At Padre's
Politics • Spirituality/Belief • Culture
Rod Dreher on Vance and other things
February 17, 2025
View in browser
mail?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsubstackcdn.com%2Fimage%2Ffetch%2Fw_1100%2Cc_limit%2Cf_auto%2Cq_auto%3Agood%2Cfl_progressive%3Asteep%2Fhttps%253A%252F%252Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%252Fpublic%252Fimages%252F4e41ba02-3526-4a61-9f28-e5a1b5243898_1860x380.png&t=1739827778&ymreqid=d41d8cd9-8f00-b204-1c24-63003b016d00&sig=Q5PMK_KG5r.Bo7F6mj900A--~D

Vance Speech: A Rhetorical D-Day Landing

And: David Starkey, Unreformed; Letter From An Angry Soldier; Wheaton's Travails

Feb 17
 
 
Paid
mail?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsubstackcdn.com%2Fimage%2Ffetch%2Ff_auto%2Cq_auto%3Agood%2Cfl_progressive%3Asteep%2Fhttps%253A%252F%252Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%252Fpublic%252Fimages%252F762a4764-c24d-4d8a-87f0-ff761d14f527_1802x2355.jpeg&t=1739827778&ymreqid=d41d8cd9-8f00-b204-1c24-63003b016d00&sig=YBjlNl9uHUiVawND3UGchA--~D
 
 
 
 
 
READ IN APP
 
  
The Americans have landed!

Good morning from London, and the first day of the ARC conference. Big opening dinner for speakers and donors last night; as a speaker, I got to go. Was so, so great to see many old friends there, Ran into Jonathan Pageau last night standing around talking to folks after dinner (had to filter the party pic selfie; the original was even more orange, thanks to the lighting):

  

Just now, after breakfast, I walked out of the hotel restaurant, and there sat two of my favorite people in all the world, James Orr and Martin Shaw, kibitizing. Oh happy day! Oh happy next three days!

Everybody from this side of the pond last night was talking about the J.D. Vance speech, I only heard one negative comment, and that was from an eminent writer and speaker who thought Vance said the right thing, but delivered it too bumptiously. (My response: “There is no way to say what needs saying to these European elites without coming upside their collective head with it.”) Everybody else — and I mean everybody — was over the moon with joy. The basic attitude from the Brits and the Europeans I talked to last night was, “Finally, someone is going to shake our ruling class out of its complacency.”

I cannot say it often enough or strongly enough: if you are depending on the mainstream media to give you an accurate impression of how the speech was received in Europe, you are deceived. They will tell you how European officials, policymakers, and talking heads received it — but that’s not at all the same thing as how ordinary Europeans do. Matt Taibbi takes apart the way American elite journalists, and some UK and European ones, characterized the speech. The NYT, in particular, glommed on to the “Vance normalizes Nazis” line. Here’s Taibbi:

  

I watched the damn thing. You can too, right here — and I hope you will, so you can see and hear for yourself the difference between an event that happened, and the same event as filtered through the mainstream media.

More Taibbi:

Others, like Bertelsmann foundation analyst Cathryn Clüver Ashbrook, suggested Vance’s speech was not correct. “The first third of the speech was littered with conspiracy theories, misinformation, and the demand that these misrepresentations be taken seriously,” she said. You’re going to hear a lot about what the BBC called “dangerous” misinformation, specifically Vance’s suggestion that prayer in one’s own home could violate U.K. “buffer zone” laws about abortion clinics. The Beeb claims it would only impact things that that “could be seen or heard from the zone, such as displaying posters or banners, or protesting in their garden.”

I have many thoughts about Vance’s speech, which I think will be remembered as a moment of grave importance, but the most crucial immediate observation is how it was received by other formerly influential American figures. It’s never been a secret that postwar Europe has a different attitude toward speech and even democracy. But we’ve never seen institutional America so open in its backing of overruled elections, censorship, and the use of intelligence mechanisms to cut off voter decisions. It’s all out in the open now.

These people have no credibility anymore. I don’t think they are intentionally lying at all. This is truly how they see the world. This is why Europe is in the awful state that it is: its ruling class, in country after country, and across borders, lives in a bubble.

I don’t remember if I posted this the other day, but an English expatriate friend and reader of this newsletter sent me this short-ish commentary by an American man, summing up where Britain went wrong. The Englishman said this is the best single explanation for the crisis that has gripped his homeland:

mail?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsubstackcdn.com%2Fimage%2Fyoutube%2Fw_728%2Cc_limit%2Fl_youtube_play_qyqt8q%2Cw_120%2FgWPJtXndRIE&t=1739827778&ymreqid=d41d8cd9-8f00-b204-1c24-63003b016d00&sig=Wr6lF9bS1296N4_igRfOfQ--~D

In it are strong echoes of what the woke in power have done to America too, though the sickness is much further advanced in Britain. Similar stories can be told about the major countries of western Europe. The ARC conference is designed to come up with a better story, a life-giving story, to stimulate cultural and social recovery.

Listening to J.D.’s landmark speech, and assessing the hysterical negative reaction to it from the European leadership, I thought of that famous line by historian Arnold J. Toynbee: “Civilizations die by suicide, not from murder.”

This is what the prophetic French writer Renaud Camus has been trying for many years to say to his fellow Frenchmen. For his trouble, he has been roundly vilified by the ruling class, including the media. But he was right, and he is right, about the Great Replacement. It’s not even mostly about ethnic replacement. It’s about generations of postwar European political and cultural leadership wishing to erase all cultural particulars and cultural memory from the European mind, to replace it with a placeless, progressive, Houellebecqian pudding.

