brucelewis.com

Vive le Roi! Vive la France!

2008-07-14T11:43:00.002-05:00

219 years ago today, on 14 July 1789, the original terrorists — the Revolutionaries of France — initiated their diabolical democratic movement with the storming of the Bastille. So many of the ills of the world since then began then and there.

But the Revolution will fall. Heaven is a Kingdom, not a republic, and Christ is King, not president. As above, so may it be below.

Down with the Revolution! Long live the once and future Christian Kingdom of France!

Whither The Secular State?

2008-07-14T11:01:00.004-05:00

A Christian registrar who refused to carry out gay 'weddings' won a landmark legal battle yesterday. Lillian Ladele, 47, was threatened with the sack [being fired], bullied and 'thrown before the lions' after asking to be excused from conducting civil partnerships for same-sex couples because of her religious beliefs.

But yesterday a tribunal agreed that her faith had been ridden roughshod over by equalities-obsessed Islington Council, which had sought to 'trump one set of rights with another'. The groundbreaking decision could lead to firms facing 'conscience claims' from staff who say their own beliefs prevent them carrying out part of their job.

Yesterday's ruling found that Liberal Democrat-run Islington Council in North London cared too much about the 'rights of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual' community. It also found that the council – which gave Miss Ladele an ultimatum to choose between her beliefs and her £31,000-a-year job – showed no respect for her rights as a Christian. Source: London Daily Mail, 2008 10 July

The objections are predictable. "What would we all say about a registrar who refused to marry people because they are genetically inferior (according to the registrar’s understanding of such) and would produce defective offspring?" wrote one sensitive soul in reaction to this story. "If my ethical beliefs say that people with genetic diseases should not reproduce, and as a registrar I would refuse to marry them, it should be accorded less value than someone’s religious beliefs?" Another sincere writer declares in response that "Government needs to be able to define a job description and anyone who can't fulfill those duties, no matter the reason, should find another job." Still another opines that "the interpretation of words from an ancient book are more valid than one's own moral code developed independently of such dusty old books. You can all go back to your regularly scheduled programming, and lionization of this woman because her beliefs coincide with your own, and no other practical reason." [Link] It seems that many people, even on the so-called Right, object to Ms. Ladele's refusal to "marry" two persons of the same sex. The basic objection they share is that Ms. Ladele is a government official, and that those in the employ of the government of a democratic state should be neutral on matters of religion.

A lot of people share this view (even in England, a nation which has an established Christian church!). Unfortunately for them, however, the idea that a government should be neutral on matters of religious belief is absurd. There can be no such thing as a de facto secular government.

The modern concept of secular government flies in the face of everything we know of human history and behavior. Governments do no appear ex nihilo; they arise from human beings living in society. But human beings cannot live together in society unless they are bound together by a glue of culture — a shared system of thought and values based upon a cult, i.e. upon religious beliefs. Humans who share the same culture consider themselves “brothers” — members of a nation, a “family” defined by that culture. Bearing this in mind, it is obvious that no such thing as a secular society has ever existed, nor can such a thing ever exist. Once a given society loses its culture, the members of that society no longer consider themselves brothers, but competitors; the society then degenerates into a mass of competing nations, each defined by its own culture. A war of all against all follows, until one nation gains enough power to impose its culture on the others by force.

No government without society; no society without culture; no culture without cult. No matter what kind of secular constitution a given society might have, culture will out; in the end, someone’s morality will be legislated; someone's God is going to be the basis of government.

Our society is not exempt. The so-called Reformation removed the Catholic Church as the cultural root of the West; from the wreckage of Christendom came the wars of the nation-states, each with its own culture. Now "liberated" from the shackles of Catholic culture, every man was now free to be his own pope — to define Christianity to suit himself (each acting always under the “inspiration of the Holy Spirit”, of course). Christ the King was replaced by the individual Liberty enthroned, which stripped the nation-states of their sacramental hierarchies and replaced them with the cult of the Common Man, aka Democracy. Every man was now both his own pope and his own king. Then, came the rise of Baconian materialism, which denied the substantial and supernatural basis of existence itself; reality was now defined strictly as “that which can be poked with a stick”. By redefining the Universe (and Man himself) as mere material, Western man arrogated to himself the role of Creator as well. Each man was now his own pope, king, and God.

Yet the West hung on, protected from the worst excesses of self-deification by the lingering remnants of what once was called “Christian decency”. Despite the elimination of God as creator (by Darwin) and Christ as Savior (by Marx) in the minds of Western man, there remained a sort of genetic resistance to taking Liberty, Reason, and Materialism to their ultimate philosophical ends; there were some things that civilized, European people just didn’t do. As late as the 1890s, for example, the idea of soldiers deliberately targeting noncombatant civilians in time of war was unthinkable by Western military men. Any British, French, or German ship captain found to have deliberately sunk an unarmed ocean liner would have been brought before a court-martial on war crimes charges.

And so Western civilization tottered along, ever more liberal, ever more secular, protected from its own worst excesses by its legacy of “Christian decency”. Then came the 20th Century, the two World Wars, and the spread of the secular idea to the ends of the earth.

As a political entity, the United States is de jure a secular state; as a nation, however, it has survived and prospered as a de facto European Judeo-Christian nation, united by the remants of the shared European Judeo-Christian culture of the majority population. Sadly, as have the other nations of the West, we have slowly secularized, living off the cultural capital of pre-Enlightement Christendom while gradually becoming more and more liberal, more and more individualist, more and more materialist. In the past, this cultural legacy was strong enough to protect us from ourselves; now, however, the tattered strands of European Judeo-Christian culture are too thin to support us any longer. The collapse is coming.

And it will come, sooner or later. Our pretty little pretend castle of individual Liberty, materialist Reason, and idolatrous Self-Deification will collapse like the house of cards it always was. Civil war will follow. And, in time, one of the surviving cultural groups will impose its culture (and its God) on those who live through the years of chaos. For the sake of our descendants, I hope that European Judeo-Christian culture triumphs to serve as the pillar of Christendom reborn.

Until then, it will be the small victories — such as that of Lillian Ladele — that will give us hope.

Thomas M. Disch (2 February 1940 – 4 July 2008)

2008-07-07T02:39:00.004-05:00

Thomas M. Disch, science fiction writer and poet, committed suicide July 4 in New York. He was sixty-eight years old.

Disch was an exceptionally talented writer. Unfortunately, he was a man without hope, without which no man can survive. A futurist who had little use for the future, Disch specialized in stories of humans struggling to survive against inhuman, invincible forces outside of their control. His first novel, 1965's The Genocides, is a bleak no-future tale in which the entire human race is wiped out by aliens; his (arguable) magnum opus, 334 (1972), is a detailed examination of the grim, banal, and ultimately futile lives of the inhabitants of the titular New York City address in a Tomorrow where the Great Society envisioned by the technocratic macro-planners of the late 1960s/early 1970s has become a reality. Anyone who has ever wondered what America would have been like if the fondest dreams of well-intentioned '60s liberals had come true need only consult 334, which depicts in grimy detail a nation of hedonistic underachievers, living cheek-by-jowl in huge, crumbling urban housing blocks, tranquilized by mindless TV and legal drugs and insulated from risk by the benevolence of MODICUM, the federal government's all-encompassing welfare apparatus. Imagine a world run by the Food Stamp bureau — that's 334.

His disdain for the techno-utopianism common to the science fiction of the 1950s and early '60s was not a personal flaw, however; rather, it was born of a deep-seated desire for honesty on Disch's part. As did most of his New Wave contemporaries, Disch considered the traditional American SF idea of the Hopeful Future both dishonest and adolescent; like them, his goal was to give it to the reader "straight" — i.e. to attempt to give readers an "adult" perspective — an "honest" (i.e. essentially hopeless) future, without flinching and with no punches pulled.

Despite his disdain for the Wonderful World of Tomorrow, however, Disch brought a rare gift to readers of science fiction: quality. Amid the dull dross that inhabits the dubious treasure box of commercial English-language fiction, Disch's works are gems of considerable sparkle: his settings are evocative and integral to the text, his prose and dialog are carefully polished, and certain of his characters have an almost Dostoyevskyan depth and luster. Ultimately, however, these shining qualities are subdued by the flaw of gray, depressing nihilism that lies at their core.

