Summing up What Happened

I, like perhaps many of us, have spent a lot of time over the last few years talking about the problem of error from a macro perspective. Issues like how bad theology or bad ideology takes hold in a population, how the majority in the general population seem incapable of connecting dots, and seeing the relationship between items that will invariably lead to bad ends.

I may know a bit about how state-actors use techniques to influence perception, but I am still amazed at how effective this can be at the personal level.

Disclaimer: As I have said numerous times, all sides, right and left were deceived, intentionally, through methodologies that are possible at scale only to nation-state level actors. Many are beginning to see that now, most refused to hear it months ago. Many heroes were not, many were part of the deception.

Two encounters on social media, during my brief period attempting to engage in that medium, illuminated, for me at least, the crux of the problem, at the individual level.

First, there is a fellow I have engaged with; we will call him ‘A’. He is an intelligent guy that thinks and has grasped significant portions of truth about the world.  ‘A’ gets a moderate readership for his articles and is occasionally invited for interviews by moderate traffic podcasters. I noticed mere months ago that ‘A’ was going all-in on the narrative provided by Sydney Powell and particularly the stories related by LTG Thomas McInerney. I reached out to ‘A’ and pointed out the absurdity of the 305th MI BN story that McInerney was spreading, provided details as to why it was both absurd and impossible. Instead of considering my honestly provided information ‘A’ counter-argued with me. The great Q PSYOP ensnarled people that did not even know they were followers, otherwise intelligent people. How do you argue against such a powerful deception, that tricks people that would otherwise apply critical thinking skills into being active advocates of the deception? I concluded that it is difficult. The inertia of the lie took hold, far and wide. Truth and reason held no power against such a force.

Next, there is a guy named Roy. I came across some of Roy’s videos one evening and was intrigued by his atypical explanation of the world. I wanted to ‘see his work’ and deduce how he came to these conclusions. Roy advertised himself as a retired Army officer (Intel). I did not vet him, I listened for three hours until he set off my ‘BS’ alarm. At the time Roy had over 20k devoted Twitter followers and videos on numerous platforms. At one point in the past, he was apparently a frequent guest on Infowars as a military intelligence expert.

The thing is, Roy’s official record does not show any of that. Not an intel guy and never deployed to a war zone nor assignment to the Pentagon (as he has allegedly claimed) according to the official record (read about him here, here, and here). I reached out to the ole’ boy for clarification, nicely and politely. His response was one of anger and accusation (I was an “IC asset out to slander him”, denial and more claims that are provably false). When questioned or called out, these are the exact sorts of responses folks that make extraordinary claims always generally provide. Stolen valor sites have numerous examples of these exact sorts of reactions when caught. Yes, I know about ‘sheep-dipping’, I also know it is not very common and you are likely to never meet anyone that talks about it. A person that claims their military service was so secret the official record gives no clues are generally lying. (apparently, Roy was big in the Q scene before they outed him, then he re-branded as a prophet/preacher/something and began claiming that Trump was the antichrist). A lot of people listen to this guy hundreds of thousands have watched his videos over the years - evidence we are doomed I suppose.

The more fundamental question is; why do so many people listen to a guy like that to explain the world to them? Perhaps for the same reason, ‘A’ was so unwilling to consider the truth I laid on him. Deception is so pervasive people seek answers that are contrary to common-sense. At a macro level, we are weak and confused, and susceptible at the micro level to absurdities.

I began an attempt to engage with the greater world in earnest in December of 2019. I began writing about the marco-problem in the spring of 2018. The irony, the real problem that I initially observed in 2018 is the fundamental problem we face now. In general, we have abandoned the foundations of truth that ought to anchor us. Bad theology, absurd philosophy, and dangerous ideology infect all aspects of our world, all of our institutions and we all carry artifacts of that within ourselves.

Nothing will change until enough of the population rediscovers that foundation. In my considered opinion (and I am often wrong) nothing else will truly matter until we learn how to think, discern and process wisdom from knowledge instead of just parsing information. We need to return to first principle thinking and universal truths.

 

My last video below, sums things up.

A few helpful books:

Telling Truth to the Future: Help with Sources

Seeking links to analysis and synthesis of the events from January 2020 to January 2021. I hypothesize that everything was related, that a coordinated deception, information operation, and psychological operation occurred, executed on fringe groups on the left and right, leading to state capture and color revolution event.

This project began on 8 Dec, 2019 as an effort to explain how a nexus between a fourth turning cycle, the maturation of ideology, destruction, and usurpation of institutions made the West and the U.S. particularly vulnerable to state capture events or some other climatic clash. (See Project here Fourth Turning Clash of Inter-Civilization Cultures Hypothesis)

In perhaps six months, once it is possible to paint a better picture of the totality of what has occurred, I plan to write a long-form narrative of this event (book or set of articles). The primary audience of this work is future historians, to point them to information that will conflict with the official narrative that will undoubtedly be readily available to them.

Specifically, I am looking for links to deep-dive analysis of:

  • The COVID story, how the narrative shifted and solidified, and its role in affecting changes to the economy, the mood of the population, and election laws and policies.
  • Evidence of state-actor influence in ANTIFA, BLM, and Q (as well as related groups). Funding, narrative forming, information campaign.
  • Evidence of agent provocateurs present in BLM events and the 6 January Capitol event.
  • Network diagrams tracking funding streams, organizational commonalties with linkages by to politicians and political action groups.
  • An analysis of reported arms, ID, and gold shipments from China into the US in 2020 and before.
  • Media complicity in narrative painting.

Credit will be provided unless submitters wish to remain anonymous. I am happy to discuss collaborating with others in joint work, I will consider working with anyone interested in seeking truth through critical thinking and analysis.