The distinguished German commentator Wolfgang Munchau is one of the few figures of his stature to understand what has happened. Excerpts:

Vance then repeated a threat he’d first made shortly after the American election — that any attempt to censor US-owned social media companies by the EU would lead to US disengagement from Nato. “I believe deeply that there is no security if you are afraid of the voices, the opinions, and the conscience that guide your very own people,” he said. “Europe faces many challenges, but the crisis this continent faces right now… is one of our own making. If you are running in fear of your own voters, there is nothing America can do for you.”

Europe was at a loss to respond. Its centrist governments are running out of ideas in the fight against the Right. They fear that uncontrolled free speech could turn into an existential threat to European integration. After all, the EU was never a bottom-up democratic project, and support for the euro was feeble from the outset. There was, for example, no majority in Germany in favour of the euro. This lack of popular support is what paralysed the EU during the sovereign debt crisis.

What sustains the EU is not a democratic mandate, but the mainstream media, academia, and think tanks — a blob of organisations that together exert indirect control over what gets discussed and published. You will not find editorials in German newspapers in support of the Alternative for Germany (AfD), despite the fact that this party now accounts for approximately 20% of popular support. The new Right-wing parties communicate through social media instead. This is why the EU is so focused on content moderation for social media, and it’s why we have seen a recent explosion of fact-checking units in broadcasting companies and media organisations.

But the Left is rarely subjected to such fact-checking. Quite a few members of the blob have abandoned X for the alternative Bluesky, which resembles the old Twitter. There, on a much smaller scale, the old echo chamber still works. There, users describe the Trump presidency as a coup d’état, and still think that Ukraine is winning the war. No one interrupts them — or checks any facts.

More:

The BBC described Vance’s speech “extraordinarily poorly judged”. And yet the intelligent way for the Brits and Europeans to respond to America’s new regime would be to stop hyperventilating and take matters into their own hands. …

There’s no denying that Trump is throwing Europe under the bus. Angela Merkel predicted this in 2018, when she gave an agitated speech in a Bavarian beer tent shortly after meeting with Trump. She said then that Europe needed to become less dependent on the US. But then she did nothing, as did everyone else. And so here we are, with EU leaders meeting to sit around yet another table. They are the Norma Desmonds of geopolitics — convinced that they are still the stars.

As I wrote the other day — and as many European fans of the Vance speech with whom I spoke last night agreed — the philosophical core of the vice president’s address was in these lines:

I’ve heard a lot about what you need to defend yourselves from, and of course that’s important. But what has seemed a little bit less clear to me, and certainly I think to many of the citizens of Europe, is what exactly it is that you’re defending yourselves for. What is the positive vision that animates this shared security compact that we all believe is so important?

That’s exactly right! Europe doesn’t know what it’s for, only what it’s against (namely, everything that came before, everything that is not progressive, that is not an expression of managerial liberalism. Along those lines, here is an interesting Free Press essay from the retired CIA analyst Martin Gurri, writing about masculinity. Excerpts:

Since the species climbed down from the trees, ideals of manhood, always and everywhere, have been bound up with physicality and struggle. Each man has been expected to be a protector—or provider, which amounts to the same thing. He is the defender of all that is sacred and good, the bearer of virile virtues—courage, strength, loyalty. Thus, the soldier protects the nation. The husband protects the wife; the father, his children.

In the end, physicality prevails.

In modern times, the question arises: What are men supposed to protect against? …

Sure — but another way of saying this is: what are men supposed to protect?

Gurri meditates on unfiltered masculinity, and the figure of the Hero. The Hero is messy. It is he who confronts the “Man-Beast,” the nihilistic and violent figure that is masculine energy unbound. Gurri:

The hero slays the monster and so restores the moral balance of society, but he is rarely a bringer of harmony or domesticity. He smolders with an excess of the manly virtues, which he must constantly put to the test. He runs into the burning tower, not away from it. He leaps on the live grenade rather than seek cover. In him, the urge to protect is an almost pathological condition, leading in some circumstances to terrible crimes. Agamemnon sacrificed his own daughter so that the Achaean fleet could sail to conquer Troy. Romulus murdered his brother to ensure the foundation of Rome. James Bond leaves behind him a trail of corpses and forsaken beauties.

But the hero is indispensable. Let there be no question about that. A society deprived of heroic energy would lack the power of redemption and would soon be overrun by the Man-Beast. But the hero, by definition, is an exceptional man. He is the refutation of the democratic principle. He might be a model of certain virtues for all men to aspire to, but he is also a warning: Even the instinct to protect, central to manhood, can be deformed by a lack of conviviality.

The Hero became domesticated into the Gentleman — and this, says Gurri, was a good thing. More:

His ideal of manhood is to reduce, by personal effort, the wretchedness and cruelty of life—to push against the weight and wildness of nature until decency appears to be the default condition of the human race. He alone, the silent protector of civilization, stands between the Man-Beast and his prey.

Yet since mid-century, the Gentleman has become an object of contempt. Our culture has lost sight of the important distinction between the Gentleman — the civilized form of the Hero — and the Man-Beast. The Gentleman stood condemned as an archaism. Daniel Penny was a New York hero and gentleman who protected fellow subway riders by restraining a violent and insane black predator. Yet the state put him on trial, and the progressive cretins of Black Lives Matter turned him into a villain.

So, the Gentleman was sent away. Then, says Gurri:

In his place stood a slippery character, the technocrat, morally and sexually neutral but ready to rebuild society on a new basis. Instead of personal decency, we would get state-ordained welfare.

If you won’t have the Gentleman, you will get eventually the Man-Beast. And in that case, only the Hero will save you.