A certain misanthropy lay at the base of the New Wave movement; as a group, the New Wavers did not have much use for mankind. As did the Existentialists that predated them, the writers of SF's New Wave ultimately held that Man was the problem, not the solution, and that only a future without Man could honestly be called "hopeful". Disch and his New Wave contemporaries employed the world-destroying tropes of SF to realize the maxim l'enfer, c'est les autres in a fashion of which Sartre and the Existentialitsts of the past could only have dreamed, and to which the Earth-Firsters and Human Extinctionists of our day can only aspire. It may be that in the end that nihilism rose up and consumed him. (Ordinarily, I'd trot out Nietszche's well-worn quote regarding the Abyss here, but the man is dead, and it's too late at night for that literary crap.) Suffice it to say therefore that Thomas Disch was a talented writer, an influential critic, and a suffering human being. Despite his suicide, I pray that in his final moments he managed to open his heart to the Man that saves all men, and that he has somehow found in the Hands of a merciful God the hope that eluded him in life.

Are You A Fascist?

2008-06-11T00:55:00.000-05:00

Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, 9 June 2008:

A Canadian human rights tribunal ordered a Christian pastor to renounce his faith and never again express moral opposition to homosexuality, according to a new report.

In a decision dated May 30 in the penalty phase of the quasi-judicial proceedings run by the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal, evangelical pastor Stephen Boisson was banned from expressing his biblical perspective of homosexuality and ordered to pay $5,000 for "damages for pain and suffering" as well as apologize to the activist who complained of being hurt. ... [T]he penalty could foreshadow the possible fate of the Rev. Alphonse de Valk, who also cited the biblical perspective on homosexuality in the nation's debate over same-sex "marriage" and now faces HRC charges.

Boisson wrote a letter to the editor of his local Red Deer, Alberta, newspaper in 2002 denouncing the advance of homosexual activism as "wicked" and stating: "Children as young as five and six years of age are being subjected to psychologically and physiologically damaging pro-homosexual literature and guidance in the public school system; all under the fraudulent guise of equal rights."

The activist, local teacher Darren Lund, filed a complaint, and the guilty verdict from Lori G. Andreachuk, a lawyer, was handed down Nov. 30, 2007.

[... In her opinion, Andreachuk wrote] "Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. shall cease publishing in newspapers, by e-mail, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the Internet, in future, disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals. Further, they shall not and are prohibited from making disparaging remarks in the future about … Lund or … Lund's witnesses relating to their involvement in this complaint. Further, all disparaging remarks versus homosexuals are directed to be removed from current Web sites and publications of Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc."

Andreachuk also ordered Boissoin to apologize for the original letter in the Red Deer Advocate and told the two "offenders" to pay $5,000. Source

As a monarchist, and one whose political philosophy is somewhat to the right of Genghis Khan, I am often accused of being a fascist. Laughably, of course; fascism is worship of the State, and no self respecting fascist would ever consider a God-worshiping Altar-and-Throne type like me for membership. However, there are those who do worship the State, and who consider civil rights something to be given and taken away by the State. Ironically, most of these people call themselves Liberals.

A Liberal, being one who considers individual liberty to be the ultimate good, would seem at first an odd candidate for inclusion in the cult of State power; yet, as both history and current events prove, people who profess the greatest dedication to free speech are often among the first to bring the hammer of State power down upon the scrotums of those whose speech is a little too free.

Case in point: Canada. Long considered a haven for those who love liberty, it is in fact a nation where speaking one's mind can get one in deep, deep trouble with the government. Here in Texas, USA, despite the iron-fisted dictatorial regime of Chimpy McBusHitler, one remains free to express one's opinion publicly on any subject, using any desired words, without fear of retribution from Big Brother. Not so in Alberta, Canada, however. There, the government has the power to punish those whose public opinions stray from those officially approved by the provincial government. The Human Rights, Citizenship, and Multiculturalism Act (Chapter H‑14) passed by the government of Alberta spells it out:

"No person shall publish, issue or display or cause to be published, issued or displayed before the public any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that

(a) indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate against a person or a class of persons, or

(b) is likely to expose a person or a class of persons to hatred or contempt

because of the race, religious beliefs, colour, gender, physical disability, mental disability, age, ancestry, place of origin, marital status, source of income or family status of that person or class of persons." (Sexual orientation was added to the list of protected categories in 1992)

And who gets to decide which statements, publications, notices, signs, symbols, emblems or other representations are illegal? Why, the ever-lovin' Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission, that's who!

Still think Canada is a paradise of freedom compared to the US? Imagine what would happen if the government of the State of Texas enacted a law regulating statements, publications, notices, signs, symbols, emblems or other representations of opinion? The news media would freak! The pundits would froth! The streets would be full of Commies, resinous hippie fellow-travelers, and legions of earnest white, middle-class dupes bellowing at the top of their lungs about "fascism!"

But when Alberta, Canada does it, no one cares. Why is that?

Anyway, with this in mind, I pose to my readers a question:

Do you believe

a) that a given government should have the power to punish those who make any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate against a person or a class of persons, or is likely to expose a person or a class of persons to hatred or contempt because of the race, religious beliefs, color, gender, physical disability, mental disability, age, ancestry, place of origin, marital status, source of income, sexual orientation or family status of that person or class of persons; or

b) that people are by right free to think, say, express, and publish their opinions, even if such opinions are discriminatory, hateful, contemptuous, racist, bigoted, sexist, ableist, ageist, classist, and/or intended to denigrate those of a given ethnicity, handicap, or sexuality, without fear of government punishment?

If your beliefs match option B more closely, then you are a true Liberal, and I salute you for your integrity. However, if your beliefs match option A more closely, then I submit to your that you are a hypocrite at best — and, as one who holds that the State should have the power to deny people their God-given civil rights — quite likely a fascist as well.

So which is it, kids? Do you really believe in freedom of speech, or are you just another closet KGB informer ready to turn in the family next door for treason? Who's really the fascist? You make the call!

Healthcare In America: How Do We Fix It?

2008-05-29T01:41:00.004-05:00

[How to fix health care? When it comes to the current state of heath care services in the United States, there are no easy answers. However, most people I've spoken to — both within and without the industry — agree that the way we are providing health care services in America now just isn't working, and that something must be done. Both Democrat presidential candidates are touting a public/private system of universal health care; the Republican candidate favors tinkering with the current system. Other proposals include getting rid of all government involvement in the health care industry, full-on British/Canadian-style socialized medicine, and the unique quasi-public "social security" mode of healthcare provision as practiced in France. (Ref: Brookings report on the relative merits of the French and U.S. health care service models, and a Business Week article from last year on the French system.)

Which system is right for America? I don't know. It's a complex subject — and one we all need to understand better. Bearing this in mind, I have set out my understanding of how the health care industry in America works, and outlined the most commonly proposed methods of improving it. I urge you all to do your own research on this topic and draw your own conclusions. — BL]

Health care services are expensive. In every country, a static supply of providers has coupled with an exploding demand for services and the constant rise of new technologies available for diagnosis and treatment to drive the cost of health care services into the stratosphere.

Yet health care is different than other high-priced products. In a civilized nation, it is unwise to allow most of the population to go without health care services, lest civil unrest and/or plague result. A nation that allows the sick and injured to "die in a ditch" will not long survive — nor does it deserve to. Therefore, to stay on a "going concern" basis, each civilization must implement some way of forcing those with the means to pay for health care services to cover the costs of those without those means. Historically, this has been accomplished by three institutions: the Church, the State, and the Market.

In Judeo-Christian society, servitude is seen as a duty. In a country with a Judeo-Christian culture, it is unthinkable to allow human beings to suffer illness or injury without caring for them. In pre-modern times, the Church was seen as the guarantor of the human right to health care. To this end, the institution known as the hospital was created by the Church — a charitable organization operated by the Church which provided health care services to those too poor to afford them. This worked so long as the Church was a recognized Estate within the society at large — an Estate with its own lands and other sources of income — and as long as the limitations of pre-industrial food production (and other factors) kept populations small.

Over time, however, the number of poor and indigent patients began to exceed the number than the various religious charities could afford to care for. In modern times, the Church — now stripped of its status and incomes — has neither the resources nor the support to continue in this role. Our world is now secular; the Church has no fixed place among our society's institutions. The Revolution would never tolerate a Church rich and powerful enough to provide for the needs of today's poor.

