Edmunde Burke Decrying Propositional Nationhood,

“Your literary men and your politicians, and so do the whole clan of the enlightened among us, essentially differ in these points. They have no respect for the wisdom of others, but they pay it off by a very full measure of confidence in their own. With them it is a sufficient motive to destroy an old scheme of things because it is an old one. As to the new, they are in no sort of fear with regard to the duration of a building run up in haste, because duration is no object to those who think little or nothing has been done before their time, and who place all their hopes in discovery. They conceive, very systematically, that all things which give perpetuity are mischievous, and therefore they are at inexpiable war with all establishments. They think that government may vary like modes of dress, and with as little ill effect; that there needs no principle of attachment, except a sense of present convenience, to any constitution of the state. They always speak as if they were of opinion that there is a singular species of compact between them and their magistrates which binds the magistrate, but which has nothing reciprocal in it, but that the majesty of the people has a right to dissolve it without any reason but its will. Their attachment to their country itself is only so far as it agrees with some of their fleeting projects; it begins and ends with that scheme of polity which falls in with their momentary opinion.”

Edmund Burke
Reflections on the Revolution in France — pg. 101

Revolution & Language

[ Otto Scott ] This is the same step. It is not new, not new at all. It is the same step in every revolution. It begins with the misuse of language. It beings with changing terms (and) so disguising the purpose of the revolution and the goal of revolution. In the French Revolution they began with first eliminating the titles of courtesy, monsieur, madam and so forth. Then they eliminated the titles of nobility and they substituted citizen or its equivalent. Finally they eliminated the monarchy and the aristocracy all together and you had accompanying this changes in the French language. Words that became forbidden and words that became mandated.

Pocket college lecture
Truth and Consequences


In any attempt at revolution step #1 is bastardizing the language so that it can conceal the ugliness of the Revolution and reveal the vile character of those who oppose the Revolution. “Sodomite,” becomes “Homosexual,” becomes “Gay.” “Christianity,” becomes “Christianism,” becomes “Bigotry.” “Perversion” becomes “Alternate liftestyles.” Theft is called “taxation” and “redistribution of wealth,” indoctrination is called “education and socialization training.” Most recently a Green New Deal is called “The Inflation Reduction Act.” We have gone so far down this rabbit hole that we no longer can even now use language to answer the question; “What is a Woman.”

Language, the original function which was to be that used to reveal the truth becomes a weapon in the service of concealing the truth.
The West is now far down the road of the bastardization of its language and only heaven sent Reformation can reverse the side.

This -n- That Quote-fest

“As political and economic freedom diminishes sexual freedom tends compensatingly to increase.”

Aldous Huxley

BLMc observes,

Conversely as Sexual “freedom increases,” man is increasingly put into political and economic bondage. Men’s vices become their Masters.

“Everyone can have his or her own definition of what marriage means, and if an agreement or contract is reached by the participants, it would qualify as a civil contract if desired…Why not tolerate everyone’s definition as long as neither side uses force to impose its views on the other? Problem solved!”

Ron Paul
Liberty Defined

BLMc responds,

And so we see why Libertarians should be kept as far away as possible from handling machinery when running.


From an interview with Christopher Hitches from 2010

Unitarian Female Minister asks Hitchens,

Q. — The religion you cite in your book (Christopher Hitchens) is generally the fundamentalist faith of various kinds. I’m a liberal Christian, & I don’t take the stories from scripture literally. I don’t believe the doctrine of atonement. Do you make any distinction between fundamentalist faith & liberal religion?


Christopher Hitchen’s answer

I would say that if you don’t believe that Jesus was the Christ, & that he rose again from the dead & by his sacrifice our sins are forgiven, you’re really not in any meaningful sense a Christian.

BLMc observes,


Well, at least the atheist Christ-hating pagan gets it even if the Unitarian female minister doesn’t.



“No more than the Romans could lock up Jesus Christ inside a sealed tomb can Westminster Seminary California confine Him to the church. If they continue to try to lock Him into the church, He will shatter the church as He did the tomb, and leave it empty as He emerges to rule the world, for He “is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and the Lord of lords”.