Links or information may be submitted to blclark at protonmail.com or via direct message to my Twitter account.

Considering American Exceptionalism

America, in many ways, is exceptional. We are blessed with vast resources, a history, and lineage that provided us with a framework of law built at its core centuries ago around universal law, natural law, and natural rights. We have inherited from those that came before us a culture that was hardworking, ambitious, and tethered to truth. Through accident, sloth, and sometimes willful rebellion we have denigrated those gifts, but in the times that we are still good, we can be exceptional.

But we are not perfect, we are not morally superior, we are probably not even blessed because it is preordained that we must be. We certainly have not always been good, right nor just. We are not perfect.

We are also not what Howard Zinn would paint us as, nor the politicized caricature the NYT foisted upon the world recently with the 1619 project. Even where Zinn or those that contributed to the 1619 project approach truth they do so from a flawed perspective. If you find poison in a well upstream all that flows downstream is suspect.

We could spend hours, hundreds of pages, and endless conversations related to what the post-moderns got correct in their original protests to the Western way and by extension the American system. Their original, foundational questions were not wrong, they were also not unique. But for the sake of brevity and sanity, we can dismiss postmodern criticism of our system because they lead to absurdity, confusion, and no solutions.

In 1930 twelve southern academics and writers collaborated in I’ll Take My Stand. Their criticisms of industrialization versus agrarianism were those of cause and effect, of culture, and quality of life. Profoundly, these men, arguing for both how we live and the quality of the world we live in were not so different than later objections inspired by postmodernism.  Inside of those criticisms is something true.

We could go on, perhaps to review the work of Russel Kirk, Thomas Fleming, and others, it would be a long and enjoyable journey, one that a person could spend a lifetime perusing, but we might boil down the central them to one paraphrased statement.

The balance between liberty and order, justice and truth, righteousness and liberty, and good government and tyranny is perilous. Idealism unchecked is dangerous, human nature when unaccounted for and unrestrained is dangerous. Tradition is important, accidents of history occur and they become part of us. Who we are is who history made us to be and that is important as a start of who we might become.

Recently John Zmirak was rightly railing against conservatives that make a living peddling fear of tyranny and oppression to come while at the same time kowtowing to the new illiberal order. He asserted that some of these believe America was founded poorly and that the only way out is for it to fail and some future generation o start anew. We disagreed briefly on the second point, I see major flaws in the founding, yet I also see the accidents of history and our traditions have given us what we have, you fight for what you have and endeavor to improve it. But there is something to be said for the disagreement John highlighted within the world of ideas.

To those that operate in that rarified air of ideas, and historical and legal interpretation, I would say, there really is something to the claim that our founding is not exactly what the story of American exceptionalism says it is. This is true too of Lincoln and others.

Centralization was inserted into our system by a cabal early on. (I use cabal intentionally with no implied additional meaning). When the Federalists conspired to ignore their charter to modify the Articles of Confederation, used every crisis (whether contrived or leveraged to advance their solution), and executed a coordinated propaganda campaign to gain compliance from the masses - they set in motion and made possible what we see today.

[C]entralization is both contrary to the received traditions of the American people and has proven negative to all aspects of good governance and society – excluding order which cannot long last once all else is lost. The paper is divided into two sections with an introduction and conclusion. The first is a historical survey of the ideas and events from the 1760s to 1868 and comprise the Revolution, formation of the Republic, and establishment of the New Order.

Centralization has proven false, dangerous and a negative path because it is fundamentally contrary to nature, human nature, and natural law, and must invariably lead to less mortality, less liberty, less prosperity, and ultimately less happiness.

In essence, everything the antifederalists feared, everything that Calhoun warned of – these and more have been the fruits of centralization and nationalization. One could even argue that the reduction to the mean, man swallowed in a sea of sameness that he is incapable of influencing has exacerbated the influence of bad philosophy, skepticism, relativism, and humanism; these have further separated man from God and religion that honors Him. (article here)

I am happy to sit any day with anyone that operates in the world of ideas and discuss the entire premise. Leave credentials and titles and the door and we will take turns purchasing beverages.

But frankly, we do not live in the world of ideas. Augments over if and how the Federalists' goal of building a unitary executive and central state were real and if they had historical impact will not fundamentally change the future, not now. Those were arguments for 2019.

The Fundamental Question

For simplicity, two broad and general political worldviews.

  1. The System Works
  2. The System is utterly corrupt and does not work

Obviously, those two camps have numerous subdivisions, conservatives, liberals, and progressives can and do fall in each camp. Let’s keep it simple and focus just on conservatives that now (13 December 2020) see the system and utterly corrupt and dysfunctional (a group that grows by the day).

At the very heart of this group, we find ‘truthers’, Don Quixotes that have for years chased down oddities. Sometimes their searches for truth led them down wrong paths but at the core, they always knew that things are not what we are told. Functionally they agree with the arguments in the centralization paper listed above.

Most of us are familiar with some of the arguments, there is a grand conspiracy that has existed for centuries and within that conspiracy, there are now secret and not so secret groups that seek to seize power and control us and the world economy.

If you paid attention to these groups and the various versions of the theory you understand the accusations of collusion between Freemason founders in America, bankers, Jesuits, and others. Before 2020, most people dismissed these theories publicly, even if they entertained them to some degree privately.

In 2020, after observing almost all of our institutions lie to us repeatedly and in a coordinated way to tell us that what we just witnessed with our own eyes is not true, many folks began to pay attention to long dismissed theories. When the World Economic Forum began to talk openly about a Great Reset, many more listened.

The Fundamental Answer

We will never know all the details. We will likely not know if there was a conspiracy that existed across generations, whether the ambitions and goals of the Federalist in 1790 that manifested as reality in our time was all part of a bigger plan. Frankly, that does not matter. We do not need to know all the details right now.