As the Industrial Age dawned, the State and private industry therefore began to take on this responsibility — the State, with an interest in keeping the peace; private industry, with a eye toward making a profit. Proponents of State-provded "socialized" health care argue that the right to heath care is among the rights of any citizen in a modern society, and that the State should guarantee this right as it guarantees others. In countries with State-run health care systems, the usual form this took was the enactment of some sort of "national insurance" scheme, with the State collecting premiums in the form of taxes or other levies on employers and employees, and rationing health care services to citizens through State-funded (and often State-owned) hospitals and providers. Under national health insurance, the State is generally required by law to provide health care services to all, regardless of their current or potential health status. Sadly, the failure of socialism to guarantee citizens their rights in any form is a matter of historical fact.

The Church no longer has the power and income to provide for the health care of the indigent. State-run health care systems suffer from the same flaws which bedevil all enterprises of the State: mass inefficiencies, thick and cumbersome bureaucracies, impersonal service, and lack of personal vested interest by providers. On the face of things, then, it would seem that the free-market, private-insurance form of health care service is superior. Let us therefore examine how health care services are provided in a market economy.

In a liberal society, servitude is slavery — an intolerable affront to the rights of the atomistic Free Man. In our liberal society, where all forms of coercion are anathema, the free and unregulated exchange of goods and services by independent agents trading in an open market is seen as the only moral form of exchange. Proponents of free-market, cash-and-carry medical care argue that, left to itself, competition between providers in the market for health care services would in time provide everyone services that they could afford. It would therefore seem that the free market should be left to provide health care services the same way it provides soap and toothpaste: by unrestrained competition. Theoretically, medical care providers in a free-market system can compete for customer dollars on a fee-for-service basis until the cost of a given unit of health care service reaches its natural price.

Unfortunately, in the real world, there are costs associated with health care (physicians’ and nurses’ salaries, medical equipment, the costs of providing full-time care to invalid patients, and the ever-increasing price of medicines, et al) that are already at a natural price — a bottom, below which they cannot go. No amount of competition is going to reduce the costs of services, increasingly advanced technology, and new medicines. Due to these fixed costs, the price of medical care has been, is and will continue to be extremely high.

The institution of mutual insurance was extended to the heath care field by private industry as a means of spreading these high costs (and the associated risks) among as many people as possible. In a typical private insurance scheme, the insurer collects money in the form of premiums from subscribers; in return, it pays a certain portion of their health care costs (in the form of claims). Since those who pay premiums without filing claims pay for the care of those who file claims, the insurers must guarantee that those likely to file claims are kept out of the system. By restricting coverage to those groups least likely to file claims, private insurers guarantee that the amount of money gathered from premiums each year exceeds the amount paid out in claims plus operating expenses and taxes; this profit is reinvested, producing income for the owners of the company.

The problem with free-market, private insurance in countries with such a system is that not everyone can get insurance. In the United States, for example, most people are covered by group insurance purchased at bargain-basement group rates through their employer. However, those who are not employed (or who are self-employed) often cannot qualify for insurance coverage at any price — nor can they afford to pay the required premiums.

(Saving for medical care is futile; a person making $50K annually with a realistic savings rate of 20% can save at most $10K per year — the cost of a day or two in a hospital.)

Likewise, many persons who have serious chronic illnesses (e.g. cancer, kidney failure, HIV etc.) or are otherwise high risks (e.g. the aged) cannot get coverage at any price in a private-insurance regime due to the high costs of their care. In the U.S., some people in this situation are provided for by a piecemeal system of socialized medicine (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid), but not everyone is covered by these programs, and those that are covered often experience lackadaisical care, impersonal treatment, and the other typical problems of socialized medicine when they present for treatment.

For the rest — those outside the world of employer-provided private health insurance and/or the Social Security system — the only health care system to which they have access is the emergency room at the local hospital — an institution spectacularly ill-suited to the task of providing basic health care services. Due to the flood of uninsured patients using the ER as their sole health care provider, the costs of providing emergency room care to the indigent and uninsured — which care is mandated by Federal law — are ballooning out of control, forcing hospitals around the nation into insolvency and closure.

And these problems exist in a society where most people have insurance. What can we expect in a world where most people are without it? As costs rise, the number of employers offering health insurance as a benefit to employees is certain to drop; employers will be faced with the choice of going out of business, eliminating jobs, or cutting insurance benefits. In a situation where most people are without health insurance (whether national or private) to help patients pay these costs, health care would become something like owning a share of a private jet is today — a luxury service available only to those with the means to pay for it. The resulting society would greatly resemble the nineteenth century; like something out of a Charles Dickens novel, top-quality private care would be available for middle-class Lady Estella Havisham, while spotty and inadequate charity care would be the lot of working-class Bob Cratchit and Tiny Tim. Oliver Twist would receive no care at all, and would be reduced to obtaining health care services from unlicensed practitioners, quacks, cuaranderas, and witch doctors. Those with communicable diseases would be imprisoned, quietly murdered, or left to spead their sicknesses among the public; those with chronic illnesses and serious injuries would be left to suffer and/or die in the gutter. A revolution would soon follow, after which Soviet-style State-provided “care” would be implemented by force.

To avoid this grim scenario, therefore, we as a society are going to have to figure out a way to make sure everyone has access to health care services. And, since the private insurance companies have proved themselves unable to do this, it is likely that (barring a revival of Christendom) we as a nation will have to ration health care through some form of private/public national health insurance program.

With this in mind, I think that the only prudent course of action a citizen can take is to make a thorough examination of the various national health insurance systems extant, and compare their various strengths and weaknesses. Only in this way will each of us be able to have an informed opinion on the subject when the time comes for the U.S. to consider such a system of its own.

NOTE: If my analysis above is in error at any point, I'd appreciate someone pointing out the errors to me. Thanks.

In Memoriam

2008-05-26T20:08:00.002-05:00

In Memoriam
Clyde J. McGee

September 19, 1930 (Beach, MS)— May 11, 2008 (Dallas, TX)

BMC, USN

Retired from the U.S. Navy after thirty years of service. Laid to rest on Wednesday, May 14, 2008 at 10:00 A.M. at Restland Memorial Park in Dallas.

My beloved uncle and inspiration.

Clyde McGee was a tall, lanky, hairy-armed Scot — a real man's man — but over the many years I knew him, he was always kindhearted, soft-spoken, and witty. His most memorable trait was his sense of humor. As kids, his sons and I spent hours listening to his hilariously ribald aphorisms, jokes, and sea stories, and his many unprintable-but-true tales of his adventures in both the brown- and blue-water Cold War Navy often left us with aching sides and eyes filled with tears of laughter. He was, as we say in Texas, a Hoot.

But my uncle was no mere storyteller. He was among the last examples of the Real Navy — a boatswain's mate, a master of decorative ropework, and a true marlinspike seaman. Our modern Navy is full of fine men and women, but the ascendence of shipboard automation has made many of the things my uncle did obsolete. They don't make sailors like Clyde J. McGee any more.

My uncle was a Mensch. He was a tough customer who knew how to suffer without whining about it. He grew up in the worst of circumstances — as part of a family of sharecroppers in a Depression-era Mississippi cotton patch — but did not allow his hard upbringing to turn him bitter. (He did hate cotton until his dying day.) Later in life, he lost a lung due to service-related injuries, but did not use that injury as an excuse for laziness; instead, he continued to work long hours as an armed security officer until his second retirement. My uncle was unfailingly kind and fair to everyone, but he did not like bullies, goldbrickers, or cheats. He expected everyone to pull his own weight, as he unfailingly did.

He was also not the biggest fan of certain famous civil rights leaders of the 1960s, although his distaste for them was on the grounds of their politics, not their race. He married a Japanese girl when it was not at all the thing to do, after all. Together with her, he raised three fine American sons — plus many of us nieces and nephews.

He was a loving man: he loved his God, his family, and the USS MIDWAY until the day he died. You can still see his fancy knotwork on display as you cross the quarterdeck of that famous ship in San Diego.

He inspired me to join the Navy, and to many other things as well. I owe him a great deal.

I'll always miss him. May his name never be forgotten.