The core problem of contemporary Europe is that it rejected both the Hero and the Gentleman, and has accommodated itself to the welfare state and managed therapeutic liberalism. Result: No young man in Europe will fight for Brussels, or for a social and political order that believes in nothing higher than shopping, screwing, and DEI. It was possible for Europeans to live in denial about this as long as the United States military was willing to play the Heroes manning the front lines against the Soviet Man-Beast. In its long descent into decadence, Europe became entirely feminized, in the sense of preferring safety, care, and its own idea of compassion over all.

And it won’t even stand up for itself against the Man-Beasts it has invited to live within its borders: Muslim male fanatics who stab people in the UK and across Europe almost every day now. Its decadent leaders — Viktor Orban an honorable exception — won’t lift a finger to stop the madness (this happened over the weekend in Austria). When figures like Giorgia Meloni in Italy try to do something meaningful, the ideologically charged courts stop them on “human rights” grounds. Pope Francis is eager for Europe to roll over and die for the sake of “compassion”. Doing something meaningful about this crisis would force Europe to reckon with the bankruptcy of its own progressivism. One gets the idea that most of its leadership class would sooner die than abandon its ideology and fight for the survival of its own civilization. The chairman of the Munich Security Conference cried like a baby over Vance’s speech!

C.S. Lewis saw it all coming many decades ago. In The Abolition Of Man, he wrote:

We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.

Europe is now a Man Without A Chest. And the new government in Washington is telling the Continent: Man up, become the heroes of your own story. J.D. Vance’s speech was the rhetorical equivalent of the D-Day landing. Now European patriots are preparing to fight to save their civilization from the enemies within.

David Starkey, Irrepressible As Ever

  
David Starkey (photo quote Jeff Gilbert/Telegraph)

Here’s how Tim Stanley’s wonderful Telegraph interview with the irascible historian David Starkey begins:

“I am an impertinent old bugger,” says Dr David Starkey, “and I refuse to be shut up.” I meet him at his London flat, sit and brace myself for a delicious, dizzying chat with the historian once dubbed “the rudest man in Britain”. He speaks energetically and clearly, as if to the back of the class, in that “you need to know this” style he perfected on television.

The monarchy is “fading into irrelevance”, he discloses. The King is woke. William is “hopeless... Nature intended him to be the manager of a second-division football team.” (And he’d be “rather stretched at that”.) Much blame lies with the late Queen, who was “obsessed about the Commonwealth” and spent too much time “sucking up to African dictators”.

Between the gasps and laughs of every Starkey lecture shines a pertinent point. Britain was ruined by its elite; he thinks we need to undergo a “cultural restoration”. The theme has resonance in his own life.

“Impertinent old bugger” is funny because Starkey is gay. He is also infamously politically incorrect, which got him massively cancelled a few years ago for an unwise racist remark.

That happened in June 2020, during a silly podcast interview with pundit Darren Grimes; Starkey was asked about slavery and proactively – lazily – said that had it been as genocidal as some claim, the world wouldn’t be full of “so many damn blacks”. The slip was condemned. Organisations he’d worked with for years telephoned to give him five minutes to resign or be pushed.

He lost friends, his fellowship, his publisher, various honours and positions, and his literary agent, who, as fate would have it, was named Fairweather. The police opened an investigation, which they later dropped (Priti Patel, the home secretary at the time, advised the police to respect “freedom of speech”). It was “profoundly hurtful”, yet “mixed with the most wonderful farce. Three guesses what was happening on that day? I was having a new fridge-freezer delivered. My universe collapsed and I was surrounded by decaying piles of frozen food.”

He’d said such things before, so why on this occasion did he get the full Gulag treatment? He offers historical context: “This is 2020, the year of Covid-19, Black Lives Matter... George Floyd... The world went mad, and I was a very peripheral victim of it.” I sense we’re building up to the big question of what’s going wrong with Britain and how he proposes to fix it.

Well, it was an obnoxious remark — but then, as Stanley avers, this is how Starkey always rolled. His acidic judgments are part of what made him such a provocative and popular broadcaster and public intellectual. As I see it, this is why it was so great to see J.D. Vance push back hard at Rep. Ro Khanna a couple of weeks ago, when Khanna demanded that Vance seek the firing of a young DOGE Wunderkind who was discovered in the past to have made a racist remark about Indians (Vance’s wife Usha is Indian, and, of course, their children are half-Indian.) Vance obviously didn’t like what the kid had tweeted, but he said we have to quit driving otherwise talented people out of public life for stupid and ugly things they might have said.

What Vance did not say, but could have, is that for many years now the Left has not only tolerated figures from its side who say extremely bigoted things, but even valorized that bigotry. Seems to me Vance was simply arguing for common-sense tolerance: yes, when someone says something ugly, call them out on it — but don’t demonize them and make them unemployable. If we do that, we will deprive ourselves of the wisdom and talent of worthy people who are, like everybody else, flawed, but still worth having around.

Letter From A Fed-Up Soldier

A reader who is active duty in the US military, and who comes from a “very blue milieu,” socially and intellectually, writes to say that watching what wokeness has done to so many institutions of American life — including the armed forces — has driven him rightward.

“I am just at the absolute end of my patience with what the left has done to once-vital institutions that may or may not retain the capacity to sustain and transmit civilization,” he e-mails me. “I'm still center-left on some social issues, but my 'lived experience' has caused the scales to fall from my eyes regarding the postmodern, identitarian left.”

He gave me permission to share this with you, on the condition that I obscure certain identifying details, which I have done (I shared this with him first, to make sure it passed muster for protecting his identity. I know his name.)

Take the matter of women in combat.