We can see the nature of the thing. The warnings and protests of the anti-federalists came true, they were right about the Federalists. The warnings of John C. Calhoun in the mid-nineteenth century and the twelve southerners in the mid-twentieth came true. The warnings of the John Birth Society from the 1950s and 60s have manifested. We do not have to be able to piece all of the parts together and know every connection to see the nature of things. The warnings came true, we can look back and see that there were connections between people that had a role in moving us to this point and we can look and listen to people speaking that want to take us further.

We do not have to prove or disprove all the conspiracy theories to now see that something has been up, and most likely did not just begin. Whether that was an innocent transmission of ideas or something more intentional does not matter. We see the effect; effects always have a cause. When you see an effect build across time and can attribute small incremental events (causes) to the growing effect and then find tangible connections to those involved you know enough.

The Glue That Holds It Together

Evil.

There is only one force that could deceive intelligent and free people long enough, deep enough and over enough time to foundationally shifting a culture from freedom and righteousness to tyranny and unrighteousness.

A Word of Caution

Knowing that the system is rigged, understanding that somebody has collaborated to hijack both our perception of reality but also perhaps our future does not mean that we can fully understand who and what that is right now. It also does not mean we can fully understand who to trust.

I have a video and article I plan to release on 20 January 2021, I think by then more of what I believe may be the truth of all the movements I see afoot may manifest in a way that people will listen and understand.

Be careful.

Optimism, Grit, and Happiness in Hard Times

Some facts about our world that can both be mutually exclusive, each can be true:

◊ Things can be bad, life can be hard.


◊ Humans are often foolish and silly.


◊ Society and its opinions do not matter.


◊ The body can be hurt, imprisoned, or killed.


♦ God is in control

◊ Life is a precious blessing and is worth living.


◊ People are the creation of God in his image.


◊ The individual in society does matter.


◊ You own your will, integrity, spirit, and soul.


♦ We live in the world, we have free-will and responsibility

Look back across all of known history, you will see peoples invaded, impoverished, plagued with diseases, enslaved, and subjected to all manner of hardship. Read the Book of Job and empathize with his trials and suffering. Undoubtedly there are examples of entire people that essentially gave up in hard times, perhaps we have few records of such people as their own cowardice ensured they were forgotten. However, what we see, across time and cultures is that humans live, thrive, raise families, and struggle on even through the most difficult of times. Art does not cease to be produced, children are born, people fall in love, grieve the loss of elders when they die, work, play, and live - always. If this were not so, we simply would not be here today.

Even if you take two particularly egregious historical moments, the Trail of Tears and the Holocaust you find stories of love, hope, and life, even when it was dire and hope was forlorn.

Throughout history, humans have lived their lives, even under austere circumstances.

In 2020 we look around and wonder, what comes next. Even those disinclined to see conspiracy theories about government overreach and control as valid now look around and wonder just how far this all could go. Can we trust elections, can we trust the government to maintain order and justice, can we trust our neighbors? These are not unreasonable questions or concerns.

Read and re-read the Book of Job

A young person in high school or college might wonder what is in it for them, what does their future really look like. It might be easy to look around and wonder what is the point. They see a world where they cannot freely express their ideas, where social norms and social circles will quickly turn on them if they do not signal the right virtues. They wonder what will be left to them in a system that is willing to take on historical amounts of debt that can never be repaid. They must wonder if the generations in power now and those just a few years older than them calling for more radical and extreme measures are not condemning them and their future children to poverty, chains, and unhappiness.  (the chains and poverty piece might be true, but happiness is the sole right of each individual, no matter the circumstance.

Facts:

  • Our metaphysical reality consists of the physical and spiritual realms
  • God is real
  • In 2020, something is happening, things are about to change (one way or the other)
  • The only thing you actually own is your integrity, you spirit, your soul, and your free-will
  • Life has meaning, everything has meaning, the moment has meaning, the future also

Imagine for a moment if even the most outrageous conspiracy theories are true. Imagine if this is the 'end of history' and our future. If you have read the fictional stories below, imagine for a moment that we are headed for the middle of all that dystopian nightmare - what does it mean for you?

You are here

It simply means that is your lot in life.

But you do not give up. You do not say it does not matter and you ought not to try. It does not mean that you just resign it all to God and take no action. It does not mean becoming hypnotized by the drama, minutia, and 'entertainment' they offer you to keep you passive.

You must live, love, find things to be happy about, be engaged in important things. You must stand on truth and play your part.

You will not understand everything in a world filled with deception but you can understand that real truth exists.

Question everything

  • Think logically
  • Ground yourself on truth
  • Walk your own path
  • Be vigilant
  • Use discernment
  • Use your talents, take action and live life
  • Trust God

Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be frightened, and do not be dismayed, for the Lord your God is with you wherever you go. - Joshua 1:9

Last thing: love people but never be afraid to speak truth, to rebuke magnificently as C.S. Lewis said. Particularly those that pervert real truth to fit the needs of the world (social gospel preachers).

Keep your chin up, be who God created you to be, seek truth, and speak truth.

Maybe do it a bit kinder than me...

(video of guy actually describing me)

Throw out the Quill

I think this was all a Hegelian dialectic. I saw the initial talk and drastic suggestions early on this year from some 'conservative' Integralist Catholic friends, lawyers no less (Jesuit lawyers can be scary). I dismissed what they said as fringe ideas. That something nefarious was at play was apparent in the absurd support the Democratic party threw at false causes that created violence. And now a Straussian Supreme Court nominee? It is time to put away the quill I think, we are finished. Leviathan comes.
 
