Skip to main content


"Thirty Years War insurance"

 From a Face Book post by Thomas Eastmond. Thinking about this: (Note after unpacking thoughts: “TL/DR seems inadequate here. Start your own blog, guy.”) The Western liberal tradition, with its principles of tolerance and freedom of thought and conscience, is almost four centuries old. It first developed as, basically, “Thirty Years War insurance.”* The West didn’t invent tolerance (something new and revolutionary in human history, whose rule ever since we were roaming the prehistoric plains had been “whatever you do, don’t talk back to the alpha male/headman/king” or he’ll get mad and smack you with a club”) because a bunch of unusually decent and smart people sat down and decided to reinvent the world. It happened because the particular social, cultural, geographical (Jared Diamond isn’t *all* wrong) and technological circumstances of seventeenth-century Europe has gotten people recognizing that continuing with the old model posed a real risk of actual, not rhetorical civilizational
Recent posts

Gun Laws - do you know what you know?

  They didn't really talk about Feinstein's bill at all in this piece. Colion Noir is always good, though. So watch it. My take away is this, and it's made obvious the last couple of days talking to people who ask what is wrong with the House bills. ALL of this depends on your ignorance of what the current laws are and it's designed that way. The polls that gun control advocates cite are dependent on the people who respond being ignorant of what the current gun laws are. The media deliberately misinforms you about those laws. Gun control advocates depend on you being misinformed. 1) The definition of "assault rifle" is primarily (if not wholly) cosmetic. 2) Magazine capacity is irrelevant for people committing crimes or mass shootings. 3) ALL commercial sales already require a back ground check. 4) Private sales to anyone who you know cannot buy a gun or have reasonable expectations is a sketchy dude are already illegal. 5) All firearms purchased "th

Lay the Laws Flat

Too many people believe that history has a Direction and as long as they're on the right side of it that what they propose will never turn around and come back on them, it can't. It can't come back at them because they are the good guys. And governing by whim and moral outrage is all about the bad guys. In the passage with Moore they're really not talking about the devil, they're talking about worldly human opponents. And the argument is that they are bad. No one actually thought that they were going to take Satan into a court of law and do something about it. It was just a way of saying, but what if we are talking about truly bad ideas and truly bad politics? And I'd say that absolutely every dictatorship and totalitarian horror began as a call for righteousness and the need to protect the people from a dire threat. What that threat was changes from place to place and time to time. But it always comes down to needing the power to do something about those bad pe

Courageous Female Voices

It's shocking how collectivist ideologies claim to speak for your entire identity.  Though, maybe it shouldn't be shocking since it's more or less right in the description, isn't it.


  Somehow I never got this colored and posted.  Anyhow, everyone should be honest about what their goals are and what they have as intended results.   ADDENDUM: When I added Popper's Paradox to the "labels" on this, I did a quick check that I had his name right and saw the fast and dirty definition on wikipedia, that unfettered tolerance simply means that the intolerant will always win.  This is baloney, of course, because we can *contend* without being intolerant.  We can still advocate for tolerance among everyone.  But even so, it struck me just how Popper's Paradox plays into the Progressive/SJW ethos. Intolerance isn't wrong. Racism isn't wrong. "Punching" isn't wrong. Political violence isn't wrong. Hate isn't wrong. Not even fascism is wrong. The Progressive/SJW ethos is that none of these things are wrong, they only become wrong based on who is targeted by those things. Those who like to quote Popper believe intolerance a moral ne

For My Own Good


The Sci-Fi Purge Continues

 I don't have a huge amount of time or desire to rail against the goose stepping cowards, but I thought I'd bring this comic to the front again.  I had another sci-fi convention comic, one of the very first ones that I drew.  I couldn't find it in archives here while I was on my lunch hour, but dug it up now that I'm home.

Tossing Hitler Around Like Candy

  We're told, these last few days, that a person should lose their job for making a comparison between current events and the Holocaust. That doing so is anti-Semitic.  That it's hateful. Multitudes of people have pointed to what Ben Shapiro calls "overwrought holocaust memes" that were posted by multitudes of people on the left political spectrum without any consequences all all.  Worst, they might be told that it makes light of the horror of the holocaust.  But that's the worst of it.  You don't lose your job or get accused of hate or racism. So lately when Gina Carano shared a post about how regular folks, even children, were encouraged to go after Jews, to hate, harass and beat them, and that without encouraging and accepting this the conditions where soldiers could come around and round up people would have never happened, it's suddenly oh so far beyond acceptable. Why? Because she was perceived to have been pointing out the acceptance and encourageme

Our highest values.

I’m particularly done with people who explain  that our rights and our values only apply to government and t hat it’s okay when it’s private citizens who try to punish their neighbors and family members for exercising those rights. I’m legitimately libertarian-ish and yes, I believe that all relationships should be voluntary. BUT! Free speech and liberty are an *ethos* that is not limited to government. Our rights can’t be limited to government and still exist as protections or even concepts. People are openly calling for the government to make laws against all sorts of speech they don’t like or opinions they view as bad for society. (I read my Dem Senator’s facebook.) Why do they think it’s okay for government to have laws to silence the bad people? Because they don’t *personally* value free speech or liberty AT ALL. The private and public on this can’t be divided because all that’s necessary to violate what ought to be our principles is for government to look the other way while the