Much of what I have to say here will be pretty familiar. A lot of it has simply been unsayable for the past decade or so, but that does not change the fact that it is true. Full gender integration only works if you accept the claim that men and women are completely interchangeable and that there are no fundamental differences between the sexes.

N. says that most people outside the military have no real idea of how physically intense the infantry is. The women he observes in his military life “get injured at much higher rates and are in an impossible situation because they do not want to draw attention to themselves but simply can't keep up.”

He goes on: “The cost of gender integration is not worth any benefit, and any benefit is entirely ideological.”

N. mentions that men in the military skew more conservative, the opposite is true for women, especially female officers. He mentions one unit that he knows in which a female was given the top NCO position. This person leapfrogged over more competent males, and has proven to be grossly incompetent. Her continued presence — she apparently is not being allowed to fail — is causing tremendous moral problems. “It’s terrible for morale and, frankly, the legitimacy of the command's authority,” N. says.

More broadly, says N., every time women are moved into combat infantry, “the level of drama and interpersonal conflict ramps up and creates distractions.” It is especially difficult for infantry members who are mothers.

Mothers and fathers are not interchangeable. When we are on deployment and doing lengthy field exercises, family and relationship issues back home are the single greatest drag on morale and focus. It's hard enough for guys, but it comes close to impossible for mothers with young children.

N. says you will hear from progressives that this is just the natural extension of the principle that led to the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and the subsequent normalization of gays in the military. N. believes that was the right thing to do.

There were all kinds of reasons why that was a bad law in terms of defense policy, but the biggest issue was that it didn't reflect reality. There were plenty of gay people already serving throughout the military without issue. To have the threat of career destruction hanging over them at all times wasn't fair or helpful. Repealing DADT did not force any kind of radical social change or reordering of things. It was a non-issue. If people have a problem with their gay colleagues, they usually just see past it and the whole thing is just a big whatever.

As N. sees it, the US armed forces have traditionally been a “true meritocracy.” In his part of the infantry, a large number of soldiers, even in leadership positions, are non-white — and are entirely deserving of their positions, because they are good at what they do. But now that the social engineers have gained control of the Pentagon, that’s all changed.

Mandating dishonesty is anathema to our culture. That was the problem with DADT. This brave new world of co-ed infantry units mandates dishonesty because we can't say what is obviously true: it doesn't work. The military has funded quite a bit of research into this, and every time the data come back to show that all-male infantry units are more effective and score better on every metric. For female inclusion, the best model would be all-female units (as the Israelis have in the IDF). Democrats will absolutely not allow that to happen. I have some thoughts on why that might be. It has something to do with the idea that anything with men alone is automatically suspect and by definition problematic. Women must be present to monitor, police, and change male culture.

This might be the most obvious, unsayable thing. Young men need challenging male environments to form them as strong, healthy men. There need to be spheres of life where women drill instructors are not yelling at young men to shape and form them. A great many young men join the Marine Corps, for example, specifically to find the one place left in society where they won't have to deal with that stuff. And there is nothing in the world wrong with that. How more obvious could it be that what American society is offering young men today simply is not working? The young men most at risk of deaths of despair need the Marine Corps a whole lot more than they need more sensitivity training or hectoring about toxic masculinity. The beauty of it is that this approach perfectly compliments war-fighting effectiveness. There's a good reason things have always been done this way and no good reason to radically change course.

What Is Wheaton College For?

Some of you will have heard of the controversy raging around Wheaton College, long the standard-bearer of Evangelical higher education. Recently the college issued an anodyne congratulation to Russ Vought, a Wheaton alumnus who just rose to a prominent position in the Trump administration. When progressive alumni screamed bloody murder, the school backed down. Daniel Davis writes in First Things:

The message to alumni in conservative politics could not have been more alienating. It also backfired. Within hours, U.S. senators and even Elon Musk were weighing in on X, expressing dismay at the school’s moral cowardice. Indeed, Wheaton’s actions revealed a moral sickness at the heart of how it makes decisions. Faced with a mob, Wheaton showed that it will quickly bow the knee and take the path of least resistance. As Mollie Hemingway aptly put it: If Wheaton folds this easily, “you have to wonder how well they’re preparing students for a hostile world that hates the Gospel.”

This lack of convictional courage explains much of Wheaton’s drift in recent years. While it is true that many faithful professors remain on campus—some of whom I cherish to this day—Wheaton as an institution has become unmoored. Its drift is twofold: The administration allows itself to be emotionally blackmailed by activists, and it refuses to explicitly orient the college against the most toxic ideologies of our time.

Davis goes on to cite several examples, concluding:

There’s much more. Yet beneath all of these trends is a sad undercurrent, described to me by one local pastor in the following way: Wheaton is not articulating the gospel. Instead, it is assuming the gospel, which always precedes losing the gospel.

When Billy Graham spoke at the dedication of Wheaton’s Billy Graham Center in 1980, he charged its leaders to maintain a zeal for the biblical gospel and a commitment to world evangelism. “If the leaders of a future generation take any other path,” he warned, “may they be, as the Apostle Paul said to the Galatians, accursed, because Ichabod [“without glory”] will be written on this place.”

Has the glory of God departed from Wheaton? Through weak and docile leadership, regrettably, it has.

Well, a group of alumni have launched For Wheaton, an initiative calling on the trustees of their alma mater to repent.

God has poured out tremendous blessings on many schools that have chosen a path of bold, broad-shouldered Christianity in this moment, regardless of where it places them on a political spectrum. In our time, the Gospel may be viewed as “conservative"; in other times, it has been “progressive.” So be it. Our world’s categories should be irrelevant to how we carry out our mission. Christian students and parents want a college that will shape them into the kinds of countercultural people who will walk boldly into the wind in the strength of Christ, wherever He leads them.