All of this while so many wanted to argue over the issues they told us to argue about. 'love thy neighbor' (stay home, wear a mask, justice matters) Russia, Ukraine, mailboxes, etc. etc. etc. So few would listen, step back, and see that something bigger and more nefarious was at play. It is clearer now, and tomorrow, if this plays out as people are predicting, it will be crystal clear.

Talking with a new friend today at lunch, us looking at the world and what we ought to do for our families and our communities. Of all the scenarios, there were a couple that made me say, ‘I am out, if that happens I withdraw from all this’.

I cannot be certain, nothing is proven, but it appears that the news today regarding the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett for the Supreme Court puts a lot of puzzle pieces that were previously missing on the table. Look up Jacobson v. Massachusetts. Barrett is the Federalist Society pick, she ruled in 2020 using justification from Jacobson.

I have made my arguments against Straussians very clear (Claremont types, Federalists, Jaffeites etc.) See Centralization and the New American Order for one of my better arguments related to those folks. They are dangerous thinkers.

Lincoln was dangerous, and lead what became America’s third revolution. (The First War of the New Order) The Federalists and their ilk have since that war pressed for a more powerful central government and a unitary executive. These sorts of ideas are as dangerous as the Marxism espoused by BLM.

The Supreme Court has become key to what we become; it has defined the culture war. Appointing a justice that would vote for decades to expand the government will cement our slide toward authoritarianism.

Is this what the color revolution was all about? All the nonsense in the street, with the Democratic party supporting it, while Trump concedes to the Straussians and locks-down our future (figuratively and literally)? Were we all hoaxed in a massive triple play?

I pray that this does not happen, maybe the news leaks have it wrong. We should all, left, right and center, pray that Trump nominates someone else. We will know tomorrow it seems. No matter what happens with the election this appointment, if it is a Straussian is enormous.

Imagine this additional nightmare scenario – Trump appoints Barrett, he loses the election, the Democrats take the senate and do as they have threatened, appoint two additional justices. Barrett and Roberts (and often Kavanaugh) would join the four current liberal justices and the two new ones in systematically dismantling the entire Constitution. Was that always the plan? If Trump nominates Barrett – perhaps.

Or did this happen because Trump cannot afford to make the Federalist Society people mad, the US facing a critical election and all the shenanigans that have gone on for the last four years? Did they corner him? I do not know, but nominating Barrett is certainly going along with the status quo folks.

If this happens, I am out! On the day/night that the election is finally ‘decided’, either way, I am out. If I had hope that anything that is actually wrong in America might have been fixed, it will all be lost with another Straussian on the bench. I will delete all my stuff online, write no more, and disappear into my various hobbies. I will put the quill away. Ideas and arguments will no longer matter, the future is clear at that point. Nobody wins, I will not fight this.

Note: "Progressively" minded folks, don't celebrate. Your folks have proven themselves to be evil this year manipulating people to hate, fear and violence. All this potentially means is that the color revolution included more than just your favorite folks. We will all rue this in our lifetime.

Facts:

Progressives - Your insidiously stupid support for absurd, illiberal ideologies, particularly when they manifested into crybaby tantrums, violence, and hate in the street was prima facie evidence to most reasonable people that you have no idea of what you say or perhaps even why you hold the worldview you do. You have much responsibility for this. We ought not been so divided right now as to allow bigger machinations to defeat us.

Conservatives - You have been correct to fear the radicalization of the increasingly Marxist left, particularly when they openly supported violence. This has blinded you and left you only with 'hope' of a savior. Barrett is that only insofar as Franco saved Spain from the murderous communist rabble. Many of you have a responsibility in this also. This will be a bitter pill.

Christians - if your actual understanding of the Bible made you susceptible to fall for Marxist lies this year and tacitly support violence and hate; you do not understand the Biblical message. Find a new Bible, teacher, church, or preacher. If you get caught up in the SCOTUS talk about 'wombs' and the right of deranged people to celebrate the murder of unborn children,  you are missing everything God told us and the bigger things occurring right now. There are reasons to be concerned about a Straussian on the bench, but her opposing abortion is actually a redeeming quality. If you don't see that, I cannot help you.

 

We were played. However, of all the ways this enigma might have revealed itself - the true nature of it - I am happy, at least, to have life and societal order (perhaps in the near/mid-term only) over what many of us feared was behind all of this. The lesser of two evils.

 


What we learned (or should have)

  1. There is a 'they'
  2. "They" consist of some of your favorite icons, no matter who you are
  3. Nothing more than first principle thinking was required to see this
  4. But, most were deceived; deception is everywhere
  5. Ideas are important, principles and ultimate truth are critical; bad ideology made the masses easy prey
  6. Many of the people and institutions we trust failed this year; much of Christianity failed to see all of this for what it was
  7. Science is never settled, it is not religious dogma; most of us forgot our 6th Grade science class
  8. Many of our neighbors would have made excellent Germans in the 1930s

Last Thing:

I get it, in talks over the last few months with people that spent a lot of time in school, sometimes they had no idea what I was talking about - some of the terms. perhaps I spent too much of my life deployed to crap places and reading esoteric stuff in my off time to stay out of trouble. If you came into 2020 not fully understanding the Marxist plan from the early 1900s, if you do not understand what a Straussian is, then perhaps you do not know how both of those seemingly different ideologies end up in something that looks the same, totalitarianism.

Heck, if you are a moderate Democrat and do not understand that you are actually a conservative (not the 'R'/'D' sort), but the type that stands for preserving our enlightenment based system (modified by received traditions) then you probably have not understood a word I have said either.