***

In Memoriam

Franklin Patric Willeford

HN3 USN

NAVY CROSS

March 17, 1943 (Lawton OK) — December 14, 1968 (Quang Nam, Republic of Vietnam)

Vietnam Memorial

Panel 36W, Row 021

Citation

The President of the United States takes pride in presenting the Navy Cross (Posthumously) to Franklin Patric Willeford (3537852), Hospitalman, U.S. Navy, for extraordinary heroism on 14 December 1968 while serving as a Platoon Corpsman in Company C, First Battalion, Fifth Marines, FIRST Marine Division (Reinforced), Fleet Marine Force, in Quang Nam Province, Republic of Vietnam. As Hospitalman Willeford's platoon was participating in a company-sized sweep through an area, the lead element came under intensive automatic-weapons fire which wounded and trapped one Marine in very close proximity to one of the enemy bunkers. Seeing his comrade fall and subsequently receive another hit from a grenade, Hospitalman Willeford unhesitatingly left his position of relative security and moved forward to the side of the mortally-wounded Marine. Hidden from the enemy positions by the tall grass in the area, he found the Marine bleeding severely and in no condition to be moved. Hospitalman Willeford raised himself up and into the grazing zone of hostile fire in order to administer a heart massage and mouth- to-mouth resuscitation, continuing his desperate attempts to save the Marine until all hope of life had expired. Only then did he begin the slow return through the fire-swept zone to the trench line, bringing with him the body of his comrade. As his platoon again started through the area, the enemy opened up with intensive small-arms and automatic-weapons fire, wounding and trapping the three lead Marines. When two Marines started to move out of the trench line to retrieve the casualties, one was mortally wounded and the other critically wounded. Disregarding the intense danger, Hospitalman Willeford again moved forward to aid his fellowman. Finding the first Marine mortally wounded, and realizing the impossibility of trying to move him back to a secure area, Hospitalman Willeford stayed with the Marine, rendering what aid and comfort he could, until the Marine succumbed to his injuries. After he had informed the remainder of the platoon that the Marine had died, he proceeded deeper into the fire zone toward the second Marine, and drew fire from an enemy bunker a short distance from the wounded man. With full knowledge that the enemy was now concentrating their fire upon him, Hospitalman Willeford forged his way through the tall grass to the wounded Marines' side and began administering aid. While treating the fallen Marine, Hospitalman Willeford was also struck and mortally wounded. His courageous actions were an inspiration to all who observed him and were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service.

Authority: Navy Department Board of Decorations and Medals

My best friend's dad: a Christian, a pacifist, a combat medic, and a hero. He gave his life for the values he held dear. May his deeds of valor never be forgotten, and may Light eternal shine upon him.

A Letter To American "Conservatives"

2008-05-23T01:09:00.003-05:00

[Note: The following rant is addressed to those Americans who consider themselves to be Conservatives. Of course, they are not; they believe that individual Liberty is the ultimate value, which makes them Liberals. (American "liberals" are likewise misnamed, and are actually socialists.) True Conservatives hold Duty to be the highest value, not Liberty. — BL]

My dear American conservatives:

You have cried out, and I have heard you. As the Obama juggernaut rolls on, and as the Republican Party flounders to field as a viable candidate a man who one advocated granting amnesty to foreign invaders of our country, cries of despair have begun to rise from your camps.

In reply, I say: save your whining for someone who cares.

"Oh, if Obama wins, the country will be controlled by the Democrats!" you cry. Well, so what? That's what the People want, right? Surely, all you believers in representative government would never want to deny the People their choice of the candidate that represents the things they believe in, would you?

THIS is why I'm a monarchist: because sometimes, the People are wrong.

Representative government is dangerous. It only works when the People are educated and intelligent enough to comprehend the issues, when they are sophisticated enough to see through the web of lies and propaganda spun by the political parties, and when they hold the values and mores of the Judeo-Christian worldview exclusively. None of this is true of the current United States population. Most people are damned fools who should no more be trusted with a vote than a chimp should be trusted with a machine gun. Most people are incapable of telling propagandistic shit from fact-supported Shinola. Most people, while nominally Christian, are actually pagan hedonists with no greater moral code than "if it feels good, and it doesn't hurt anybody in a way I can't rationalize, do it". And yet my little boy has to grow up in a country whose laws, military, and nuclear weapons are controlled by a gang of professional pirates chosen by whatever miniscule percentage of this slack-jawed populace remembers to show up on Election Day.

(Please note: I count myself among the slack-jawed populace. I am an unemployable, clinically-depressive Japanese cartoon voice actor, for Pete's sake.)

Yes, in our great country the People choose the political leadership, and the political leadership represents the people. But who represents the Nation — the culture, the values, the things that make a nation what it is? Under a monarchy, that is the role of the Crown. In a government "by the people", the answer is nobody.

So I will thank you all to please pardon me if I don't stand up and wave the flag this election year. All this (or any) election means to me is an opportunity for a new crew of rapists to show up and bend me and mine over the ol' prison bunk. No matter which dribbling assclown gets elected in November, abortion will remain legal, income will remain taxable, borders will remain porous, and the global Islamic jihad will be kept politely at arm's length instead of being smashed with a mailed fist, as it ought to be.

No matter who wins the election, America loses. But that's what we wanted: a free republic, where the government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed.

Too bad the governed are a bunch of morons.

Losing It For Lost In Space

2008-05-14T20:24:00.003-05:00

I've been watching Lost In Space reruns over at hulu.com recently, and it's been quite an enjoyable time. In fact, in many ways I enjoy the show now more than I did as a child, which was a lot. A a child, I loved watching the original Star Trek, of course — and I still do — but I have to admit that in my early childhood I found a great deal of it to be baffling and or slightly scary. Lost In Space, however, was my favorite — the show I'd fight my little brother to see. It was never scary. It was exciting, yes, and suspenseful, but it far more suited the mental and emotional level of the slightly neurotic seven-year-old me than did the more cerebral Trek. I mean, what child of the moon landing era wouldn't love to watch a kid his own age having noisy, brightly-colored interplanetary adventures on distant worlds? What kid nurtured on Hogan's Heroes and Gomer Pyle USMC wouldn't cackle at the hilarious antics of a batty, pompous, and totally unpredictable fussbudget and his rapier-witted robot straight man?

The show itself is packed with entertainment. (For those unfamiliar with Lost In Space, the story centers on the family Robinson, a clan of astronauts who set out on a colonization mission to the star Alpha Centauri on October 16, 1997. Soon after their launch, however, their onboard robot "Robot B-9" is sabotaged by a stowaway saboteur, resulting in damage to the spacecraft, leaving the Robinson family hopelessly "lost in space".) In just one episode, the Space Family Robinson might find themselves facing the imminent destruction of their planet, while at the same time foiling the machinations of space croppers, bulb-headed aliens, and/or living statues, while at the same time dealing with the egotism-driven mishaps created by their hilariously prissy stowaway.

The actors in Lost In Space stand out as well. The series' headline star, the late Guy Williams ("Professor John Robinson"), was a fine actor, and his on-screen relationships with TV wife Dr. Maureen Robinson (June Lockhart, the mom from Lassie) and kids Judy (Marta Kristen), Penny (Angela Cartwright of The Sound Of Music fame) and Will Robinson (the ubiquitous Bill Mumy) were warm and believable. (Williams' son maintains a touching memorial to his father that is well worth a look.) Mark Goddard, as Major Don West (the Jupiter 2's pilot) is cocky and fun, especially when playing foil to the instantly memorable stowaway/saboteur Dr. Zachary Smith, portrayed with great brio by the show's regular "special guest star", the late Jonathan Harris. And of course everyone loves the warm-hearted, wry Robot (Bob May, voiced by Dick Tufield).

As production went on, the series' focus began to change from more-or-less serious sci-fi to a sort of space farce. During the first season, the episodes centered on the heroic and salf-sacrificing John Robinson character, but as the show went on it began to shift from straight-up action/adventure to a sort of Laurel-and-Hardy-In-Outer-Space comedy centered on the trio of Will, Dr. Smith, and the Robot. More than anything else, folks who remember the show recall with pleasure the many zinger-laden exchanges of repartée between the arch and self-aggrandizing Dr. Smith and the unflappable and dry-humored Robot. Even as Harris, Mumy, Tufield and May moved into the center spotlight, however, the rest of the cast continued to play the Robinsons and Major West absolutely straight, making the witty interplay between Will, Dr. Smith and the Robot all the funnier by contrast.

The special effects were truly special. Sure, the planetary surface sets and occasional monsters were cheap and unconvincing, and the "aliens" usually nothing more than character actors wearing whatever B-movie props the show's producer (the late Irwin Allen) found out on the Fox backlot, but when taken together, the show's visual effects were actually fairly sophisticated for a mid-'60s TV show.

And there was an upside to the cheesy effects. The series' low-budget SFX approach actually resulted in some of the most memorable sci-fi bad guys ever; at one point or another our heroes were variously menaced by space Vikings, space miners, and even "Chavo", the silver-skinned Space Mexican. (That episode must have been a hoot for series star Guy "John Robinson" Williams, who had famously played Zorro in a successful prior series.) The reliance on backlot props also facilitated some of the show's truly wacko episides, like the one where the Robot dons a crown and ermine robe from God-knows-which grade-Z Fox knights-in-armor epic and proceeds to rule over a race of tiny toy duplicates of himself. (He also recites the preamble to Lincoln's Gettysburg Address in that episode. Now that's value for one's entertainment dollar!)