We, the undersigned, compelled by our love for Wheaton College, humbly ask that you take immediate action regarding (1) the state of the college, including the need for new leadership, (2) putting an end to the current DEI regime, (3) conducting an audit of every single faculty and staff member’s commitment to the Statement of Faith and Community Covenant, (4) evaluating the process for adjudicating claims of racism, sexism, and other forms of harassment, (5) affirming free speech and the importance of a vibrant competition of ideas on campus, and whatever else is necessary to ensure the drift toward worldliness is ended and replaced with a vigorous, fearless, joyful pursuit of the Lord.

Until such a time as significant changes have been made on these priorities, we are committed to one or more of the following actions:

  • Ceasing all financial support to the college.

  • Declining to recommend Wheaton to prospective students and their parents.

  • Sharing examples of institutional drift with friends, fellow parishioners, online audiences, or the press to ensure students and parents who are considering Wheaton are aware of the disconnect between what is advertised in the Statement of Faith and what is really happening on campus.

If you are a Wheaton alumnus or parent of a Wheaton student, I encourage you to read and sign the open letter.

community logo
Join the At Padre's Community
To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today
0
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
October 03, 2025
Candywoman, Candywoman, Candywoman
00:00:07
October 01, 2025
In a galaxy far, far away FRED prevailed (Butt Trumpet throw back for Alan!)
00:00:51
September 27, 2025
Kirk on Islam - another good watch
00:09:54
It's been a rough year..
It's been a rough year..
November 22, 2024
Voltaire's birthday 11-21-1694 - A brief essay by Steve Weidenkopf

Today marks the three hundred and thirtieth birthday of the Frenchman François-Marie Arouet, better known by his nom de plume, Voltaire (1694-1778).

Born into a bourgeois family during the reign of Louis XIV, the “Sun King” (r. 1643-1715), Voltaire suffered tragedy at a young age when his mother died. Never close with his father or brother, Voltaire exhibited a rebellious attitude toward authority from his youth. His brilliant mind was fostered in the care of the Society of Jesus, who introduced him to the joys of literature and theater. Despite his later criticisms against the Church, Voltaire, throughout his life, fondly recalled his dedicated Jesuit teachers.

Although he spent time as a civil servant in the French embassy to the Hague, Voltaire’s main love was writing—an endeavor where he excelled in various genres, including poetry, which led to his appointment as the royal court poet for King Louis XV. Widely recognized as one of the greatest French writers, and even hyperbolically referred to by ...

Voltaire's birthday 11-21-1694 - A brief essay by Steve Weidenkopf
January 01, 2025
Local's Lounge - All are welcome

Padre - Tom Miller invited you to a Microsoft Teams Meeting series:

The Local's Lounge with the ADD Irregulars - Home of Coffee Talk, Speakeasies, Schmoozes, Tea Times, Afterhours and other gatherings.

Coffee Talk - 6:00 AM Central - Daily
Afternoon Chats - Tuesdays, Friday & Sundays at 2:00 PM Central
Other Chats as scheduled by the community.

Please look for notifications for Speakeasies, Tea Times, Schmoozes & Afterhours for gatherings of the gang. New comers welcome, become an Irregular today!!

Wednesday, January 1, 2025
6:00 AM - 8:00 AM (CST)
Occurs every day starting 1/1 until 12/31

Meeting link: https://teams.live.com/meet/9392334144614?p=4Lr3AcWswEWjbzgHsZ

post photo preview
An old truth

But he chose not to mention the price to the one.

Especially if he survives long after the battle and is tasked with saying goodbye to the other 99

post photo preview

virginia democrat attorney general candidate jay jones texts released over the weekend where he fantasizes murdering one of political opponents, his wife and his children…

October 04, 2025
Why They Will Never Be Honest About Islamist Violence
From Konstantin Kisin's Sub Stack

Why They Will Never Be Honest About Islamist Violence

 
Oct 04, 2025
∙ Paid
 
 
 

Have you ever wondered why in the wake of every Islamist terrorist attack, our media and politicians bend over backwards to make the extraordinary claim that Islamism has nothing to do with Islam? The answer is a mixture of things, but the central reason is easy to understand if you think about it logically.

To avoid offending morons, let’s not talk about people and talk about apples instead. As you know, there are red apples, green apples and yellow apples. Let’s imagine for a second that a small percentage of green apples are poisonous and can injure and kill people. It is difficult to distinguish the toxic green apples from the other green apples which are perfectly “peaceful”, “law-abiding” and so forth.

Now imagine that you are the public health authority whose job it is to protect the public. If your concern is solving the problem of the small minority of toxic green apples, you would immediately do a number of things.

You might devote significant resources to identifying the toxic green apples and removing them from the supermarket shelves. You might commission thorough research into how and where the toxic green apples are grown. You might crack down very, very hard on anyone who knowingly participates in growing or distributing such apples. You might even say that while you are dealing with the problem of deaths caused by toxic green apples, bringing more green apples into the country is liable to worsen the public health crisis until suitable measures are identified which allow you to separate the bad green apples from the good ones.

This is how you would act if your primary concern was the safety of the public. But what if you, as the public health authority, had spent the preceding decades claiming that all apples are the same? That to suggest that a small minority of green apples are potentially toxic is fear-mongering and green-o-phobic? What if you had been openly encouraging unfiltered importation of green apples and actively resisted calls to thoroughly check whether such apples are in fact, digestible for your citizens? What if your mantra for the last 20 years has been that anyone who believes there may be significant variations between the toxicity of different types of apples is a bigot who must be suppressed for fear of emboldening the “far right”?