We had something of a chance to turn the tide, to restore something of our classical liberal traditions. It was a sliver of a chance and there were always enemies from a growing radicalized and increasingly Marxist Democrat party and from Straussians and Neocons in the Republican party. The establishment has spoken, they have won. They divided us and won. Mark it down. We were played and few saw it and few will really understand when and how it happened.

Carry on with watching 'team sports' of Dems versus Republicans and posting memes! This is playing out precisely as Aldous Huxley described. Leviathan cometh. We will not get a second bite at the apple, or another chance to stop those that are really in charge.

God is in Control

maxresdefault

God is in control, he has been for all of human history. I would never argue that point, but have you read history...? I have heard this phrase repeated often in 2020. What exactly does it mean in the context of our current world? Does it mean that God will lead us out of this? That peace and prosperity are in our future if we but pray for it and are faithful in our belief we will receive it?

I do not intend to be insulting, but that sounds a lot like Prosperity Gospel. Tweek it just a bit here and there, change a couple of words and it is Prosperity Gospel entirely. Kenneth Copeland level stuff. I only hear this phrase from my evangelical friends. None of my Catholic friends say this. I disagree with Catholic theology, but they are not wrong about everything!

Why do Catholics look at this so differently than protestant evangelicals? That is a loaded question, there are many reasons. Broadly speaking, I think it all relates to our inherited traditions. Some protestant denominations encourage a faith and reason tradition and learning more than others. Certainly, not all Catholics read history and the classics. However, in general, and broadly speaking their tradition does. Perhaps I have oversimplified it, maybe the cause I see is all wrong - but in my observation, there is a difference, protestant evangelicals say this, Catholics do not.

Maybe it is because we protestants do not have a living memory of oppression. Catholics in America know a little bit more of that, perhaps not them personally, but there is a collective memory in their tradition of not being accepted universally. Maybe they spend more time in the Old Testament than some evangelicals. I do not know.

I have lost friends this year because I have become dogmatic in certain areas. I believe the small errors we have accepted and embrace need to now be removed. We are headed for hard-times I think, real oppression and real ostracization (Rod Dreher called this our 8:20 moment this week). But I hear "God is in Control". Yes, he is, but what do you mean by that?

Solid old Christian ladies die painful deaths to cancer. Young children die to leukemia. Faithful Christians are murdered in the middle-east. Christian fathers lose their jobs and can not feed their families. If by "God is in Control" we mean all that bad stuff will not happen to us - then we mean we just need to name it and claim it and everything will be ok. Why then does it happen to other Christians?

God is in control cannot mean what people imply when they say it to shut down conversation about the state of our world. There is no conceivable reason that America should be shown any additional favor or protection. We are in many ways as bad as Sodom and Gomorrah. We murder thousands of babies a year.

God may have a plan that leads us out of this, but there is nothing Biblical or historical to indicate that he will our should. If he does it is because we have a purpose to serve, not because we have been faithful.

Uttering this phrase is almost heretical at this point. It tells people not to tighten their belts and do the things required to shape our own future.  If people listen to you, if you have authority, maybe you need to reconsider how and when you use this phrase. Throughout history, in times of great trouble and crisis, men of God stood in pulpits and preached fiery words of action. Not words that agreed with the world, real and hard truth. Telling people to "not worry and be happy" is not helpful. Preaching that this is all just a phase and God is in control is an error. It is almost as damnable as preaching that Christians should be following the ideas of the world right now.

We live in a transcendent metaphysical reality but we are also part of the material world. Just throwing it all on God was never part of His plan. We have work to do.

Where are The Critical Thinkers

Watching the world each day, I am struck by the absolute lack of any critical analysis or thinking among large swaths of all segments of society. I admit and recognize there are elements of this on the ‘right’; diehard MAGA folks that believed Qannon was real and that Trump had a plan. However, I suspect, that is not really a very large part of the population. I am also aware that while this group has been susceptible to believing many theories that did not pass the reasonableness test, they had many things right in their memes.

What has become increasingly disturbing is the elements of society that when presented with clear facts, facts that any reasonable person would look at and draw similar conclusions from, yet, many vocally and doggedly support a version of the story that comports in almost no way with reality. Oftentimes the major news outlets are complicit in these events through dishonest, biased and misleading headlines and perhaps a picture taken out of context becomes the only snippet of the story many every look at.

The situation in Michigan yesterday where three women essentially stalked, harassed, made verbal threats of violence and then blocked the car of a couple attempting to leave are the latest example. Most mainstream media outlets carried headlines such as “white woman in Michagan points gun at two balck women and a teenager”. If they included a video clip is is only of the last few seconds of the incident. Their stories have not included a full description of what went on before.

On social media, there are droves of people claiming the most absurd things related to this event. “The man tried to run the women over”, “the white woman threatened to kill the black women”. None of that is in the video. We have to always be careful judging events in videos, but several facts are clear enough to anyone that analyzes that situation honestly and with critical thinking.

But, that is not where we are. The event in Michigan is just the latest in what is beginning to appear to be a pattern. Videos that begin after something has happened, the filmers in the video make bold proclamations about the ‘wrong’ the person they are filming just committed. As in the case in Michigan, most of the folks subject to these events initially looked either shocked that this is occurring because they have no idea why the other person seems so upset OR, the person in the video seems upset as if they have been threatened in some way. Several videos of this nature that have appeared recently are later reveled to have begun after the one filming said something that was threatening, only to resume a calm and cool voice once they begin filming.

It all seems very organized, it seems very much like there are guidelines out there that tell folks how to do this. Does that sound like a crack-pot theory? Rules For Radicals listed instructions for the use of ridicule to achieve political objectives. Assuming these events are not just random is not crack-pot at all.

