Category Archives: Morality

UPDATED: The Immorality and Lethality of Socialism & Socialists

Communism, Democrats, Gender, Individual Rights, Morality, Socialism

“Be it Hillary or burn-the-wealth Bernie—both agree that it is up to them, the all-knowing central planners, to determine how much of your life ought to be theirs to squander.
Democratic socialism, under which we already labor today in the USA, turns on Karl Marx’s maxim, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” Sanders’ idea is the unnatural notion that the government is entitled to seize a portion of your income; that it has a lien on your life and on what you acquire in the course of sustaining that life.” (“Burn-The-Wealth Bernie & His Partial Enslavement System”)

UPDATE (2/14): The female franchise has sissified and socialized our politics.

UPDATE II: NRO Writer’s ‘UnFollow’ Leads To Musing About The Manners-Morals Connection

Conservatism, Donald Trump, Etiquette, Ilana Mercer, Intellectualism, libertarianism, Morality, Neoconservatism

National Review’s Kevin Williamson, aforementioned, once told me he was a libertarian anarchist. Although I never saw evidence for the claim, I took him at his word that he was a friend behind enemy lines. (It’s also true that I don’t study NRO’s output.) In the couple of exchanges we had, Williamson seemed far less uptight about intellectual differences than most Americans. Myself, so long as ad hominem is avoided and respect is shown—I can easily befriend ideological adversaries. And I do. One of the nicest gentlemen, for example, is Benn Steil, director of International Economics Council on Foreign Relations. I can’t imagine Dr. Steil churlishly unFollowing me. We differ. So what? I enjoyed his book, “The Battle of Bretton Woods,” immensely.

The UnFollow/UnFriend churlishness is not the province of neoconservatives and Republicans alone.

From experience, libertarians can be as uncivilized in their interactions. The column “Schooling Beck On Trump’s Nullification Promise” mentions “Ivan Eland’s learned rundown of U.S. presidents,” Recarving Rushmore: Ranking the Presidents on Peace, Prosperity, and Liberty. I contacted Eland as a courtesy. As did I ask him if he would kindly reciprocate with a Follow on Twitter. Unlike the polite Lawrence W. Reed of the Foundation for Economic Freedom, Eland has simply ignored me. Perhaps he’s on vacation.

Manners are a species of morals. Other than to hate mail or rude mail, I respond to all letters I receive—to each and every one. Many thousands since 1998, which is when I got my first newspaper column, in Canada. Due to time constraints, my replies are laconic. But if a reader has bothered to read my work and comment on what I have to say—then it’s only decent and proper to reciprocate.

I haven’t always been firm in this resolve, but I try my very best. If a colleague writes, I reply, whether I like them and their stuff or not. Ignoring a correspondent demonstrates contempt for that individual—a contempt that reflects on the rude “interlocutor.”

UPDATE (1/24): Facebook readers dispute the characterization of Williamson as remotely intellectual.

Christoph Dollis: Well, I’ve always known Kevin Williamson as a moron. Sorry that it hurts, and I get that (I’ve had similar experiences), but in my long-held opinion about Mr. Williamson, you haven’t lost much. I’m pretty sure Williamson is a staunch friend of arch cuckservative Ed Morrissey of Hot Air. ‘Nuff said.”

UPDATE II (3/5):

Comments Off on UPDATE II: NRO Writer’s ‘UnFollow’ Leads To Musing About The Manners-Morals Connection

Written by on

The Things That Sadden A Liberal About San Bernardino

Justice, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Morality, Terrorism

“The saddest thing” about the massacre committed by Tashfeen Malik and Syed Farook, growled commentator Susan Estrich on Fox News’ uber-liberal Saturday slot, is that there is a six-month old child who has to grow up with this baggage. (I paraphrase because the precise wording or a video clip is not on FNC.) After qualifying the sweep of her words with, “One of The saddest thing,” instead of the “saddest thing,” Democrat Estrich went on to lament the tragedy of “young” mother Malik leaving her child
behind.

Obscene.

Another exercise in the art of the obscene is this CNN expose, which asks, “Who were Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik?” The structure of the answers implies that the two were first and foremost husband and wife. How tender. I’d call the union between Malik and Farook a partnership in crime.

It’s as though left-liberals have trained themselves to harbor only the most aberrant, perverse of sentiments and impulses.

Pop-Pastor Offers No-Fault, Instant Forgiveness To Wife’s Rapists & Murderers

Christianity, Crime, Justice, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Morality, Pop-Culture, Religion

Pop pastor Davey Blackburn is a disgrace; undeserving of his late wife, Amanda Blackburn, and her unborn child. The voodoo Blackburn practices is pop Christianity or Christian dhimmitude, not authentic faith.

Amanda Blackburn’s brutalized, pregnant body—raped and murdered by the two haters pictured below—was not yet cold before the despicable left-coast preacher, Blackburn, offered up instant forgiveness to the men who did unspeakable things to this lovely, young woman—men who’ve not asked for his forgiveness or repented in any deep meaningful way. Besides, WTF is all this forgiveness by proxy?

Only the dead have the right to forgive their killers and they, conveniently, can’t.

These are, allegedly, the two mugs lovely Amanda Blackburn saw before she expired in agony; theirs is the touch she felt:

From “No-Fault Forgiveness Is Fatal”:

… These all-too familiar spasms of no-fault forgiveness, however, are more a distillation of the mass culture than a reflection of any real religious sensibility. If anything, they are a sign of people adrift in a moral twilight zone. In so charitably absolving and embracing alleged killers and their culprits, well-meaning clergy and flock are supplanting the power of the God whose mercy they claim to represent; evincing religious doctrinal failure; and doing injustice to the victims, to society, and, inadvertently, to the offender.

For mercy without justice is no mercy at all.

If punishment is a declaration of those values we wish to uphold, then pardoning a killer or an accessory before he has made amends and paid for his crime perverts and subverts those values. Redemption can be achieved only when the consequences of one’s actions are faced. With each easy act of absolution, the sanctity of life is diminished and murder becomes a little less abhorrent.

In the Jewish perspective, justice always precedes and is a prerequisite for mercy. A Jew is not obliged to forgive a transgressor unless he has ceased his harmful actions, compensated the victim for the harm done, and asked forgiveness. Even then, he can but is not obligated to forgive. This is both ethically elegant and psychologically prudent. It upholds the notion of right and wrong and lends meaning and force to the process of asking for and extending forgiveness. And it doesn’t mandate the incongruous emotion of compassion for someone who has murdered, maimed, or committed other unforgivable crimes.

A Jew is, however, obliged to seek justice. And so are Christians.

In their much-missed “Orthodoxy” column, in the (now-defunct) Report Newsmagazine, Ted and Virginia Byfield confirmed that the Christian and Jewish doctrines are very similar. Christian forgiveness is also contingent on the sinner’s repentance, and can be granted only by the one sinned against, and not by the various proxies of popularity. Instant expiation flows more from the values of the 1960s than from any doctrinal Christian values. The corollary of the current practice of minute-made forgiveness is that “it not only abolishes the necessity of repentance; it abolishes sin itself,” the couple wrote.