If you were, in fact, responsible for the fact that people were now being killed on the streets of your country by the small minority of toxic green apples, would you not do everything in your power to explain that the diversity of apples is our greatest strength? That the toxicity of green apples is nothing to do with them being green? That any doctor who suggests that the government should carefully regulate the importation of green apples specifically is a racist?

The central premise of our elite consensus is that we must continue to pretend that all apples are the same. No matter how many people pay for this lie with their lives.

Read full Article
September 27, 2025
post photo preview
More thoughts on Forgiveness
Thoughts from 2022 with a new addendum for 2025

Thoughts on Forgiveness from April of 2022 with a 2025 Addendum

In Cath-O-Land we are celebrating Divine Mercy Sunday. Be you a believer or not, do you think that people are defined by their worst traits or decisions and thereafter imprisoned by them? Once a murderer, always a murderer? Is there a path of redemption, rehabilitation or restitution for that person, or are those dark choices and acts irrevocable? For the victims of vile crimes, they are unforgettable, they can be experiences that are life changing or life ending.

I guess it depends on the circumstances. I am not a fan of letting criminals skate free. If you commit the crime, do the time. I know it sounds simple, and we live in a world of decaying justice and manipulations of the courts that can prompt all of us to be cynics about justice. Dial back the clocks just a century and domestic violence and abuse was often ignored unless it erupted into murder. If you saw your neighbors beating their children or a husband beating a spouse, it was often ignored unless dealt with specifically within the family. I am not even sure that was the case, but that certainly is the impression I got from listening to my parents and grandparents talk about abusive neighbors by today's standard.

 

Justice - Mercy - Forgiveness – Contrition - Reconciliation - Healing

Justice - everyone has to face their choices, good & bad. If you believe in a Divine Judge who knows all, no one skates free. Everyone must face their story and how they wrote it by their actions.

Mercy - One can find forgiveness of sins, make restitution for their crimes. In this life, or the next. No one is a prisoner to their past, but no one gets to ignore it either. Mercy is meant to lift us above our past, pull us back on the path, reset the world we live in even if our acts have shrunk that world by our choices. Some may only fine mercy by a life in prison because their acts make them unworthy of living among us. While not a fan of the death penalty, finality of life often opens the door to reflection. The mask comes off when you are going to die, are you a harden & hateful soul, or can you in your final moments have contrition for your acts? In my world, mercy is only going to be received when I am willing to provide it. Mercy flows through me, or it bypasses me. My choice.

Forgiveness - It does not ever mean that the wrong someone has committed against us is acceptable. Forgiveness is not asking us to close our eyes and pretend everything is ok. Forgiveness is the ability to see beyond the wound, to emancipate oneself from the memory that has become our mental prison, to let justice be in the hands of another when we cannot obtain it for ourselves. Forgiveness is a choice - we can decide to offer it or withhold it. few things are worse than letting someone who injured us live rent-free in our heads for a life, imprisoning us in an inescapable memory when we have the keys of our freedom in our own possession.

Contrition – You are sorry for your offense and take accountability for it and are willing to live with the consequences of it and the possible need to make amends for it. Contrition belongs to the perpetrator of the act, and the victim may freely tell them to the go to Hell if they please.  Your sorrow for your acts does not depend upon their recognition or reception of your repentance.  

Reconciliation - It takes two, and it is not always achievable. When forgiveness and contrition are experienced, there is the possibility of reconciliation. You can't be reconciled with someone with someone who fails to take account of their own actions. In a more perfect world, reconciliation is always the goal. You can't be reconciled with a person who is a slave to addiction, especially if that addiction is behavioral altering. The addiction will always come first until they leave it behind. If someone says they are sorry and they alter their acts, reconciliation is possible. But contrition without change is empty. Few things can heal our hearts more than real reconciliation, but it is something not entirely in our control, as all the best things in life are, others have to meet us on the path of their reconciliation and work through the mess and injury however great or small it might be.

Healing - Be it victim or perpetrator - there is healing. If you have a healthy mind & heart, you choose the acts that define you. You choose the emotional weight to give to those acts and how they roam about in your thoughts and feelings. No victim need be a prisoner to the worst crime committed against them. *Victimhood is the surest path to an unhappy life.* Perhaps for some it is inescapable because they have developed a mental illness that will ever prevent they from rising above the pain. But if you are not mentally ill, defining your life as a victim may be one of your worst choices. Healing for the perpetrator can only come when they face their acts and do what they can to make amends.

Well, that is a lot. If you read it all, you probably need another cup of coffee. As always comments are welcome, even if you disagree with me on some of the points. It is after all just my ramblings about it. I hope you have a great day my friend, fellow pilgrim and one willing to lead me some minutes to read this. Peace.

*2025 Addendum for the Coffee Talk Crew 

I couldn’t agree with Fred more than recklessly inviting evil into your life is stupid. Nothing could be more stupid than knowing beforehand that someone is going to do evil and you welcome it pretending that it somehow won’t take place.   I can agree that that type of naive wishful thinking is profoundly stupid.  Europe is doing that with Islamists and the Center & Right of American culture & politics does that too often with the LEFT. There is no such thing as pre-forgiveness. If you come to commit evil, I pray you are stopped.  If it takes you leaving life to protect those I love, I vote you go home to God first rather than my loved ones. I am not happy about not having a choice but violence, but violent men/women have to be stopped with violence, not nice words or hopeful prayers.  Pray for their souls, stop their actions. Contain their evil. Predatory evil needs to be identified and ended. 

