Replenishment

 

I subscribe to The Cavalier Chronicle and I enjoy their short weekly homily on Page 7; the one from 8/20/25 was entitled No Carbs, High Value. Here is the homily: “We need spiritual nourishment as well as food for our stomachs. Both are important: without them we perish. Jesus is the soul food we need. Feast on our Lord this week in church. I am the living bread which came down from heaven. John 6: 51-58.”

My response: I could not agree more that we need food for our souls as well as for our bodies, and, though it seems like cannibalism to eat of the body and blood of Christ at Communion, that is not how it is meant: the literal or symbolic presence of Christ in the Eucharist wafer, and in the wine that represents or is His blood, is meant as spiritual nourishment, and that is comforting that divine nourishment can enter the human soul, the human consciousness.

Conservatives Must Fight Leftists Head On

 

Here is Kurt Schlichter editorial from Townhall.com, posted on 2/19/26, and entitled What Do the Dems Do After They’ve Done Their Worst and It Flops? I will comment on the article; here it is:

Kurt: “

What Do the Dems Do After They’ve Done Their Worst and It Flops?

Kurt Schlichter | Feb 19, 2026

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.

When you hear that Donald Trump and, by extension, we patriots are the most fascist, racist, sexist, corrupt, perverted, and also fascist monsters in the history of ever, you have to wonder something. You don’t wonder why they’re saying it. You know why they’re saying it. They’re liars and dirtbags, and they are losing their grip on power, and they’re desperate. What you have to wonder is “Where do they go from here?””

My response: They are throwing mud at Trump, Republicans and conservatives in hope that it will stick and that the voters will become disenchanted, and turn against us, but that is not occurring.

Kurt: “That’s a great question. Pity the Democrats. They’re kind of in a quandary. Where do you go next when you call somebody “literally Hitler” and nothing happens? Where do you go when you call somebody “racist” and he doesn’t care? Where do you go when you call somebody “sexist” and he wonders what’s wrong with being sexy? Where do you go when you label somebody “corrupt” and he starts a bitcoin company? Where do go after you scream that someone is Epstein‘s pal, and the world doesn’t collapse because you called him Epstein‘s pal?

Where do you go next when you say the worst things imaginable about someone, and it doesn’t matter?

That’s where we are now, and it should be no surprise to anybody who has ever heard about the boy who cried “Wolf.” Maybe the left doesn’t like that fable because they’re assuming the gender of the brat who fakes alarms over dreaded predators and finally gets gobbled up when the dreaded predator arrives, and nobody believes him, her, or them. Regardless, they’re not paying attention to the moral of the story.

Nobody who doesn’t already believe the Democrats believes them now. We’ve had ten years of Trump, and by extension, we patriots, being bombarded with the worst possible accusations and…nothing? Calling somebody “Hitler” should mean something. Hitler was bad, really bad, and to equate somebody with Hitler should be something that one takes seriously because no serious person would casually equate another with Hitler, unless the accused had done something positively Hitlerean. But that’s not the case today. It doesn’t mean anything because everything they say, every lie, epithet and slander, is meaningless. They call Trump “Hitler.” Everybody knows he’s not Hitler. So, no one cares that he gets called “Hitler,” least of all the guy who’s supposed to be Hitler 2.0.

What they make are objectively false claims. That goes without saying. It’s an interesting tangent to ponder what the people offering these slanders actually think. There are two options. First, they are stupid people who actually believe these stupid lies. That’s entirely possible. Being a Democrat is closely correlated with being a moron. But being a Democrat is also closely correlated with being a cynical exploiter of morons. The second possibility is that these Democrats think their constituents are morons, and more often than not, they are correct.

But whether they believe it or not is really beside the point.