Anyone that spends any time at all truly seeking to understand what is going on right now – stepping away from ideology and the narrative of the world that says we need to listen and understand and relies instead on observing events, facts and reactions cannot help but see how nefarious all of this is. The fact that entire swaths of the public consume the initial misrepresentations of these events ought to be terrifying to any rational man. The reality that so many news outlets are quick to publish stories, most never retracted, that tell thing consistently wrong in a specific way ought to scare the hell out of anyone looking.

Yet it does not.

Something, some force has closed the minds and eyes of many people (a hint that force is Evil). It has turned some into rabid, hateful violent street demons. It has blinded others to the reality and seduced them into willing support of the narrative on the edges. Entire institutions that should be protecting civilization are now complicit in its downfall.

Does any reasonable person want to live in such an uncivilized world where it is perfectly ok to yell at people, tell them you will kick their ass, block, and hit their car? That is not speech, it is not civilized. These are not acts we have ever tolerated. Do we want to live with such hate? Why have so many ran to the banners of division, strife, and hate? These are things a prosperous and free nation can tolerate.

Yet we do. Videoes like described above are just a small part of the disconnect form objective reality we observe. Absurd is all around us and embraced now.

Unfortunately, I know more fools than wise men. “Friends” that are pastors, parents, college-educated ‘Christians’; so many have proven themselves to be fools. This is the biggest test of the current epoch and most are utterly failing the test because they want to be relevant and listen or to be accepted and not make wave – instead, they should be observing and thinking and speaking truth.

I left social media because even so many that I once considered friends are too lost to save. It is for me not an over-reaction to consider these folks former friends. What is occurring is a existential crisis. Left unchecked this will damn America, our kids and grand kids. All Americans for generations will suffer under the anarcho-tyranny to come. If a person says they stand on principles and cannot summon those principles to see this reality, I suspect their principles were always different than mine anyway. We were never friends, I merely thought we were.

These are the saddest days I ever thought I would live to see. It will grow far worse. My greatest sadness is that I was unable to lead some that I love out of danger and that I perhaps invested love and friendship in people that when the world got really real, they were no capable of seeing reality.

I am not sad for me, I am sad for the future.

A Primer in Truth

Antonio Gramsci conceived of the need for long-march through Western institution in order to facilitate Marxist revolutions. The church was one such institution that had to be infiltrated. This happened log ago with the UMC, PC (USA) Episcopalian and others. It began in earst with the SBC a few years ago. The megachurch, is unique in that is was built upon communitarian ideology that will eventual man these churches fall lock-step into compliance and support of Marxism and away from Christianity.

I challenge you, spend time watching the videos below, and follow some of the links. Follow the facts yourself, check the sources, and question the conclusions of the folks below. The men below are both qualified to speak, by education and experience, and they speak quality as determined by measuring their words through discernment and reason. They are not speaking from new and ‘interesting’ ideologies or currently popular ideas, they speak truths based upon the Bible, history, and ideas long tested by many reasonable and intelligent people.

Do not follow the world (Romans 12:2), even if it comes in the form of a church. If a church is following the world – it is probably wrong.

Follow the links below long before you read a list of ‘recommended books’. Books often are written by people that quote people that cite ideas that are unproven and unsound. No matter how ‘recommended’ many of these books may be by the crowd, you have to evaluate the intent before the content – you have to understand the ideas the books are based upon and where they come from and what the real purpose of the book has. If you fail to do this, if you read these books and follow the crowd without rightly applying Biblical principles you will be made a fool. If you blindly follow leaders that tell you how to think and tell you not to question but just to ‘act and serve’ you will become nothing more than a Menshevik (a useful idiot to the Marxist – their term, not mine.)

Late addition to list, look at the The Statement on Social Justice & the Gospel. Read the statement, argue from Biblical principles that the statement is wrong. Would your pastor sign this based upon what he has been saying from the pulpit? If not, ask yourself what he is using to justify his words if not the Bible. If you doubt the assertions, look at the resources on the SJ&G site. Why do these real, authentic and concerned Christians disagree so firmly with what progressive churches are saying? Look at the site, read the statement, look at the resources below, check the facts, read you Bible, pray – You already know what right looks like, you are just so far in to your social group you are unwilling to see it.

  1. Watch Dr. Thomas Sowell, the brightest economist of our day explain why all the troubles on the street that people are rioting and protesting about are really public policy and economic problems, not racism.

2. John MacArthur and an expository review of the Biblical explanation for the current troubles.

3. Watch Voddie Baucham explain what Cultural Marxism is, the real objective behind the crisis. (Optional) read this Washington Times editorial about progressive pastors supporting anti-biblical organizations.

4. Hear Voddie Baucham explain why the racialism of the current crisis is really Ethnic Gnosticism and anti-Biblical.

5. (Optional) if you are brave, read ‘Cultural Marxism, Antonio Gramsci, and The Frankfurt School

6. If you do not believe or understand that the bad and dangerous ideologies of Postmodernism and Cultural Marxism have infected the church, watch the Founder’s Ministries presentation below.

7. If you are confused as to why your megachurch pastor is not saying anything like the pastors above and why they have told you to stop having opinions and just listen to the leaders and act, watch Chris Rosebrough’s presentation below (open up the PowerPoint that goes with the lecture first).

