Nick Shirley

 

Nick is the 23 year old, self-described independent journalist (right-wing influencer to his leftist critics) who uncovered some fraudulent front building scams run by some of the Somali community in Minneapolis.

I subscribe to his Facebook account and I agree with most but not all of his listings there. He is obviously a born-again, evangelical Christian, likely a staunch Protestant, perhaps a fundamentalist. Here is what he posted today (2/22/26) on Facebook, a meme which I wish to disagree with at least in partL Nick: “Good people don’t go to heaven. Forgiven sinners do. Salvation is by grace, not goodness.”

Let me unpack this by starting with a digression. Jordan Peterson, for years has not said yes or no as to whether he believes that God exists, let alone accepting Christ as his personal savior, and I think Peterson is evasive (One should never be evasive concerning Jesus or any good deity, lest they take offense and punish one in this world, and perhaps hurl one into hell, for we are to get hot or get cold or Christ will spit us out of His mouth.) for four reasons.

First, Peterson, as a subtle intellectual, a professor and original thinker, and an accomplished, recognized social scientist, is dispositionally averse to surrendering his ego, his pride, laying his whole ego and personhood fatalistically like a humble child at the feet of Jesus or another kind deity, allowing them to do the thinking for him, to run his life. The surrendering of the intellectual’s consciousness to God is something the intellectual is reluctant to do, and I do not believe that is what Jesus wants: we can be proud, willful, think for ourselves, and as much as we can run our own affairs, and Jesus is fine with it as long as we are working for Jesus and advancing His agenda of love, spiritual and moral goodness in the world.

Second, Peterson the scientist, may be a monist believing only that the material world exists, even though he dabbles heavily into interpreting—with much success and expertise--the meaning of sacred texts, mythological stories and metaphysical puzzles. He can’t quite nudge himself to believe that the world is dualist, and that the existence of a spiritual realm might well entail existing, present, operating and benevolent deities who run that realm. Therefore, he might consider Jesus to be a wise prophet, but not the Son of God.

Third, Peterson the metaphysical moderate—the middle is the way—as I am a metaphysical and theological moderate—even if he did believe that there is a spiritual realm, that there are benevolent deities, may not believe that there is only one benevolent deity (Jesus) or that if there are 2 or more benevolent gods and goddesses who exists and who may be worshiped alongside of instead of solely worshiping Jesus (I believe Jesus is the son of the Mother and the Father, and that he has many good deities of both genders, who are His siblings symbolically and perhaps literally, and that He is fine with people worshiping only Himself, or other deities too or inclusively with Himself.).

Peterson is much influenced by Buddhist thought and Taoism, so his metaphysical moderation makes it hard and perhaps impossible for him to commit to identifying Jesus as his exact and perhaps only route to salvation, but I do not think Jesus is as extreme as He seems to be in the Bible, or that He insists the only path to heaven is through Him alone. He may be the best path to take, but His path is not the only road to heaven.

Jesus in the New Testament sure sounds all or nothing, or we will burn, but part of that can be explained away as God detesting evil and liars, so God hates the evader, the most inveterate liar, who will not take a side. If could be that the one who speaks his truth or the Truth about Jesus as not being God, not being the only route to heaven, or denying the spiritual realm exists, that firm stance once the person repents after death and goes through Purgatory, he might get to heaven or even out of hell faster that the evader. If Jesus makes his judgements about our eternal assigned destiny along these lines, then his admonishment to humans demanding they—concerning accepting Christ as their savior or not by getting hot or cold is less about embracing fanaticism than rejecting evaders from truth-telling and clear communication of the sinners acceptance or rejection of what Jesus offers, and a clear, final assessment as to the divine nature of Jesus holding or not. As a metaphysical moderate, I consider fanaticism to be directly manifesting evil in the world, I submit. I believe that Jesus does not want us to be hot or cold because fanatical choice and commitment are the Christian ideal, so much as Jesus is fiercely, angrily coming down on evaders and their fence-straddling dodges as they hem and haws, both living a lie and telling a lie which insults and infuriates a trenchant good deity like Jesus who hates and punishes liars and those addicted to evil-doing more than anything else to be prioritized.

Four, Peterson repeatedly insists that whatever God is, God is moral goodness. I think he makes a profound point here. I think he is right and means what he says, that we can identify God not with words, names or definitions, or by just surrendering our souls to Jesus to receive His freely given grace of eternal life, a profound gift.

Rather we only believe in God, we only can know that God is present, we can only define God, and only believe in God when we live a very, very ethical life; for only that mode of existence allows us to know God, know ourselves, and allows us to name and define God and ourselves. For Peterson, God literally is love and we as individuals are only good and godly and with God and serving God when we are love and kindness, practicing excellent self-care, excellent other-care, excellent care of the deity we worships, and His or Her world, nature and the creatures of nature. This is what Peterson is saying and He should not be evasive, but spell out his view here, and I like how he defines who God and Jesus are.