The point is that hyperbolic slander is the best they’ve got. This is their only weapon right now, and it’s firing blanks. Remember, they don’t have any power other than what we give them. For them to rule over us requires that we allow them to rule over us. In the past, we defaulted to the American political system, where one party would win the election, and it would take power, exercise power, pass laws the opposition didn’t like, then have another election, and then things would eventually change. We took turns running things. America operated on the consent of the governed. We never really thought about not consenting because the system seemed to work pretty well, not perfectly, but pretty well.”

My response: We should take turns being in and out of power, sharing power, but always a loyal, tolerant majority and a loyal opposition. But that has changed, Democrats and Leftists increasingly are authoritarian ideologues, and they just want to own the country, and enslave all, silencing any sddissidents. 

Kurt: “But things changed a couple of decades ago. The Democrats convinced themselves that we conservatives are morally unfit to participate in our own governance, that the act of exercising electoral power won at the ballot box by anyone who wasn’t a leftist was inherently illegitimate. We’re Americans, we’re citizens, we’re voters, and we need to shut up and do what we’re told because everything we want to do is bad, and we can’t do them because Democrats stopped consenting to being governed when it is our turn to govern.

That’s where it gets concerning. There are two ways they can go. They can try to take power back in the appropriate and proper way, which is by winning elections. Whether screaming like five-year-olds having a tantrum because Mommy took their blankie will work to convince the American people to trust Democrats with power again is an open question. If the economy continues to boom, the Republicans stand a pretty good chance of defeating the historical trends against them in the midterms, regardless of how shrilly Dems and their affiliates scream. If people perceive the economy is still Biden-bad, the Republicans are going to lose because of that, regardless of what the Democrats say.

But remember that these are religious fanatics, and their religion is leftism. “

My response: Kurt rightly identifies Democrats and Progressives as religious fanatics, and their ideology is their secular religion, leftism. There is congruence between this claim and mine that cultural Marxism is a holy cause, and the woke capturing of the public and private institutions is the mass movement, and the true believers are the Leftist faithful.

Kurt: “The fight against Republicans is not just a political match but an actual jihad. Again, we’ve already seen people murdered. That should be no surprise. One of the collateral effects of all this screaming about how Donald Trump, and we, are the enemies of humanity who are literally the worst people who have ever existed is that some of these leftist creeps believe it and will act on it. When you simultaneously label your political opponents as outside the bounds of acceptable political discourse, while also losing to those political opponents, you create a level of frustration that is going to drive some of your acolytes to violence. And that won’t be entirely unwelcome to the Democrat establishment. As we’ve seen, they don’t mind violence. They see it as politics by other means – ironically, since Clausewitz is a dead cisgender male identifying person of pallor. But what we’re talking about here is wide scale, targeted violence, at least on the level of the small-scale insurgency by the left that detonated thousands of bombs and killed hundreds of people in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

Those “Days of Rage” could happen again. And it could be even worse, because now you have state governors and officials collaborating with the left. That takes it all up a notch. The potential is real for real trouble. The hate is out there, and it’s being fueled by the very language we’re talking about here. But on the right, we’re not in the mood to take any more casualties. We’re not in the mood for games. We are not giving up our dogs to please Dem constituents. And we are definitely not in the mood to become second-class citizens in our own country. 

If there’s a fight coming, we’ll fight back.

This could get very ugly. These people are playing with fire, but they don’t understand that we’re not going to play along. The conflagration they ignite may very well end up burning them instead of us.”

My response: The people and conservatives are tired of being slandered and slapped around, and we are ready to counter-punch.

Is America Dying?

 

Is America Dying?

Below I share an editorial from online Townhall.com, written by Mark Lewis on 2/21/26, and is entitled How America Has Destroyed Its Democracy, Part Two; The Aristocracy of Merit. Here is the article: Mark: “

How America Has Destroyed Its Democracy, Part Two: The Aristocracy of Merit

Mark Lewis | Feb 21, 2026

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.