There were other attractions. The Space Family Robinson lived in a split-level flying saucer (the Jupiter 2), drove a cool, jeep-like vehicle (the Space Chariot), and actually did stuff, like escaping exploding planets and whatnot, instead of talking the viewer to death. They also loved one another and stayed together no matter what, which at the time seemed more fantastic to me than the split-level flying saucer. All this, combined with fast-paced direction, lots of things blowing up, and "eerie" outer-space SFX (usually created by flashing lights of one sort or another) make for a solid hour of TV fun.

(As an aside, I must admit that as I grew older Lost In Space took on an added dimension of enjoyment for me, in the form of a monstrous crush on Angela Cartwright. Through my now-middle-aged eyes she appears in the show as a talented and cute child actress, but in 1973, the seven-year-old me regarded her as a mysterious and disturbingly attractive older woman.)

Lost In Space was, at its heart, a silly kids' show — a futuristic fairy tale designed to appeal to the romanticism and love of adventure that we kids of the Space Age grew up with. And there's nothing wrong with that. Sure, we all love Star Trek and so forth, but in this world of serious TV science fiction (e.g. Battlestar Galactica) it's fun to occasionally step away from the realistic dialog and densely-plotted storylines and enjoy an hour of good dumb fun.

As I watch Lost In Space today, the word that comes most readily to my mind is "charm". The show was charming — the bright colors, the earnest young actors, the goofy plots, and all. It was pure family entertainment in the best sense: traditional without being hackneyed, warm without being overly corny, thrilling without being frightening, and imaginative without being self-consciously weird (as so many shows of the late '60s were.) Sure, as science fiction it was a joke — I mean, come on, a vegetable rebellion? — but Irwin Allen thankfully saw no need to try and capture the high-brow skiffy audience with the show; he just wanted to entertain kids and make a buck doing it.

Mission accomplished, Mr. Allen.

Are You Ready For The Sex Bots?

2008-05-06T22:11:00.004-05:00

"Once they invent the Sexaroid, that's it for marriage" — Cliff Spears

Whither the Droid? The personal servant/buddy/crapworker robot was a staple of the Wonderful World Of Tomorrow that we kids of the '60s were sold back in the olden days. That world turned out to be a BIG FAT LIE — and no part of it more so than the foretold robot pal. I can live withot my rocket belt and flying car, but, dammit, why didn't I get the robo-butler I was promised?

It's not due to any lack of effort on the part of industry. The factories are full of fine, upstanding robots that pay their taxes and love their families. The military has lots of cool robots, too, some of which can kill terrorists in exciting ways. And of course there are the uninspiring-but-functional robot probes that NASA sends into space instead of using a MAN to do a MAN'S JOB — but I digress. Anyway, companies have been trying to market personal robots to middle-class consumers for years, but so far all have failed to catch on. It seems that no one wants to pay thousands of dollars for an instantly-obsolescent, mechanico-electronic serf when a real serf can be had much more cheaply from Mexico or one of those rinky-dink Central American countries. Neither is technology the show-stopper. While it's true that the technology of home robotics has not advanced at the pace once expected, the low operating cost and easy disposability of tiny Mayan maids have been the real roadblocks that have kept R2-D2 from becoming a reality in the US.

Will we ever have buddy robots of the kind seen in sci-fi? My guess is "no" — because there is no market for a robot of that sort. I predict that when better droids are built, we'll skip the clunky, metal-and-plastic Star Wars model and go straight to building Chobits — sexy girl robots that combine the functions of girlfriend and all-in-one digital device. Let's face it — no one wants another G.D. computer around the house; the damned things make life miserable enough as it is. Only winsome, obedient androids with which the Average Joe/Jane can have sex will bring in the big bucks. The first company to combine the functions of a PDA / palmtop / phone with the charm (and body) of a soft, sweet-natured, long-haired girl (and the functionality of a Hibernate/Mute button!) will have created the ultimate "killer app" — and one that will destroy the twin institutions of marriage and prostitution forever. Move aside, June Cleaver! Begone, Pretty Woman! Lo, the Sexaroid approacheth!

Will we ever see the dawn of the age of the Sex Bot? No one knows, but it is certain that, should that day ever come, confessionals from coast to coast will be sporting long lines of sheepish penitents. Until then, however, we are left with the cold comfort of Japanese big-breast videos on YouTube and the gallery of failed robotmakers past at megadroid.com.

Are you ready for the sex bots? Ready or not, here they come! As Criswell once said: "God help us... in the future".

Loving The Dictators

2008-05-01T09:56:00.004-05:00

In a recent article ["The dictators are back ... and we don’t care", The Times (London), April 27, 2008] Robert Kagan bemoans the rise of authoritarian governments in Russia and China, among other venues. His reaction is natural — and typical of the post-Soviet generation. With the victory of the Western Allies over the USSR's Communist empire in World War III (aka the "cold war"), liberal democracy über alles was the watchword of the day. Papa Francis Fukuyama told us that we were at the "end of history", didn't he? Surely, the evil idea of authoritarian rule went down the tubes along with the USSR, right?

Wrong. Around the world, so-called "soft" dictatorships such as Putin's Russia (and auto-bureaucracies such as Singapore) seem to be perfectly acceptable to those living under them. It appears that despite the hand-wringing of some in our own media/government elite, authoritarianism is back. How can this be? Can't the Masses in these countries see the obvious benefits of liberal democracy, of voting, laws, and representative government?

In a word, no. To many people around the world, democracy does not bring to mind Pericles of Athens in a fresh, slave-laundered tunic, lecturing the people on the beauty of freedom; instead, it brings to mind guns in the streets, riots, and general social chaos. Democracy is not a one-size-fits all form of social order, after all, and representative government is neither suitable for nor adaptable to every culture. Believe it or not, many (most?) people in the world are profoundly distrustful of nose-counting as a means of government, and I'd like to propose a reason why.

From what I've seen in my travels and read in my studies, the truth is that people don't want to participate in an equal sharing of political power. I think most people want the social order to be ruled by a single, non-participatory authority. I submit that this esire for top-down order is a natural part of human psychology, and is one reason why representative governments always fail over the long term.

I know the dogma these days is that people everywhere instinctively crave democracy (or a republican form of government, at the very least). The historical truth, however, is that most people don't really care what form of government is in place at the national level as long as they are free to trade, worship, and live their everyday lives as they please. Singapore, for example, manages to function quite nicely under an authoritarian government today, as did Franco's Spain and Salazar's Portugal. Even the French, those lovers of liberté, prefer to live under a central government that would be considered intolerably invasive here in the States. (For example: in France, the government gets to decide if the name you've picked for your newborn baby is acceptable or not. Imagine the State of Arkansas or Alaska having the power to block you from naming your kid Canyon or Ta'niqua!) And it's not just the furriners who prefer to let the Big Boys run the playground; our current abysmally low rates of voter participation in the United States are proof that most people in America couldn't care less about participating in government as long as the streets are reasonably safe, gas and beer are reasonably cheap, the Big Game starts on time, and taxes are reasonably low.

Democracy is the system in which the masses (the demos) rule. As practiced by the Athenian city-state in ancient Greece, democracy was never intended as a means of organizing any polity bigger than a city-state, and did not allow all citizens a say in government. The system established in 510 BC under Cleisthenes allowed all male citizens their say before the general Assembly, but carefully limited the power of the hoi polloi to make laws and shape policy (this was the function of the Boule, a body of representatives elected from the heads of the local political and tribal groups.) The system began to crack almost immediately, as the leaders of the various demes (sub-groups) of Athenian society began jockeying among themselves for political advantage.

Which brings us to another point: democracies are brittle and prone to sudden collapse. Even the "ideal democracy" of Athens was hardly robust; 170 years after its establishment, the Athenian democracy had coalesced into an autocratic quasi-empire run by small, special-interest groups. It was then conquered, first by the autocratic Spartans, then by Alexander the Great, whose Macedonian empire ruled the Athenians for two centuries. Finally came the Roman Republic (not a democracy — they had elected dictators) which lasted five centuries off-and-on but which reverted to autocratic rule with the (elective) dictatorship-for-life of Julius Caesar in 44 BC. Thereafter, Athens was under the Roman imperium in one form or another until AD 1806. Thus we see that even in its most pure form democracy has a lousy track record versus autocratic rule. Like communism, representative government looks great on paper but just doesn't work well in Real Life.