~ R.J. Rushdoony

BLMc adds,

R2K advocates really need to quit saying things like “the law of God is no longer applicable to the common square,” when what they mean to say is “The Law of the OT God is no longer applicable in the common square.” Clearly for R2K the New Testament God has a different agenda than the OT God.

Either R2K must embrace their Marcionism or they need to ask some hard questions about God’s Immutability.


“The other (my conversation partner), whom I try to influence with what he likes to hear, ceases to be my partner; he no longer a fellow subject. Rather, he has become for me an object to be manipulated, possibly to be dominated, to be handled and controlled. Thus the situation is just about the opposite of what it appears to be. It appears, especially to the one flattered, as if special respect would be paid, in fact, this is precisely not the case. His dignity is ignored; concentrate on his weaknesses and on those areas that may appeal to him — all in order to manipulate him to use him for my purposes. And insofar words are employed they cease to communicate anything. Basically, what happens here is speech without a partner (since there is no true other); such speech in contradiction to the nature of language, intends not to communicate but to manipulate. The word is perverted and debased to become a catalyst, a drug, as it were, and is as such administered. Instrument of power may still seem a somewhat strong term for this; still, it does not seem so far-fetched any longer.”

Josef Pieper
Abuse of Language — Abuse of power — pg. 23

BLMc observes,

Is there any kind of language that we hear today that isn’t manipulation? In the sales business. In the advertising business. In politics. In the Church. It is all manipulation. It is all monologue.


“Apart from the power and promise of God, the preaching of such a religion as Christianity, to such a population as that of paganism, is the sheerest Quixotism. It crosses all the inclinations and condemns all the pleasures of guilty man. The preaching of the Gospel finds its justification, its wisdom, and its triumph, only in the attitude and relation, which the infinite and almighty God sustains to it. It is His religion, and therefore it must ultimately become a universal religion.”

W.G.T. Shedd
19th Century Reformed Theologian

Sermons to the Spiritual Man, page 421


BLMc observes

Shedd’s observation that “Christianity must become a universal religion,” smacks of postmillennialism.

Why We Were Defeated In Afghanistan

In 2008 American troops confiscated, threw away, and burned God’s Word at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan. The Bibles were written in the Pashto and Dari languages, and the Defense Department was concerned the books might somehow be used to convert Afghans.

The incident became public in 2009. Lt. Col. Mark Wright told CNN such religious outreach could endanger American troops and civilians because Afghanistan is a “devoutly Muslim country.”

But there was another reason the Bibles were confiscated. Military rules forbid troops from proselytizing in the country.

“The decision was made that it was a ‘force protection’ measure to throw them away because, if they did get out, it could be perceived by Afghans that the U.S. government or the U.S. military was trying to convert Muslims,” Wright said in the interview.


1.) We wouldn’t force Bibles on the Afghanis but we would force modernizing their culture in a Cultural Marxist direction.

2.) We wouldn’t force Bibles on the Afghanis but we would kill them for following the precepts of their faith in expelling the infidel.

3.) We wouldn’t force Bibles on the Afghanis but we would fly the fag flag on our embassy.

It is absolutely ridiculous for modern armies to think they can win wars by killing people without killing the gods of those same people. We went into Afghanistan intent on killing as we go but we don’t want to kill the gods who make them the enemies they are? No war is successfully fought until the gods of the people whom war has been made against are slaughtered. The Christian God would have killed Allah dead but the gods of America (the FEDS) would not allow that to happen and so sought to kill the God of the Bible instead by burning His Word.

I have no tears left for pagan America. They have sewn the wind now let them reap the whirlwind.

Postscript — I was one of a minority of Americans who opposed the stupid Gulf War, to begin with. I never was a believer in the neo-con policy of “Invade the World, Invite the World,” and I was (and remain) convinced that 9-11 (the alleged causus belli of the Bush II Gulf War) had more to do with the American Deep State than it had to do with Iraq or Afghanistan. Iraq and Afghanistan, like Lee Harvey Oswald before them, were mere patsies.