Alonzo Chappel/National Archives via AP

“We may appeal to every page of history...for proofs irrefragable, that the people, when they have been unchecked, have been as unjust, tyrannical, brutal, barbarous, and cruel as any king or senate possessed by an uncontrollable power. The majority has eternally, and without any one exception, usurped over the rights of the minority.” – John Adams

“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” – John Adams””

My response: We have to be for the masses, but, to escape the dangers of mobocracy where the majority usurps the rights of the minority, down to each individual, the mass rule must be where each voter, each citizen, is an aristocratic, anarchist individuating supercitizen and that kind of mass rule will last, and not turn tyrannical, or is at much reduced risk of so deteriorating into chaos and authoritarianism.

Mark: “

As I discussed in my first article in this series, our Founding Fathers considered democracy the “most vile” form of government because it created factions that would tear the country apart. The voters would eventually bankrupt the nation by demanding politicians give them increasing amounts of other people’s money. As Benjamin Franklin said, “When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” Hence, they did not trust “the people” as a whole.

Then, what kind of government and society did they try to establish? It is a fascinating historical study that few Americans today truly understand.

Our Founders believed that there were basically three natural forms of government: monarchy (rule by one), aristocracy (rule by the few), and democracy (rule by the many, or the people). All of them were dangerous and had the historical tendency to degenerate into a tyranny: a monarch would devolve into a dictatorship (one man rule), an aristocracy would eventuate into an oligarchy (rule by the rich few for their own benefit), and a democracy would lead to mob rule, which would end up in a dictatorship, too, as decent people would demand somebody stop the chaos. As historian Sir Alexander Fraser Tytler wrote, a democracy is “always followed by a dictatorship.”

So, our Founding Fathers didn’t want a pure monarchy, aristocracy, or democracy. Thus, they produced a “mixed” government with forms of all three within it. The president would represent the “monarchy,” the Senate was the “aristocratic” branch (fewer in number in Congress, and chosen, initially, by the state governments), and the House of Representatives was the “democratic” branch—chosen directly by the people, and given control of financial matters. The idea being a “checks and balances” situation. No bill could be passed without the consent of both houses of Congress (both the “aristocracy” and the “democracy”), and the president (the “monarchy”) had to sign it into law (he could veto it and send it back to Congress, which could override his veto). Passing laws was not easy and wasn’t intended to be because laws restrict freedom and can lead to government tyranny, the one thing the Founders feared most of all (it’s what they believed they had rebelled against). The system of “power” was also divided among the national government and the states (a “federal” system), with most of the power being in the hands of the states and local governments for the simple reason that they are closer to the people and thus, theoretically, easier to control. Since the people in “power” had to be elected due to the size of the country, a “republic” was established (elected representatives of the people, not every citizen directly taking part in every government decision).”

My response: We have wandered far from the political wisdom of our Founders, for the itch to pass laws and grow government is now the American political system at all levels.

The Founders were unique and mixed monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy so that they would check each other’s power lust, and it appears that the law of moderation even applies to politics, that balance and divided while united power-sharing arrangements is the best system conceivable.

Mark: “

The old European aristocracy was based upon family lineage—an “aristocracy of birth” and could not ensure quality leadership. King George III literally went insane. So, to our Founders, let the best people emerge, by freedom and equality before the law, to the top through virtue and industry. And these people should be the rulers of the “mixed Republic” they established. Not democracy. John Adams stated, “If you give more than a share in the sovereignty to democrats...they will vote all the property out of the hands of you aristocrats.”

Create a country based on freedom and equality before the law. With limited government interference, the virtuous and industrious would succeed. But everybody should have an equal chance, and if you fail, it’s your own fault. An “aristocracy of merit” would be produced—virtuous leaders, not those chosen by “democratic” masses who would vote themselves the money of others.

Unfortunately, increasing democracy is what America got. Next: how feminism has helped destroy American democracy.”