Keep in mind we're tallking about big government here. At the city and county level, people do prefer to have a say in government, but only to the extent that their government influences their everyday lives. Otherwise, they are content to raise their families, run their businesses, and earn their wages — and leave the big decisions to the local aristocracy.

Yes, I said "aristocracy". Every city in America has one: a cohort of four or five families who control (overtly or covertly) the local business, civic and governmental institutions. In every community, a sort of cream (or scum, if one prefers) of leaders naturally rises to the top of the general churn of citizens. It seems that some people are simply born with a talent for governing and administrating, and this talent tends to run in families. (In our city, for example, the V_________ family has been involved in running the show in one form or another for sixty-plus years, and most people are fine with that, because they do a fairly good job of it.) People born with this ability tend to rise to the levels of power of whatever community they inhabit, and tend to do what's best for the community out of a sense of noblesse oblige. Such families represent a natural aristocracy, and without them, most communities would be chaotic.

And they are. The city of Dallas is a perfect example of what can happen when The People are allowed to take the reins of power. Over the first 120 years or so of its existence, the city was dominated by an unelected Power Elite of wealthy merchants, landowners, and industrial leaders, and things ran fairly smoothly under their crass, pitiless but generally benevolent domination. During this time, the city had an elected government, of course — a government composed of various candidates carefully groomed by the power group to fill these positions, but an elected government, nonetheless. This shadow government was not perfect, nor was it always run for the benefit of all, but under its offhanded tyranny the city thrived and grew, and most of its citizens prospered.

But beginning in the 1960s this tidy system began to be undermined. Due to legal pressures and societal changes, a genuine democracy began to rise in Dallas, and the aging (and now mostly suburban) members of the Power Elite decided to quietly and gradually surrender their control of the city rather than risk plunging Dallas into the kind of chaos that had gripped places such as LA, Detroit, and Chicago. (This is why there were never any real race riots or integration-related violence in Dallas: the Powers That Be simply decreed that Dallas would integrate, democratize, and desegregate, and it was so.) By surrendering their power gradually, the Power Elite facilitated the keeping of the peace, ensuring that Dallas remained an attractive haven for business.

Unfortunately, by surrendering their power, the monopolar rule of the “old money” tribe was slowly replaced by a multipolar battle for power between the city's various ethnic tribes, each of which of course had its own clique of the natural leaders, each of which had its own aims and interests. The city of Dallas today is "governed" by an exquisitely democratic, representational, and sensitive elected government — and is, of course, a big frigging mess, with a declining tax base, a rising crime rate, and a sputtering economy. The exurbs, which are now run by the sons and daughters of Dallas former Power Elite, are where the peace, quiet, and economic action is.

Democracy does not scale well. The lesson here is that representative government, where it works at all, works only at the scale of a city-state like Athens, and even then only when it is dominated by a natural aristocracy. A state or nation run by democratic principles will sooner or later devolve into chaos, as self-interested groups of all types battle each other for control. One need only look at Dallas — or the former Yugoslavia — for proof of that thesis.

So let the dictators come. We don't have to love them, of course — but we can live alongside them, so long as they respect the basic human dignity of their thralls (e.g. no genocides, mind control, or organ harvesting), and otherwise do not threaten their neighbors or the peace of the world. The United States and her allies can coexist in peace with any number of benevolent authoritarian nation-states. We might not want to live in an authoritarian state ourselves, but to people in other countries a dictatorship or autocracy could very well be an alternative preferable to chaos. As a representative republic that grows ever less representative and republican by the day, we can tolerate the dictatorships of the world as merely the latest examples of what might be called the default mode of human government.

Letter From A Norwegian Politician

2008-04-28T23:22:00.001-05:00

My hobby is Secrets. I am fascinated by secrets — the bigger the secret, the better I like it. Over the years, I have spent many hours and lots of money digging through mildewed stacks of forgotten government documents in libraries, reading reams of self-published zines and newsletters and pamphlets by crazy, semi-literate po' buckra, and going from link to link on the Tubes trying to glean tidbits of verifiable (or at the very least entertaining) information from various websites, all in an effort to discover the hidden truths that I crave. To this end I spent several years doing an exhaustive study of UFOs (1989-1991) — not an easy task in those pre-Internet days, I can assure you! — plus uncountable lost hours in the early days of the Internets researching things such as the JFK killing, the occult roots of the French Revolution, the machinations of the cosmopolitan financial elite ( = THE JEWS ) and the New World Order as orchestrated by what Dr. Carroll Quigley called the "international Anglophile network".

But my holy grail has always been to know the Biggest Secret In The World — the one piece of knowledge to which only the elite of the elite of the super-elite are privy. I don't want to know this Ultimate Secret out of any desire for personal gain — I just want to know it for its own sake. There is a beauty in being in on any secret; the sheer esthetic pleasure of knowing one is in possession of the Ultimate Secret would be for me almost literally mind-blowing.

Nor do I particularly care what the Ultimate Secret entails — it could be the existence of Aliens, the hidden history of Atlantis, the approach of Bellus and Zyra, the identity of the Antichrist (my money's still on Billy Ray Cyrus) or the formula for Coca-Cola for all I care. The thrill is in the knowing itself.

Now, I'll readily admit that I still haven't discovered the Ultimate Secret, at least not to my knowledge. I suspect that if I ever were to learn the Biggest Secret In The World, I'd either go mad from the knowing, H.P. Lovecraft style, or I'd be assassinated by Skull & Bones / the Elders of Zion / the Bohemian Club etc. before I could write a blog post revealing to everyone the Horrible Truth. ("M*A*S*H* wasn't really all that great of a show! It was" BLAM BLAM SLUMP NO CARRIER fghgfgfghfjkhlhl).

Still, it occurs to me that perhaps the reason the Ultimate Secret has been kept secret for so long is that it is so huge, so incredible, so beyond the limits of everyday life of the average person. Let's say for example that the Ultimate Secret is that the Earth is going to be sterilized by nightmarish aliens on January 18, 2012. If you were one of the Insiders privy to this information, and you wanted to break the conspiracy and make the Horrible Truth known to the world at large, how exactly would you go about doing that? Publish the truth in a book, a newspaper, or on the Internets? No one would believe you. Offer up evidence — photos of the alien death fleet, videos of marauding Grays, copies of secret conspiracy documents detailing the UN's plans for last-ditch defense? People would assume you faked it all. I suppose one might dress in sackcloth and sit in ashes, scraping one's sores with a potsherd and bemoaning the fate of the world like Job crying over his misfortunes, but instead of listening to you the Authorities In Your Area would more likely lock you up as a nutcase, or (even worse) ignore you.

Let's face it — the Horrible Truth is by definition so Horrible that no one would ever believe it to be Truth.

No, if I were one of the hyper-Elite, I'd avoid any such attempt to prove my claim to be in possession of the Ultimate Secret. Instead, I'd simply live my life, pay my taxes, and, if questioned about the Horrible Truth, explain everything in an ordinary letter to anyone who asked.

A letter like this one:

A Letter From A Norwegian Politician

I am a Norwegian politician. I would like to say that difficult things will happen from the year 2008 till the year 2012.

The Norwegian government is building more and more underground bases and bunkers. When asked, they simply say that it is for the protection of the people of Norway. When I enquire when they are due to be finished, they reply “before 2011”.

Israel is also doing the same and many other countries too.

My proof that what I am saying is true is in the photographs I have sent of myself and all the Prime Ministers and ministers I tend to meet and am acquainted with. They know all of this, but they don’t want to alarm the people or create mass panic.

Planet X is coming, and Norway has begun with storage of food and seeds in the Svalbard area and in the arctic north with the help of the US and EU and all around in Norway. They will only save those that are in the elite of power and those that can build up again: doctors, scientists, and so on.

As for me, I already know that I am going to leave before 2012 to go the area of Mosjøen where we have a deep underground military facility. There we are divided into sectors, red, blue and green. The signs of the Norwegian military are already given to them and the camps have already been built a long time ago.

The people that are going to be left on the surface and die with along the others will get no help whatsoever. The plan is that 2,000,000 Norwegians are going to be safe, and the rest will die. That means 2,600,000 will perish into the night not knowing what to do.

All the sectors and arks are connected with tunnels and have railcars that can take you from one ark to the other. This is so that they can be in contact with each other. Only the large doors separate them so that the sectors are not compromised in any matter.