8. (Optional) If you do not believe Chris I suggest you check his work. Begin at the Leadership Network ( the organization that was foundational in the creation of your church) read what they say of Peter Drucker. Google and read Druker’s own words about social change and why he got involved with churches (hint: it was not about Christ). Google “Peter Drucker Cult’, there are numerous books papers and articles about leadership cult etc, even people that applied his management theories realize the cult-like elements. Look at these [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] for some examples of this in the church, there are many more. Think about how preachers in these churches place themselves in every sermon, other preachers do not do this – that is part of the cult of leadership, it is intentional. Go find where your Bible says that ‘truth can only be found in community’ (in context and in agreement with the whole Scripture), ignoring the Biblical principles of the authority of conscience. Ask why preachers in these churches are so fast to follow the WORLD in this time instead of rightly applying the Bible – where are they leading you? Are these false teachers? (Matthew 24:24)

9. See Dr. Stephen Hicks explain Postmodernism (the stuff that fills up those books on that recommended list you are provided continually)

10. (Optional) a discussion of America’s New Religion…and How To Stay Christian.

11. Read deeply about China’s Cultural Revolution, dig for facts, not just Wikipedia, and much of the muted stories that appear high in Google searches – go deeper to find the true and horrible story. Read how 100 million people died and countless others were tortured and imprisoned and an entire nation impoverished because of the same sorts of radical ideas and ideologies at play in our world right now. See below for one example.

12. A description of the Marxist plan from 1966

13. I know nothing about the folks that produced the video, but I have been familiar with the lecturer Yuri for years, he is the real deal – the video would be much better without the commentary.

If you watch and read all of the above and more, from folks that apply a Biblical understanding of these issues in a way that is tried and true and tested over the generations you will come to understand a few things about the world. You will see that some folks you have come to trust are wrong and have led you astray.

Don’t listen to me – but also don’t let others tell you how you are supposed to see all of this. There are fools and charlatans out there and many bad ideologies. If you listen to them you forfeit your inheritance to a good future and damn your children to suffer under the mess you went along with the crowd in creating.

Be a true man and woman of God, Be brave, seek truth, think for yourself, don’t follow the crowd, don’t follow charlatans!


Blackstone’s Influence on American Political Philosophy

The question before us, ‘how did the writings of Blackstone influence American political philosophy, and what evidence for this influence is seen in Tocqueville's observations of American political life?’ is perhaps best quantified with qualifiers such as influence ‘upon whom’, ‘for how long’, ‘to what extent’. If we accept a genealogy of ideas from Blackstone’s conception of positive law reinforcing and being built upon convention – A Burkean view – we might argue that his influence was temporary and transient at best. If on the other hand, we assume, as many now do[1], that the jurisprudence of positive law – as presently conceived in legal positivism separate from morality - is one driver of political philosophy, then the argument could be plausibly made that Blackstone indirectly influences American political philosophy today, albeit not in a manner true to Blackstone’s conception of the law. This paper presupposes that Blackstone’s intended influence, as surmised from the breadth of his writing, was limited in reach and duration while the influence of ideas of others, tenuously derived from Blackstone’s principles[2], have been and are profound. Therefore, Blackstone’s influence on American political philosophy is foundational because both those that interpret him as he intended to be read and those that read in his works a transformative power within positive law to shape culture and society, absent convention, rely upon axioms established by Blackstone.

Blackstone begins, conducts, and ends his work with an acknowledgment of the foundation of the law, situated below the divine law, rooted in natural law and a creature of the accidents and circumstances of the people it is designed for. The ‘first and primary purpose’ of the law is to maintain and regulate absolute rights and in the case of those beneficiaries of British heritage, personal security, personal liberty, and private property.[3] Blackstone dismisses in his theory the notion of the original state of nature as having any contemporary relevance. He conceives of the circumstance of man where law forevermore requires a state necessary to enforce it and the impossibility of the destruction of law by law.[4] The foundational principles upon which law must be drawn in his view is custom or convention. He places a high value on deference to prior generations.[5] To Blackstone, the law is not reason, he is opposed to the “rage of modern improvement”[6] – the attempt to template reason onto law to achieve idealized ends. Blackstone saw the progression of the law as a slow process, over time, gradual and relying heavily upon and firstly on the decisions, customs, and conventions of the past. The view of jurisprudence held by Blackstone was best articulated by Burke as ‘a contract between the living, the dead and those yet to be born.’[7]

Numerous previous works have detailed the influence of William Blackstone on the generation of men that framed[8] the U.S. Constitution. Certainly, these men widely read Blackstone, as did many aspiring lawyers and politicians for subsequent generations. The question is not, did he influence them, the relevant question is what parts of Blackstone did they carry forward. We might, as many are apt to do, read the words of these men themselves to discern that answer. This is a wholly inadequate approach. If we begin by reading The Federalist, we would admittedly be reading a document of propaganda[9] intended to sway public opinion.[10] A work that, in more than one entry, contained examples of historical ignorance or perhaps outright deception.[11] If we are to truly understand the impact that Blackstone had on these men, we must examine their contemporary critics, what did they argue against in the proclamations in The Federalist that have proven true? We must look to the generation immediately following the framers to the political debates and to men like Calhoun that warned against the rising manifestation of ideological deficiencies previously warned about by the Antifederalists, to Tocqueville and his observations and warnings and perhaps finally to Lincoln and his war[12] that solidified and ‘corrected’ deficiencies of the Federalist ideology into the very Leviathan-like central state the Federalist promised would never arise.

Hamilton and Madison argued in The Federalist against generally held common sense notions that; only state governments could be free and republican, large countries turn to despotism and they are warlike. The opposing view observed that it is impossible to avoid these circumstances because the people must be vigilant, patriotic, and informed.[13] One can argue that every argument of those originally opposed to the Federalist position has materialized, and likely will only manifest more.[14] Their subtle references to equality over convention, natural law, subsidiarity, and the common good were a drastic departure from the prescriptions of Blackstone.

