the Catalan government, the Generalitat, and lock up many independence leaders.  Doing so would be very dangerous.  Spaniards are a courageous, hot-headed people who are not to be bullied.  No one wants to even think again about the awful 1930’s civil war whose echoes still reverberate today.

Margolis also observed that King Felipe IV, who should have stayed above the fray, did not do anyone any favors by “denouncing the Catalan independence-seekers, thus bringing the wrath of the Catalans on his head.”

And while a debate could be had over whether Catalonia’s secession from Spain furthers the cause of liberty, in the end, it is up to the Spanish people to determine how best to resolve this conflict.

I simply pray that, regardless of what happens this week, Spaniards keep their wits about them, and figure out a way to resolve this without violence and bloodshed.

If the Spanish (and American) civil wars have taught us anything, “victory” through violence not only does not resolve any conflicts. Further, they also create new ones, and make previous grudges that much more intractable.

May the Spanish people always act to further peace among themselves and their neighbors.

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us!

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for Spain!

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for Catalonia!


The post An anxious Europe awaits appeared first on A Simple Fool.

Source: A Simple Fool – An anxious Europe awaits