I am very sad. Often I cry with others that know that so many will learn too late, and then it will all be over for them. The government has been lying to the people from 1983 till now. All the major politicians know this in Norway, but few will say it to the people and the public - because they are afraid in case they too will miss the NOAH 12 railcars that will take them to the ark sites where they will be safe.

If they tell anyone, they are dead for sure. But I don’t care any more about myself. Mankind must survive and the species must survive. People must know this.

All the governments in the world are aware of this and they just say it is going to happen. For those of the people that can save themselves I can only say reach for higher ground and find caves up in the high places where you can have a food storage for at least five years with canned food and water to last for a while. Radiation pills and biosuits are also advisable if your budget allows it.

For the last time I say may God help us all... but God will not help us I know. Only each person individually can make a difference. Wake up, please...!

I could have written to you using another name but I am not afraid of anything any more. When you know certain things, you become invincible and no harm can come to you when you know that the end is soon.

I assure you 100% that things will happen. There are four years to prepare for the endgame. Get weapons, and make survival groups, and a place where you can be safe with food for a time.

Ask me anything and I will answer as much as I know about the Norwegian connection to all this. And just look around: they are building underground bases and bunkers everywhere. Open your eyes, people. Ask the governments what they are building, and they will say “Oh, it’s just storage for food”, and so on. They blind you with all the lies.

The marks of the alien presence are also there, and I often see the Norwegian elite politicians are not what they say they are. It’s like they are controlled in every thought, and what they have to say is just as they are told to do things in such manners. It is clear for me who they are, and who they are not. You can see it in their eyes and in their minds.

Remember that those who are going to be in and around the city areas in 2012 are those that are going to be hit first and die first. Later the army will purge the rest of the survivors and they have a shoot to kill order if there is any resistance to bring them into the camps where every one will get marked with a number and a tag.

I also see that Benazir Bhutto is spoken of on your site. Her death was tragic. I have met Benazir, as you can see. You will also see from the photographs that I have met with a number of other notable politicians and world leaders.

The public will not know what happens till the very end, because the government does not want to create mass panic. Everything will happen quietly and the government will just disappear.

But I say this: don't go quietly into the night. Take precautions to be safe with your family. Come together with others. Work together to find ways to solve all the many problems you will face. Source

Is this, at long last, It? Is this the Horrible Truth? Have I finally learned the Ultimate Secret? Or is this just another entertaining nugget of nuttery in the oh-so-sweet candy bar of my strange little hobby?

I don't know — but it sure is fun wondering.

First Steps

2008-04-28T03:17:00.001-05:00

Baby McBaby took his first steps this week — the first of many. This is, of course, a happy occasion. Yet you know me — I never let a happy occasion pass without pausing to add a bit of neuochemical Angst. Yes, I'm thrilled to see our little Soybean making his initial "one small step for mankind". I'd be worried if he didn't! Yet even as I watch those little feet move, my heart swells with joy — but also with a sharp, stinging melancholy, for I know that they are moving along a path that will eventually carry him out of my arms and away from me.

But what can I do? Carry him until he's too heavy for me to lift? Nail those little feet to the floor and pretend he'll be a baby forever, just so that Papa doesn't have to say "goodbye" some day? Of course not! No, I want him to walk. I want him to step out boldly along that long path that leads from the little house with the green-painted nursery to a world I will never see. Even though it kills me to imagine the day he walks away into his own life, I want that pain, because that is what love costs.

As I grow older, I realize more and more that love is not just the greatest thing there is — it is in a very real sense the only thing there is. In time, everything we know and do and say in this world will fade and disappear; in the final analysis, love is all that is left to us. Days pass, parties end, babies grow up into adults and walk away into the future; life seeps away day by day like sea-foam through our fingers. No matter how tightly we clutch, we cannot hold on to the tide of time — or to the ones who share our time with us. All we can hold on to is the love we have for them.

And I love my little boy. When I watch him play or eat or sleep I sometimes feel a brutal, paralyzing love, a love that can't be reasoned away or dignified with a name. I squeeze him and kiss him because I want to keep him safe, warm, and — most importantly! — all to myself. But that isn't possible. That would be selfish, unjust, and immoral. He is not my property. He is not mine to keep. He was placed in care of his mother and me by a God who is really far too generous, and he belongs to that God and to himself. Since God has given our little boy two good feet and the dignity of choosing his own path, I would be a poor father (and a damned fool) if I tried to stop him from using them. No, not this papa. I will see to it that our boy gets the best start along that path that I can give him, and then I will let him walk it, on his own, and — in time — without me.

I hate three things in this life above all others: bullying, being sleepy, and goodbyes. I particularly detest goodbyes. Yet I know full well that these first steps will lead to many others, that someday I will say goodbye to our little boy as he walks out that front door as a man. I know that someday I will say goodbye to all those whom I love — my dear wife, my friends, my family and neighbors and colleagues. The pathways of life will carry us all farther and farther apart until all are lost in the twilight — and that is as it should be.

Yet no matter how far apart we may become, nothing — not distance, not time, not death itself — can erase the love I have for them. That's what I mean when I say that love is the only thing there is. In the end, it is the only thing that even time cannot destroy.

Folks, this little essay is not meant to be sad. Far from it. It is with joy that I watch Baby take his first steps. It is with rejoicing that I contemplate the passing of years, the coming separations, the soul-piercing goodbyes that await me tomorrow. Yes, love makes us vulnerable to pain — but unless we accept that vulnerability, and the certainty of hurt that accompanies it, we will never know what it means to be truly human. I celebrate the pain of these things not out of masochism, but because they are the inevitable and natural byproducts of love — the love that makes us real persons. Thank God I can love! Thank God I can experience love's pain! Thank God for allowing me to be fully human!

Baby McBaby took his first steps this week — the first of many. And who can imagine where those little feet will take him? So walk on, my sweet little boy. Step out smartly and begin your long journey down the road of life. And when the time comes for you to break free of Papa's arms and leave him behind, remember that Mommy and I will always, always love you, no matter how far away from us the road may take you.

Walk on, little baby, walk on.

Magi Moe

2008-04-27T23:26:00.003-05:00

Gift art for Magibon (YouTube's "MRIrian"). I may sell these if I can get her permission to use her image.

My Lolgraph

2008-04-23T10:59:00.004-05:00

Shrinking NASA

2008-04-22T22:03:00.003-05:00

Ridden Amtrak lately? If not, why not? While you ponder the answer to that question, dig this. In a recent Obama campaign document ("Barack Obama's Plan For American Leadership in Space"), the candidate lays out his proposed policy vis-a-vis NASA. The paper states that as president, "Obama will support the development of this vital new platform [the Constellation spacecraft currently in development at NASA] to ensure that the United States' reliance on foreign space capabilities is limited to the minimum possible time period." In other words, he will maintain the Constellation project at a minimum $500 million per year budget until the first Orion flight, currently scheduled for sometime in 2015. However, NASA is also planning to end Shuttle operations in 2010, leaving the U.S. with no manned space transportation system for five years (or more — NASA's ability to meet deadlines has suffered greatly since the days of Project Apollo). As a result, it's likely that the space agency will be forced to lay off or give early retirement to the thousands of ground crew that currently rebuild and fly our Shuttle fleet. The effect of all this will be a gradual reduction in NASA size and capabilities; the agency will essentially be left to wither from lack of funding as the years go by.

And I say, "good".

This is one area of Obama policy with which I agree. NASA should be allowed to wither away. The agency is the space-going equivalent of Amtrak — expensive, unprofitable, and deathly slow — and for the same basic reason: because it is run by a big-government bureaucracy rather than as a profit-making private enterprise. And I don't believe that the government has any more business running a space program than they have running a railroad.

To my mind, transportation = transportation. While the airless, radioactive void of space presents unique challenges to space transportation service providers, space transportation itself is fundamentally no different than any other form of transportation: at its root, it's still nothing more than the movement of people and things from point A to point B by means of vehicles.

And in America, transportation services have always been best provided by private operators. Government's traditional role — from the Erie Canal to the Interstate Highway System — has been to provide the infrastructure of our nation's various transportation systems. So should it be with space transportation. Just as the federal government funds the construction of air travel infrastructure (airports, navigation systems, air traffic control, etc.) so it should fund the infrastructure of space transportation: launch centers, space communications, aerospace R&D, and so forth. And, as with air travel, actual space transportation services should be provided by privately-owned, for-profit companies.