Tocqueville observed that passion for equality was compatible with both tyranny and liberty and democratic principles unchecked by morality and virtue could lead to unprecedented levels of tyranny.[15]  He saw the inevitable problems of the ‘march toward equality’, begun subtly with a few words in the Declaration of Independence, woven into the centralizing nature of the Federalist ideal of the Constitution. These notions were completed twenty-five years after Tocqueville's observation by war and a ‘second revolution’ by Lincoln. Materialism, mediocrity, domesticity (de-masculinization), and isolation were the dangers of the equalizing and centralizing plan of the Federalist. Tocqueville foresaw the tyranny of the majority that John C. Calhoun attempted to thwart[16], and that no breakthrough in education could raise the poor to the level of sufficient knowledge to rule.[17] To thwart these dangers Tocqueville saw the need for subsidiarity and morality. ‘Democratic expedients’ such as local self-government, a free and independent church as a societal institution, independent judiciary, and associations were required.[18] Finally, in agreement with Burke and Blackstone, Aquinas, and Aristotle, he saw freedom as impossible without morality.[19]

It was the Jacksonian democratic dream that Tocqueville observed in 1835, and warned of the potential dangers of. A few short years later, in 1842, it was Calhoun that warned of an ‘American political nightmare’.

As the Government approaches nearer and nearer to the one absolute and single power, the will of the greater number, its actions will become more and more disturbed and irregular; faction, corruption, and anarchy, will more and more abound; patriotism will daily decay, and affection and reverence for the Government grow weaker and weaker, until the final shock occurs, when the system will rush to ruin, and the sword take the place of the law and Constitution. [20]

It was Lincoln that completed the centralization and transformation beginning in 1861 in what George P. Fletcher observes as a second constitution after 1865. One based on “organic nationhood, equality of all persons, and popular democracy” concepts in opposition to those of our first constitution which promulgated “peoplehood as a voluntary association, individual freedom, and republicanism”.[21] These new principles align very well with the foundation and words in The Federalist, yet at a base level, they are completely detached from the whole of Blackstone’s philosophy.

Thus, it can be argued the Federalists were wrong, the very things they denied, and their opponents predicted occurred.  They were wrong because they applied only a positivist interpretation of Blackstone and ignored his reliance on foundational matters; the source of law[22], the importance of subsidiary institutions, of checks and balances, convention and ultimately of the role of morality and of institutions that engender morality.  This was an ideology based upon defective philosophy[23], ultimately it was deceit we have been warned to avoid (Colossians 2:8). Blackstone’s influence is still immense, legal positivism is derived in a perverted way from his philosophy; this, of course, does not comport with his meaning as it lacks the prudence in the spirit of the law that Montesquieu, Blackstone, Burke, and even Tocqueville would prescribe. There is little else he might recognize or approve of in our system.

@onlyBarryLClark


[1] Cotterrell, Roger. “Common Law Approaches to the Relationship between Law and Morality.” Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, vol. 3, no. 1, 2000, pp. 9–26. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/27504116.

[2] ‘Tenuously derived principles’ here is meant to imply that if one strips from Blackstone his conception of the foundation of the law, the relationship of the civic and common law to natural, revealed and divine law and retains only his principles of the progressiveness of the law one arrives at legal positivism.

[3] Strauss, Leo, Cropsey, Joseph. History of Political Philosophy. United States: University of Chicago Press, 2012. p. 623.

[4] Ibid. pp. 626-627.

[5] Ibid. p. 629.

[6] Ibid. 630.

[7] Ibid. 697.

[8] As Burke stated, ‘the dead are not founders’ (Strauss, Cropsey., p. 697), America was certainly not ‘founded’ in 1776 nor 1789. The Constitution framed and ratified in 1789 merely formed a central government limited in powers by the sovereign states.

[9] Coenen, Dan., “A Rhetoric for Ratification: The Argument of The Federalist and its Impact on Constitutional Interpretation” Duke Law Journal, Vol. 56:469. https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1303&context=dlj. p. 472.

[10] Strauss, Cropsey., p. 659.

[11] J.R. Pole. The Federalist. Hackett Publishing, Cambridge,  2005. p. 87. See Hamilton in Number Sixteen, “I confess I am at a loss to discover what temptations the persons entrusted with the administration of the general government could ever feel to divest the states of the authorities of that description.” Such usurpations were amply observed in history prior to this statement and have been rampant in U.S. history since ratification.

[12] See previous argument, Clark, Barry, “The First War of the New Order: How Rule of Law and the Form of Government Changed in America's Second Revolution” (February 7, 2016). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2728971 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2728971.

[13] Strauss, Cropsey., p. 663.

[14] See previous argument, Clark, Barry, “From Radical Progressivism to Authoritarianism” (December 19, 2019). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3506918 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3506918.

[15] Strauss, Cropsey., p. 763.

[16] Kirk Russell, “Calhoun Vindicated”, https://calhouninstitute.com/calhoun-vindicated/, Southern Partisan Magazine, Volume III, Number 1 (1983)

[17] Strauss, Cropsey., 770.

[18] Ibid. 773.

[19] Ibid. 779.

[20] Cheek, H. Lee. Calhoun and Popular Rule: The Political Theory of the Disquisition and Discourse. United States: University of Missouri Press, 2004. p. 156. Calhoun, J.C., Speech in Support of the Veto Power” 28 February, 1842.

[21] Fletcher, G P. 2003. Our Secret Constitution: How Lincoln Redefined American Democracy. Oxford University Press. https://books.google.com/books?id=P5VSyor50fIC.

[22] Tamanaha, Brian Z., “The Contemporary Relevance of Legal Positivism”. St. John's Legal Studies Research Paper No. 07-0065; Australian Journal of Legal Philosophy, Vol. 32, 2007. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=960280

[23] See previous argument, Clark, Barry, “The Rise of Absurdity in Western Philosophical and Political Views” (January 22, 2020). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3523995 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3523995