Fighting Evil

 

I enjoy Agatha Christie’s novels, and especially I enjoy her rendition of Jane Marple, as an amateur detective of Christian, Victorian moral sensibility, especially concerning human nature: first, that all share an essential or universal human nature, and that we enjoy free will at the same time; second, we are born depraved but are born good enough to overcome our wicked natures if we work hard and seek God’s freely offered grace, forgiveness and guidance by sending messages subconsciously to surface as whispered guidelines in each of us for choice and action as we proceed. These messages from God surface—if we are sensitive to and wish to receive and decipher them--in our consciences to suggest how we decide to react and act to various impulses and temptations welling up within us, and to know how to resist those socially offered temptations set before us by other groupist sinners; third, we are called by God to be good, but it is not enough to be good, we must also seek out, identify, understanding the inner workings of evildoers’ undertakings, and then to publicly, actively fight evil with our whole heart and our whole souls.

The children of light are called to fight evil and evildoers as one of the main justifications and foci of each human existence. Soldiers of God fighting the good fight need not only the intelligence, willingness and commitment to fight evil, they must also be cunning, strong and skilled in all ways, including martial arts training, and adept skill in wielding firearms, so that thugs and criminals cannot violently suppress them. One must not be gentle and nonviolent against violent aggressors in this world.

Free Speech Is Dying In Europe

 

Listed below is an editorial, I believe, from Townhall.com. It is from 2/10/26, and is entitled French President Macron Has A Very Negative View of Free Speech.

On 2/20/26, the article copied and pasted by me. This ominous article breaks my heart. It helps lead the world’s masses directly away from where they need to be headed—which is: We need 8 billion developed earthlings who are each of them, anarchist individuating supercitizens, bringing constitutional republicanism, capitalism, Modernist and Western values—especially epitomized and instantiated in The American Way culture—to each struggling, failing nation (mired in groupism, socialism, authoritarian rulers, poverty, hunger, immorality, illiteracy, and primitive, corrupting altruist-collectivist morality) on earth.

The problems overwhelming desperate, suffering peoples all around the globe cannot be resolved by legally and illegally propelling hundreds of millions of unfortunate migrants, foisting them off onto Western Europe, South Korea, Japan and North America. That spreads the social cancer, not healing eat.

The only viable solution is to bring superior, civilizing American values to those peoples at home, where they solve their problems at home. To export their masses with inferior, groupist values is to tank North America and Europe, for that unworkable cure spreads the social/political disease but will not cure the disease.

All masses in all struggling nations are most capable of running their own affairs, and doing so very well, with the right values, and a willingness to change and revolutionize themselves inside, as private individuals, and then to work together to organize and bring salvation to their communities and respective nations as a people.

Amy Curtis wrote this article. Here is that disturbing article about President Macron of France and his zeal for suppressing free speech.:

Curtis: “

French President Macron Has a Very Negative View of Free Speech

Amy Curtis | February 19, 2026 7:00 AM

The Left, both in America and globally, has made it very clear they're not fans of free speech. Why? Because it's a threat to their power and control so, under the guise of banning "misinformation" and "hate speech," they seek to censor, restrict, and punish flagrant acts of free speech.””

My response: We cannot have anarchist individuating supercitizens in any polity in the world without unlimited access to expressed, radical free speech and near absolute freedom of thought so that as rational egoists, they are able to generate new ideas to help humans survive, live well, freely, peacefully, prosperously and happily. As enlightened supercitizens the masses then can run well every polity or nation on earth.

I lost the source, but I read online recently that politicians provide the narrative, the official government media and fellow-traveling private media sell the official narrative to the masses, and too often the masses accept, believe and act upon the narrative which they are fed in the media, the Big Lie told over and over again, until the people accept it as Gospel.

I accept whole cloth that argument and this is how I interpret this description of top-down, elites like Mscron and the other Euro-elite trash who, in their countries, control the narrative fed to the indoctrinated, brainwashed public for acceptance.

Yes, free thinkers and free speakers are a threat to the power and control of fascist/Marxist elitists setting the public narrative, which is then fed by mass media to the gullible public, who then are told what to think and what to say, and how to act lest they be punished socially and legally, so normally the masses just submit like the cowed, second-hander, broken slaves which they are.