Only as moral giants of love can we can define God and that is expressed ostensively. God is of perfect or near-perfect spiritual goodness and moral goodness, and the two cannot be separated.

For Peterson ,if good deities exist, and Jesus is one of them, then salvation is gained by the individual for herself as matter of grace and good works coextensively; one cannot be one without the other, and Peterson not letting evangelicals like Alex Shirley off the hook, they who downplay or dismiss the importance of perfecting oneself morally. If the Christian denies the important of earned, merited moral goodness achieved, then that cannot be the one true faith, for Jesus as a lover of truth and love will want us to be both believers and moral to be fit to enter the kingdom of heaven

Peterson should just come clean and tell the Christians that he is not one of them. I sense something similar with Robert Lawerence Kuhn with his strict agnosticism as to whether the consciousness is a hard problem with the answer to what consciousness is lying somewhere between eliminativism and panspsychism.

Kuhn too seems evasive, finally admitting that consciousness is more than eliminativism tor reductive physicalism but is something like property dualism. Kuhn likely is an atheist and a material monist, but then he should not be evasive about it, and just admit that he is an atheist and monist, that dualism is not how the world is, so there is no god to worship. Both Kuhn and Peterson may be agnostics which is acceptable to Jesus than their being evaders, for Jesus hates evil and liars or evaders above all else, so being evasive and agnostic because one is not willing to take a stand for fear of losing popularity, or influence or offending someone is dangerous to one’s social standing, so the evader is risking losing his immortal soul as an unprincipled evader, a pure liar, for he has offended God mightily.

Now let me answer Nick’s evangelical assertion. Good people go to heaven and only good people go to heaven, or have a chance to go to heaven, but, at the same time, and as exclusively and exhaustively, even if this seems absurd or contradictory, the good person must have a powerful faith in some good deity like Jesus and unequivocally accept that deity as her savior.

She is both good and a believer by believing in and choosing to reach out the good deity, by demonstrating to God her willingness be to accept God’s grace as a gift of eternal life offered freely and without merit to all that ask for it. Thusly, the person can know salvation. The moral goodness is the ethical part, the left hand part and spiritual goodness, the gift of faith allows the person to receive God’s free gift of faith, is the right hand spiritual part, and the moderate combining of these polar opposite needs allows the person to enter heaven. Then the saved, forgiven sinner achieves or is granted freely salvation by both her faith in the deity and her willingness to receive the deity’s grace and by her achieved, merited moral goodness, both critical to her being allowed to enter the kingdom of heaven.

Gaslighter

 

One of the plans of reform I am personally working on is to bring to my current workplace, a new model of union employee—I am a union steward at a small, private institution in the Twin Cities.

As technology rapidly advances, upgrades and changes, the building engineer gig is transforming, the job description is evolving. My descriptive phrase for it is we are becoming intellectual, blue-collar workers. By this I mean we do the repairs and replacements of equipment and mechanical systems, but we are also assessing damage, planning and scheduling repairs, are ordering our own parts, using p-cards to order parts and then electronically submitting receipts to billing. We plan projects, get the parts, do the work and then close out work orders on our smart phones. Our building automation system is quite sophisticated. My premise is a new generation of technical workers requires their being highly skilled, versatile thinkers and constantly retraining, employees who are also individuating supercitizens apiece: this is the best way to grow these needed smart workers for tomorrow’s marketplace.

I like working in a union shop and being a union activist for I regard this as a test lab or my introduction into the work place of the intellectual blue-collar worker who is really a developing anarchist individuating supercitizen. There is no better way to democratize the work place. There is no better way to develop skilled workers. Resulting too would be a huge upswing in increased compensation, employee morale and motivation to work hard and well.

I have communicated some of this to my Employer and they are not having it at all. They are quite backwards in their Management style. They have tried to fire me many times, but no luck so far. I have been too nimble and too good a counter-puncher for them to prevail up to this time. Now I may have met my match. They just hired a seasoned gaslighter to take me out, and he is a resolved, formidable adversary.

The supervisor hates me and wants to be rid of me, so he just hired a big, extroverted, very group-oriented, bullying narcissist to work next to me, to boss me and ride me, to spy on me, to cut me down constantly and to harass me continually.

I have grayrocked this bully and backed him off, and the other members of my night crew are more friendly and more-live-and-let-live.

This narcissist was brought in to take me out, and I speculate he is so suited for this role because this is not his first rodeo as a Management thug. He has done this at other work places, been a snitch and management enforcer for which he has been rewarded, promoted for his loyalty to Management. Each shift is painful to work with him, but I am getting by. I work alone as much as I can, and I take breaks by myself and minimize contact with him and set boundaries. I do not fight with or argue with him for engaging with a narcissist is to validate his love of fighting, and to set me up for discipline trouble for fighting, which I am avoiding.

