According to the alleged San Diego synagogue shooter John T. Earnest’s “manifesto,” which you can with a bit of effort find online, he identified his enemy, the “tyrannical and genocidal” Jews, “the most ugly, sinful, deceitful, cursed, and corrupt” of all races, and decided to cleanse the world from these impure.

It looks like we have another “well-intentioned” humanitarian with the guillotine, or racitarian with the rifle, as the case may be.

I personally think the guy is a fucking idiot.

But Jews have their own housecleaning to do. A monster like Bernie Sanders — who, if elected, will likely kill millions — is doing nothing to improve the Jews’ image in public opinion.

For example, Alan Dershowitz has recently been spotted on Republican shows defending Trump, a smart move, given the recent allegations that he is a sex fiend. He has gained sympathy among the conservatives — he may be a disgusting perv, but at least his ideology is not all bad, they think.

Jews need to radically revamp their politics. Learn from Mises, not Marx, folks.

“In 1905, France passed a law that made all churches built before that year government property,” says the WSJ in an article titled “Decades of Neglect Threatened Notre Dame, Well Before It Burned.”

Ah, another government failure which will be ignored by everyone except libertarians, because the state, in popular ideology, can do no wrong. The most radical solution that will ever be considered will be to shift around some bureaucrats in the “culture ministry.”

If Notre Dame were in private hands, the fire would have unleashed a storm of calls for nationalization. “That’s capitalism for you,” people would shout.

But in reality, that’s socialism for you. Bring even more of it about, and such disasters will be a daily occurrence. Civilization will burn once more.

If it burns, privatize it. If it stops burning, privatize it still.

I have suggested that infant baptism is an act of the parents signing the contract before God to raise their child as a Christian.

Just as the parents can, on their own authority, enroll their small child into some club or open a savings account for him, they can incorporate him into the Church, as well.

The responsibility then is split between the parents making every effort to impart the faith into the child and the child learning well.

Suppose then that both fail: the parents fall away from the Church or neglect their duties, and the kid grows up into something other than a Christian.

In such a case, I think we have an invalid baptism, a breach of contract, or even fraud before the Almighty. The baptism was literally a meaningless ritual. If I were in this situation as a 14-year-old, yet “found religion” at 24, I might want to be re-baptized.

We might say that multiple generations are united into a one body of Christ and one Church through the family and household on the foundation of natural love. If this chain is broken, infant baptism is ineffective.

(Against this opinion it may be argued thus: if a baptized person becomes a Christian at any point in his life, even long after the age of 14, then his baptism is immediately validated, and the parents’ neglect is irrelevant. If he never becomes a Christian, then his baptism was in fact invalid or at best futile, but it would have been invalid even if the parents had done their best; so the parental solicitude again is irrelevant. In this sense confirmation is indeed baptism consummated.)

However, the sign is made as much before men as before God, and since no outsider can monitor the inner life of a family, a priest can never claim that some baptism had no force.

If Smith was baptized as a child, then given away to a non-Christian family at an early age, does not even know he was baptized, and yet again chooses Christianity later in life, then second baptism again is lawful, though this time simply because it is inevitable due to ignorance.

Why are people suddenly upset that billionaires are donating money to rebuild Notre Dame?

Because they envy their magnificence, which is a virtue and a aspect of fortitude:

… “magnificence is the discussing and administering of great and lofty undertakings, with a certain broad and noble purpose of mind,” “discussion” referring to the inward intention, and “administration” to the outward accomplishment.

Wherefore to do something great, whence magnificence takes its name, belongs properly to the very notion of virtue.

Now for the doing of a great work, proportionate expenditure is necessary, for great works cannot be produced without great expenditure.

Hence it belongs to magnificence to spend much in order that some great work may be accomplished in becoming manner. (ST)

The twisted miserable mobs hate that.

The NY Times reports:

The protests that began last autumn were originally over a gasoline tax, but morphed into a larger collective outcry over declining living standards that many average French people complained were rooted in high taxes, while the upper-middle classes in the big cities, let alone the rich, were doing just fine.

The protesters have lashed out at Mr. Macron for favoring the very rich by eliminating a wealth tax, among other inducements as part of his plan to stimulate the economy.

How pathetic. The “protesters” hate the taxes they pay but love the taxes other people, such as “the rich,” pay.

It’s true, however, that taxes can be a device for bestowing privileges, as they prevent poor people from accumulating wealth by competing with the established vested interests.

Again, Mises points out:




It is clear that the France’s reserve fund has now been completely exhausted. The Yellow Vest protesters are objecting only to the consequences of their own folly.

Here’s a “shocking video from Iraq, revealed by WikiLeaks, showing the killing of civilians and Reuters journalists.”

In a Facebook discussion, a man argued:

In cold blood? That’s a misleading statement. It makes it appear that they were aware it was a Reuter’s reporter and killed him for spite.

In truth, the tripod and camera being carried looked almost identical to a high powered rifle and ammo can and they were mistaken for terrorists.

In every war there are friendly fire incidents. You try to minimize them, but they still happen. How much more difficult is it to not kill a reporter intentionally traveling inside a group of terrorists?

It seems that what he was saying is that they did kill innocent people, but they had “good intentions.” Their fire was “friendly.” They only wanted to kill bad guys, but made an unfortunate mistake.

Well, how heartwarming. They weren’t evil then; they were incompetent. Is that really an improvement?

But why even grant the premise? If the war was unjust (and it was), then the people they were killing were not “bad” at all. They were all good who tried to defend their country from US aggressors and from government soldiers specifically.

The shooters were then deluded twice: first, they falsely believed themselves “good” and their victims “bad”; second, the victims weren’t “bad” even according to their own criteria, anyway.

This is more than incompetence; it seems like madness to me.

But you know, the murderers must’ve loved, loved, loved America and those they were heroically protecting — which makes everything Ok.

Ilham Omar words in context were:


But that’s exactly right! That’s the government’s precise MO!

Every time there is a shooting, the state uses it as a pretext to clamp down on gun rights.

Someone abuses drugs, and the state claims it needs to step up prohibition for “our own good” and for “public health.”

Someone sells fake vitamins, and that’s suddenly a reason to “regulate” the supplements industry.

Same thing here. A group of men attacked the World Trade Center as revenge for the US empire’s previous wars, and in response, the government started several new wars that are still going on.

They wanted the wars; the state craved its “health”; and the 9/11 attack was a convenient excuse for the state to do what it always wanted to do anyway: murder and loot.

Omar is completely sound on this issue.

Stuart Gottlieb sounds an alarm about “violent white nationalism” in an article ominously titled, “The terror to come.”

His only example of that is Timothy McVeigh, who of course was not a white nationalist.

In another hilarious statement, Gottlieb writes that “white nationalists” are “increasingly interconnected globally.” Why would people so intent on building their own “nation” communicate with foreigners, even if also white?

Wouldn’t such globalist nationalists — an oxymoron — for example, have to be fluent in numerous foreign languages, which would make them precisely more cosmopolitan than anyone else?

The reality is that white people are the least organized special interest group both in the US and the entire world.

There is no white nationalism, least of all violent.

But if white people continue to be hated by the likes of Gottlieb, that may change, perhaps even in an unfortunate way. You can only push people so far.

If there is any terror to come, Gottlieb will be responsible for it, thanks to his own slanderous propaganda.