(For the record: I believe that the federal government should build and maintain a nationwide network of high speed rail infrastructure, and let the railroads provide intercity passenger rail service.)

Don't get me wrong. It's not that I hate NASA. I grew up during the Space Race years, and idolized the steely-eyed missilemen of the space agency, the boys that put Neil and Buzz on the moon. Sadly, however, we no longer have the reformed Nazis, visionary engineers, and selfless program men that ran NASA during its glory years, nor do we today have Congressmen and presidents who see space as the New Frontier. Today, NASA is just another federal agency full of comfortable, well-paid government bureaucrats, supported in Congress by wheedling politicians who see the space program only in terms of juicy contracts for the folks back home.

In my opinion, NASA should be returned to its original purpose — the research and development of air and space transportation technologies — and should hire contractors to launch satellites, probes, and manned spacecraft. Imagine if, instead of giving NASA $500 million per year to build paper spaceships and conduct endless studies, we were to offer American industry a flat $500 million annual contract to build and operate a moon base and associated space transportation system! I'd be willing to bet the job would get done pronto.

Ridden Amtrak lately? I'm a train fan myself, but even I stay away from our nation's pitifully inadequate government-run railroad. And, in my opinion, our country no more needs a government-run spaceline than she needs a government-run railroad. The sooner NASA is allowed to quietly shrink back to a useful size, and to do the job it was intended to do, the better for those of us who still hold on to the dream of personally traveling in space.

Cheap Stuff — Or Is It?

2008-04-15T10:37:00.003-05:00

In a recent editorial, writer Jesse Patrilla somewhat sarcastically commented on the consequences of a proposed economic boycott of China. "No large U.S. retailer is willing (read: stupid enough) to not carry Chinese products, " he wrote. "In the year following their 2004 joining of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and consequent release from quotas, the volume of Chinese clothing exports increased over 500 percent, and prices dropped almost 50 percent. If that’s just numbers to you, do this experiment: Check the perimeter to see if your boss is out of the way, duck in your cubicle and start checking your tags. Even if the leather on your shoes comes from Italy, the sole is Chinese. Your shirt? Yes, Made in China. Your underpants? Ditto."

He makes a good point: the textile manufacturing segment of the US economy has been essentially picked up and transferred from our own shores to the People's Republic of China. According to one source, one-third of the clothes sold in the United States comes from China, and only 6 percent of the apparel worn in the United States is made in this country.

And it's hurting our people. The American Manufacturing Trade Action Coalition has estimated that during the period between 2000 and 2004 the U.S. textile and apparel sector lost 323,000 jobs — 31 percent of its workforce — and that at least 211 textile plants in the United States were forced to shut their doors. The group attributes these losses to increased competition as a result of the dropping of import quotas from manufacturers in low-wage nations, primarily China.

But I don't know why we are complaining. We have gotten exactly what we wanted: free-market capitalism. In a free-market capitalist system, the ultimate goal is profit; therefore, to maximize profit, the shrewd capitalist keeps his or her manufacturing costs as low as possible. In a free-market capitalist economy, human labor is commodified, and, absent regulation, will seek out its natural commodity price, just like any other raw material. Right now Chinese labor (etc.) is the cheapest in the world; therefore, the capitalists of the world have moved their manufacturing to China.

There are alternatives to free-market capitalism: for example, a system in which the interests of a given nation or state are placed above profit. In such an economy, capitalists are free to do business as they wish so long as what they do does not harm the interest of their home nation. A government might for example enact laws preventing capitalists from going abroad to find cheap labor in order to prevent the nation's manufacturing base from being reduced in size, or to keep employment levels high, or to fight deflation. It might set high tariffs to keep foreign goods out in order to create markets for more expensive domestically-produced goods. It might choose to subsidize (via public ownership, tax exemptions, or direct subsidies) certain domestic industries (aircraft, shipyards, etc.) in order to ensure these industries continue to exist. Or it might choose to reimburse certain industries (railroads, power generation, etc.) against losses in order to maintain them at a "going concern" level for national security reasons.

All such forms of government regulation distort the operation of a free market, and thus the market's natural price-setting function. In short, citizens of a state with a regulated economy pay more for certain goods. However, in exchange for these higher prices they receive certain benefits that cannot be provided by the market: increased national security, higher employment (at inflated wages), and the psychological comfort of knowing that their homeland is still capable of producing physical wealth.

We as a nation have made our choice. We have chosen to elevate individual liberty over the interest of the nation. That is what Free Trade is. Therefore, when you hear that the American textile industry no longer exists, or that we as a nation have lost the capacity to produce our own ships, or that a foreign aircraft company has been awarded a contract to build military aircraft for our armed forces, do not complain. We wanted a free-market capitalist system, and now we must live with its consequences: a world where corporations are loyal to no one and nothing except their shareholders, and where human beings — once known as "personnel" — have become nothing more than commodified human resources.

Psychic Guy Sketchpad: Miserere Mei

2008-02-16T00:57:00.003-06:00

Race Still Matters

2008-02-16T00:53:00.002-06:00

The "news" media would have you believe that Obama is bringing the races together in a spirit of brotherhood and progress. No, Race Doesn't Matter in America any more — until They gang up on you in the schoolyard, that is. Then it matters a helluva lot.

This sort of distilled Fantasyland bullshit has always irked me. Sure, it makes for great TV, but it has nothing to do with reality. In the Real World of the American street, race still matters. In the Real World of the American street, that brotherhood crap is nonexistent.

If you are ever curious about the real state of race relations in the Real World of America, 2008, just log on to the friendly pages of fighttips.com. No Free To Be You And Me bullshit there; instead, behind the cloak of Internet anonymity, you'll find that despite almost fifty years of "social progress", the many colors of the Rainbow Of Diversity still hate each others em-effing guts — perhaps now more than ever.

It's not that I'm in favor of hatred; it's just that I'm tired of being forced to pretend that it doesn't exist, or that it's all one-sided. Watching blacks and whites (etc.) beat the crap out of each other in a forthright and honest manner is a refreshing antidote to all the wishful-thinking guidance-counselor nonsense we get stuffed with day in and day out. Schloss mit Bockmist! I'll take good, out-in-the-open tribal street rage over puerile let's-pretend pablum any day. Most of the fights at fighttips are highly entertaining, and the action makes for a great Internets time-killer. No need to feel guilty — no matter what race you belong to, there's always someone to root for at fighttips!

Celebrity criminal and police 'roid-rage target Rodney King once famously asked "Can't we all just get along?" Well, America has answered, Rotney, and the answer is "Hell, No!", followed by a knee to the face. So vote for Obama if you wish, kids, but, please, stop kidding yourself that with his ascension peace and love will reign. This is not the dawning of the Age of Aquarius; the distrust and dislike between people of different tribes is probably coded into the DNA of the species and is not going to disappear just because a slick-talking politician gets 50%+1 of the morons to vote for him.

The faster all races accept and embrace the fact that Race Still Matters, the faster we can develop some sort of social mechanism capable of dealing with that fact.

Note: This rant isn't intended as a slam of Sen. Obama. He's no worse than the rest of the lying bastards running for office this year. I would never vote for him, of course, but neither would I cast my (meaningless) vote for Sen. Juan McAmnesty or Sen. Killary Kapone. I'm a monarchist. Voting is a damned stupid way to run a country.

2007-12-24T16:42:00.001-06:00

Freue dich, freue dich, O Christenheit!

Christkindchen komm in unser Haus,

Leer deine schönen Sachen aus,

Stell dein Eselchen auf den Mist,

Daß es Heu und Hafer frißt.

+ + +

Rejoice, rejoice, O Christendom!

The Christ-Child to our house has come.

Bring now forth thy treasures fine,

Lift thine ass-colts from the mire

That they on hay and oats may dine.

+ + +

From all of us at brucelewis.com
to all of our friends here...

+ + +

JOYEUX NOËL

FRÖLICHE WEIHNACHTSENZEIT

FELIZ NAVIDAD

MERRY CHRISTMAS

クリストの誕生日、おめでとうございます

Kuristo no tanjoubi, omedetou gozaimasu

Selamat Hari Natal dan Tahun Baru Dua
Ribu Tujuh!

Wesołych Świąt

Kala Xristogenna

Priecigus Ziemassvetkus

Prettige Kerstdagen en een gelukkig Nieuwjaar

Nollaig chridheil agus Bliadhna mhath ùr

...and a Happy New Year!

Psychic Guy Sketchbook

2007-12-04T14:00:00.000-06:00