I think this man is vicious and hates me with a passion, though he is a recent hire and I have done nothing to him. I do not bully or boss him or haze him as a newbie, but, for a guy on probation, he does not fear saying controversial, oppositional things. He wants to argue, fight, get into my affairs and straighten me out, eager for the chance even. He had to have been sent by the supervisor and HR to take me out. He has been this toxic and hostile right from the first hour of working there.

By the way, the group of engineers against me on my shift are three black immigrants and an American black supervisor, so I assume reverse racism against a white male is at work here. There are other reasons they despise me and want me gone. I do not suck up to the supervisor. I am a strong trade union activist, building up Local 70, a real thorn in Management’s side, and these fellow engineers curry favor with Management if and as they work against me. I am also 71 and ½ years old and there is likely some age discrimination occurring. Mostly, as a practicing individuator and supercitizen, I am antithetical to these conformist, nonindividuators who conform to whatever Management wants, so they want me out for that reason too. Then I am a political and cultural conservative, and all of these black engineers are liberals or leftists, so that is a source of tension too.

Now, when I take a break with the other engineers, our conversation is friendly and casual, and goes along normal lines. He, the gaslighter, is in the room, and is dead silent when I am there, looking at his smart phone for a 30 minute break.

When he is alone with the other engineers he is chatting and laughing nonstop. He wants to do the same with me, not out of friendliness and extroverted bonhomie, but aggressive to gain control over me, to get under my gray rocking defense barrier so that he can start gaslighting, bossing, kibitzing and nitpicking non-steop.

When I have a neutral, mutual conversation, casual and without consequence or without guards up—no need to—he will not participate. He will only talk if I let my guard down and allow him to argue with me about everything, intrude in my work space, assignments, and home life.

What this has revealed to me is that a workplace bully and management enforcer is a groupist, a pure groupist, a narcissist who seeks the power of powerlessness over others. I am the most independent and individualistic, so the supervisor, HR and he desperately desire to isolate, hassle, drive out or expel me by any means possible.

The other engineers, likely more on his side than mine, after three years, know they cannot evict me so either they are friendly or just pretend to be friendly—a bit of both—so we can let our guards down a bit and talk normally, enjoy each other’s company, get the work done, get through the shift, get our money and go home—no more or less than that.

This bully, thug and gaslighter, will have the casual, friendly conversation with them, because HR and the supervisor have ordered him to leave them alone for now—at least until I am removed--so he does. He has been coached and ordered to make it unpleasant for me and to get me out of there, and he really is eager to do so, indicating he is a real demon doing it because he enjoys destroying an individualist in the workplace for his own dark reasons as well as for promised rewards from management for doing their dirty work for them.

Now I classify the conversational pattern between the other second shift engineers and me, the healthy, causal, inconsequential, open, relaxed conversations as having some distinct if implicit linguistic and communicative premises or rules at work. First, operating here is the power model, the power of powerfulness, where people do not use conversation and communication to set up group pecking order games, ranking establishment, sadomasochistic power rankings and repression of the individuality of all individuals working there. People are roughly workplace and social equals and it is cooperative and live and let live. The communication interchange is peaceful and to keep the peace.

The narcissist bullying gas lighter is radically refusing to use this style of language use and communicative interaction conversationally when I am present in the group. It indicates that he refuses to communicate in a way that is friendly, individualistic, without power struggles and games, and he seeks to eliminate the positive power of powerfulness, the wonderful way of communicating that super citizens like me use in institutional roles.

He will only talk to me with linguistic and conversational patterns where conflict, fighting, gaslighting and bullying are primary foci. He seeks to invade my space, to belittle all that I am and do to be up along side me all the time like a drill sergeant to get me working harder running and pushed out or fired via corrective discipline.

He is signaling that he will not leave off resorting to the sick groupist power of powerlessness, the collectivist-altruist, groupist pattern of communicating. That power patter is the one power and linguistic model of communication favored by people in institutions which are tyrannies where belongers are exploited, abused, oppressed with their rights violated: therein, bosses are abusive dictators, rewarding ins and disfavoring outs, which a rigid pecking order set up and reinforced. All suffer and none flourish as they could if well-treated and encouraged.

The gaslighter is signaling that eventually he will wear me down get inside my grayrocking defenses; then he will attack me in earnest, then start tearing me down to my face and in front of others grabbing my thoughts, my say, the good name of my work and my very presence in the job sight. He is a hater and an emotional parasite and cannibal.

The only conservation he will have is the sick, divisive one, no mutually respect and keeping the peace and upgrading all. I don't know how long I will last there but I have built up this union and have a chance so I will seek to last and not be run out thought this corrupt, narcissist bully gas lighter, my hardcore enemy, a deeply cruel person. I may end up quitting or moving to another shift, but I will stand it as long as I can.