Any restriction by government on free speech is pure evil, period, and the people must throw bums like Marco out of office, for dictatorially promoting limits on free speech, free thought, free exprression.

Curtis: “Of course, these are the same people who believe some men can become women, and who allow Leftists to say vile things about anyone who is remotely conservative. 

French President Emmanuel Macron went one step further, calling free speech "bulls***."

At least they don't hide it.

That's exactly what this is about: allowing speech the elites like Macron like, speech that supports their agenda, and silencing those who question, criticize, or challenge them.

Removing anonymity from social media is a gateway to persecution and tyranny. Just look at what they do to Facebook users who post things of which the government doesn't approve.

As Americans, we should give thanks every day for the First Amendment. It's the only thing standing between us and an Orwellian future.

Egoism

 

If one is--as I am becoming and promoting as a path forward for all--a genuine individualist, a practicing individuator and great-soul in the making, then one individual-identifies, is currently individuating and advancing as a maverick, individual-lives, and lives in accordance with the moral system, a type of rational egoism, which I identify as egoism-altruism,

then such an accomplished maverick and maverizer is deeply, irretrievably incompatible with encountered groupists in formal (organized, institutionalized assemblies of individuals) and encountered groupists in social, informal group structures.

If the groupists expel the loner from the pack, they will run him out of the community or perhaps kill him. If they ominously choose to keep him in the pack, he will be at the very bottom of the social or formal hierarchy, and all manners of persecution, abuse and discrimination against him by the groupists will be dumped upon him, and their consciences will not bother them in the least. These satanists are expert, inveterate liars, so any misdeeds and crimes they visit upon the loner, without guilt and blameless, they will easily justify to themselves and too each other.

Such a living angel, by nature and by lifestyle, has become a radicalized loner and is primarily but not solely a non-groupist. From this point forward, all groupists (people, the vast majority, all more or less, to greatly varying degrees, are non-individualist and non individuating joiners, who group-live, group-identify and lives lives of sin and growing low self-esteem as they practice their lives of joiner-failure in line with their corrupt, corrosive moral system, altruism-collectivism.

As a maverick, I pray daily that peers at work, that friends, neighbors, relatives and associates will be friendly, knowing full well that these joiners and non-individuation despise and persecute individuating loners. They hate me genuinely, with zero interest in being loving, kind, friendly, cooperative, social, equal and without strife between us.

Groupists may hate those from rival racial, religious, ethnic or nationalist groups, but all of them share a deeper, more menacing hatred of a common enemy of all, their universal and archetypically generated bogeyman, the modern replacement for a convenient Jewish scapegoat, the maverized individuator.

The joiners are the children of darkness in this and every generation, and they seek to thwart, persecute, rob and murder the children of light, the individuating loners, and these hateful motives of the joiners against the loners may be biologically, subconsciously initiated, but these sinners and satanized children of darkness also consciously, deliberately choose, plot and plan to wipe of the few children of light. Every day they act upon their fell conspiracy to grow Satan’s world, keep God from ruling the earth.

God Is As God Is

 

I subscribe to The Cavalier Chronicle and on Page 7 weekly is a posted homily, and the one for 10/8/25 was entitled God Is God, After All. I will present the short homily below and comment on it as needed, but I just want to point out that this article title is a tautology, and a proposition that is the Law Of Identity, A is A. We cannot know anything about God unless we start with this foundational proposition.

Homily: “Impossible, you say? We have plenty of miracles that demonstrate God defying what we know can’t happen.

So when the odds are against us and circumstances seem overwhelming, let God have the last word. Lay your ‘impossibles’ before God this week in church. God makes all things possible. Mark 10: 17-31.”

My response: The theme of this Homily is that all things are possible in God, both the possible and impossible, the miraculous and the routine.

It is all true and I accept it all, contradictory as it is, that God’s rich, contradictory nature conflicts with the absolutist, Ayn Rand interpretation of the Law of Identity.