I don’t think Charlie Kirk’s wife is stupid for forgiving the murderer of her husband.  She still wants him to face justice and punishment for his crimes, but she is not going to live in the wound created in her life by his vile act. She did not have to forgive; she could have chosen to wait on it or never offer it to the murderer. She made a choice, and one that happened early on because she is serious (not perfect) about her faith.  I admire hr for her seriouness, I don't think I could arrive at forgiveness that quickly. 

At the core of Christian Discipleship is the dynamic of forgiveness – contrition and reconciliation.  Disciples are aware of how much they have been forgiven by God. Disciples know that if they want to seek God’s mercy, they must offer it to others.  I don’t think it has to be an immediate thing, massive wounds of hatred, violence and evil take equally massive amounts of time, grace and healing to mend.  The wounded will know their scars forever, how they chose to think about them is a choice.

Most Christians, and all Disciples should know that forgiveness is essential if they pay any attention to the Our Father.  “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.” I can’t imagine praying those words and not trying to live by them. Again, I don’t think it means forgiveness has to be immediate, thoughtless and a given, but it should be something or somewhere I hope to arrive in life.  I should want to forgive eventually even if the pain of the offense at the moment is too fresh, deep and crushing.

Read full Article
September 15, 2025
From VDH - The Blade of Perseus
Was the Current Madness Birthed in the University?

Was the Current Madness Birthed in the University?

September 15, 2025

Victor Davis Hanson
American Greatness

America is currently sick.

The young conservative organizer and media personality Charlie Kirk was just murdered in a political assassination by a 22-year-old ‘anti-fascist’ and trans advocate, Tyler Robinson. As planned, he eliminated the most astute and successful political activist in a generation. Indeed, Kirk may well have ensured that Donald Trump won the 2024 election by not just increasing his youth vote by 6 percent since 2020 but, more importantly, by margins in the swing states of 15-24 percent, ensuring Trump’s victory.

No sooner was he killed than thousands on left-wing social media erupted in celebration—among them scores of teachers and professors. Their venom was eerily reminiscent of their earlier canonization of left-wing murderer Luigi Mangione. Recall, Mangione was the spoiled nepo baby who lethally ambushed UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. Thereby, he became an icon to the Left as a social justice warrior fighting the evil capitalist system, which had so enriched himself and his own family.

Such utter moral bankruptcy was on display as well by the social media praise of Palestinian activist Elias Rodriguez (“Free Palestine”), after he brutally murdered a young Jewish couple at the Jewish museum in Washington, D.C. Rodriguez supposedly showed the world how to deal with Zionists—reifying the hateful rhetoric that pervades the modern campus.

Was that ghoulishness confined to such anonymous left-wing nuts and fringe trolls?

Not really.

MSNBC’s guest “analyst,” Matthew Dowd, casually raised an asinine suggestion that the lethal shot came from a Kirk supporter firing off a round. And then, in Pavlovian fashion, he blamed the assassination of Kirk—on Kirk himself—for being an unapologetic “divisive” activist.

Dowd, who was subsequently fired by an embarrassed MSNBC president, only took his cue from anchorwoman, the untouchable Katy Tur, who first editorialized Kirk as a “divisive” figure. By her logic, would that mean that, say, a Bernie Sanders or Zohran Mamdani would also be divisive? What does Joe Biden, by Tur’s logic, deserve after labeling half the country as “semi-fascists” or reducing them to “garbage,” “chumps,” and “dregs”—or boasting he’d like to take Trump behind the gym and beat him up?

Does Tur mean that anyone deemed “divisive” then should naturally expect what befell Charlie Kirk?

Yet, in truth, Charlie Kirk was an upbeat, happy warrior not unlike William F. Buckley in his youth, willing to politely debate political opponents without anger and bias.

The multimillionaire socialist Rep. Ilhan Omar, who once claimed that the Trump “dictatorship” was worse than what she had fled from in her native Somalia, claimed the slain Kirk mourners were “full of sh-t” in a long, incoherent rant. Such creepy examples could be easily multiplied, such as the accustomed lunacy of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. She now claimed that those who block gun control legislation could not blame others for inciting the violence: i.e., Charlie Kirk should have expected to reap what he sowed.

A dense AOC seems clueless that not even her fellow leftists seriously advocate confiscating bolt-action .30-06 hunting rifles of the sort that the assassin used to kill Kirk. Perhaps it might be wiser not to try to hunt down and round up 500 million guns in America, but rather to enforce existing unenforced gun laws that prohibit felons, the mentally ill, and domestic terrorists (“anti-fascists”) from possessing them.

Just prior to the murder of Charlie Kirk, a video had been issued of a 23-year-old Ukrainian immigrant, Iryna Zarutska, brutally murdered on public transit in Charlotte, North Carolina. Her throat was slashed by one Decarlos Brown, an African-American, 14-time felon, recently and prematurely released from custody.

The horror followed the now familiar left-wing script. The left-wing mayor, Vi Lyles, immediately tried to stop the release of the transit video, lest it cause anyone or anything to be blamed. Then she followed with the usual DEI boilerplate that excuses evil: do not judge the homeless, arresting people solves nothing, and the murder was merely “tragic,” as if there is no culpability, just bad luck or fate.

As expected, most of the media suffocated the murder story. After all, it upset the dominant racial narrative that must remain unquestioned. We have been told for decades that systemically racist Americans prey on victimized blacks, and thus, Ibram X. Kendi-style antiracism—de facto stigmatizing and demonizing whites—is needed to stop racism.

The left knows that black males, age 15-40, commit well over 50 percent of the most violent crimes in America, while comprising about 3 percent of the population. They know it and privately navigate accordingly, but few speak of it, and none seem to have answers to it. So the topic remains taboo.