Again, he instinctively participates in a conversation that is friendly and safe with a great soul on his shift (me) only if I allow him to invade my privacy, my work space, to supervise and boss me while I do my work orders. He will not be just one of the boys among equals. He is real power hungry and very intrusive disallowing worker individual independence, privacy, alone time and space.

He wants to be with me all the time, not out of friendliness, but to gain control of me—his extroversion is aggressive and hostile, not friendly. He is very groupist, very conformist, and he is so eager to enforce the Management perspective for personal gain and to have a chance to unload his sadistic anger and resentment about being born upon an individualist, a natural outsider and scapegoat who he needs to target to assuage his self-loathing, quite a nasty, sick, dangerous peer.

The gaslighter instinctively, slyly has figured out to refuse to use that positive language and power model which detracts from his mission: to grow his institutional power and gain reward with Management by undercutting me, a dissident.

By contrast, healthy coworkers individualists will dare to be open and express their opinions and individuality, casually expressing their opinions, without anyone out to dominate, snitch, retaliate or suppress so where benevolent language and worker power changes are beneficial to al, that state of existence will be corresponded to with language and conversation of the positive kind.

On the other hand, the narcissist scapegoater abuses himself and others by kissing ass above and kicking ass below as all joiner victims are in turn victimizers, as all live in pain and low self-esteem their hatred cementing their tight-knit, pack pecking order. This pecking order functions within the work hierarchy. No individualism is allowed: all conform, groupthink, group-speak and all spy on all all the time.

That such work place suffering and unhappiness is the workday story is matched by the prevalence, the presence of the corresponding power of powerlessness model of power-sharing, with its accompanying, dysfunctional language and communication interactions.

None of this meshes with the supercitizen, individualistic worker way of communicating—the power of powerfulness--which I am promoting. The gaslighter likely would not admit to any of this if I confronted him with it but he is living it and expressing it every day, these conversational patterns of the group vs the individual are very ancient, archetypal subconscious and powerful, repeating universal patterns of power sharing and power quarreling.

All Are Born Racist

 

Regular editorial columnist at Townhall.com, Derek Hunter, wrote an editorial on 2/22/26 which I copied and pasted below, and which I will comment on. It is entitled: Democrats Are Obsessed With White Men.

Now I have long and consistently maintained that all from birth ineluctably are racist or prejudiced and discriminate—unless the law or their moral code prohibit them from acting upon their hatred of others, outliers—against individuals and members of other groups of any kind, different from one’s own group affiliations, be they racial, ethnic, religious, nationalistic, etc.

Racism or discrimination against outsiders is a core human pattern of hating and hurting victims, and there is no cure but for all to admit they are racist, and then abandon altruist-collectivist morality (the moral code of low-esteeming and self-hating, thus requiring an outside target to dump one’s bad feeling on, even if it only works temporarily) and adopt an individualistic-egoist code of morality. Then all can love and esteem themselves, and thus lose a need to scapegoat onto others, or others to abuse them.

Here is Derek’s editorial: “

Democrats Are Obsessed With White Men

Derek Hunter | Feb 22, 2026

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

You can’t turn around these days without seeing some leftist somewhere whining about white men. As a white man, it seems like every Democrat is an obsessed stalker – it’s enough to make us want to take out a restraining order. I speak for all white men in this piece because, after watching a week’s worth of fawning coverage of the death of Jesse Jackson that glossed over or ignored his racism, affair (oh, the stories I’ve heard) and grifting, I remembered who he simply appointed himself a “leader” and the corporate media crowned him the spokesman for black people, so I’ll take the job for whitey for today.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. There’s a reason these bigots simply spew their nonsense and never act on it, and it’s not the exclusive love of the culture they profess to be superior. I’ll take Johnny seriously when he demands to be cut out of “The Odyssey” by Christopher Nolan and returns the money he was paid to play Eumaeus, as I doubt he’s from Colombia like Leguizamo is.

If we can’t eat taco shells (I didn’t say tacos because where cows come from would be a disappointment to him), he can’t play…well, anything but Colombians.

It’s much more fun to impose the rules on others than it is to live under them, which is why that’s what Democrats of all configurations constantly do. To hell with all of them.

Democrats can blame us for everything under the sun to distract from their failures, but if you follow the policies and issues they spend their time whining about, at the root, you will find something a Democrat created and imposed on people. Some were created by white men, others by different shades of humans, all by liberals. They can say whatever they want about us, but we aren’t going to sit by and take responsibility for, or ownership of, their failures.

In the meantime, maybe we should look into that restraining order…”

My response: They are coming for white men to deprive of us of our identity, credit for our magnificent contributions, our property, our children and our very lives. Stay armed and fight back if need be.

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.