Any “tragedy” that highlights that fact—such as the murder of Ms. Zarutska or the recent brutal strangling of Auburn retired professor Julie Schnuelle by a young black man with a felony record who was released back into the public—must be suppressed. So too we rarely hear of the recent murder of the elderly Queens couple by the alleged career felon and released criminal Jamel McGriff. He robbed them, he tied them up, he murdered them, and then he torched their home. And on and on the crime continues, the narrative continues, and we dare not say a word.

In our post-Daniel Penny world, three young black people, sitting just feet away from Zarutska, witnessed Decarlos Brown slit her throat—and did nothing. Perhaps they were afraid, we were told. Perhaps, we were advised, no first aid could have staunched such horrific wounds. Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps…

Nonetheless, when Zarutska was staring out at eternity in her death throes, bewildered that someone or something had just ended her life, none of the three lifted a finger to help her—or even console her in her final moments. Instead, the killer, blood dripping from his person, calmly walked off the train unmolested. And even then, in his absence, there was no effort of any of the nearby witnesses to tend to the dying Zarutska. Instead, they sidestepped her and left her behind on the train as she lay gasping her last breaths.

The killer, Decarlos Brown? He can be heard on the video mumbling twice, “I got that white girl.” Yet we were told either that the video was doctored, or too unclear, or irrelevant. If accurate, it demolished the media elite’s insistence that Decarlos Brown had not a racial thought in his mind.

Instead, we were to listen to media analyst Van Jones pontificate that the late Charlie Kirk should have been ashamed for connecting Decarlos Brown to racist hatred. Perhaps Van Jones should reconsider. He should review the entire narrative of how Zarutska found herself a target of a killer. Brown was a 14-time felon. He was out on cashless bail. The magistrate Teresa Stokes, who freed him, had no law degree. Such a “judge” had never taken, much less passed, a bar exam.

She owned an out-of-state alternative treatment center and was involved in another local one. In a prior sane world, magistrates had law degrees. They had been certified as competent by the bar exams. They followed conflict-of-interest protocols that prohibited them from even indirectly profiting from their judicial decisions.

But again, that narrative too is passé, given the power of diversity, equity, and inclusion to exempt norms and protocols for the supposed greater collective good.

From where does all this hatred, violence, and moral vacuity arise? Why did the shooter inscribe his bullets with “anti-fascist” messaging, cruel taunts, and trans jargon?

Is the hatred caused by the media, who talk about toxic “whiteness” nonstop? Is it the collateral damage from the racial obsessions of a Jasmine Crockett, Joy Reid, and septuagenarian Al Sharpton, now ending his racialist career where he started it?

Or is the promulgator the Democratic Party and the Left, out of power, impotent, and angry that their superior intelligence and morality are not properly appreciated by 51 percent of the people? Who put a photoshopped Trump on a New Republic cover as Hitler?

If a General Milley (“now I realize he’s a total fascist”) or a General Kelly (“certainly falls into the general definition of fascist, for sure”) calls a current or ex-president a fascist, and presidential candidate Kamala Harris agrees (“a president…who admires dictators and is a fascist”), then does an unhinged 22-year-old “anti-fascist” college student feel the popular culture might approve of his own efforts in dealing with “fascist” Trump supporters?

Milley, Kelly, Harris, and the rest can call anyone a fascist but without ever defining the term. Did Trump suspend immigration law to let in 12 million illegals? Did he invite into the DOJ or White House the prosecutors Nathan Wade, Jack Smith, and the revolving door Michael Colangelo to coordinate lawfare against an ex-president?

Is Trump ignoring the improper usurpation of executive power by left-wing lower-court judges or instead appealing their decisions through lawful channels?

Did he hire a foreign national to undermine his presidential rival with a fake dossier?

Did he round up “51 former intelligence officials” to lie to the American people to warp the election?

Did he pardon his entire criminally minded family and then cover it up by in absentia outsourcing to his aides the pardoning of hundreds of criminals through an autopen? So please define fascism before smearing a president and lowering the bar of the acceptable.

What is the point of the past violent braggadocio of Hakeem Jeffries, the House Minority Leader, posing with a baseball bat, or huffing that he will take the “fight” against the Trump agenda “to the streets?” Was he merely following on the earlier example of Rep. Maxine Waters, who urged supporters to whip up a crowd and physically confront Trump officials in stores and restaurants?

Why are congresswomen kickboxing and punching the screen as they video their seriousness to assault Trump?

What does now-campaigning California Governor Gavin Newsom mean when he promises, “It’s not about whether we play hardball anymore—it’s about how we play hardball. We are going to fight back, and we’re going to punch this bully in the mouth.” What would a potential third assassin think of that promise?

If the governor of the largest state in the union wants to bloody the face of the President of the United States or physically attack his opponents (“We’re gonna punch these sons of b‑‑‑‑es in the mouth”), then might lesser underlings and sympathizers try to outdo that?

Or, finally, is the culprit for the madness found ultimately in the elite university? Who, after all, mainstreamed the idea of racial re-segregation in dorms and graduation ceremonies and taught America that racial essentialism is part of the new tribal America?

Who ignored court rulings and civil rights legislation in their arrogance to recalibrate admissions by race? Who taught the anti-Jewish assassin Elias Rodriguez his hatred of Israel and his pro-Hamas zealotry, and who influenced Luigi Mangione, an honors graduate, to despise “capitalist” CEOs?

Where did the practice of identifying one’s pronouns at the end of memos start, or demanding that biological males could compete in women’s sports, and demonizing anyone who objected that there were still two, not three, biological sexes?

Where did the critical race theory and critical legal theory that empowered Black Lives Matter, Defund the Police, Cashless Bail, and all the laws that assured the public that thefts less than $950 were not really thefts?

From where did the new anti-Semitism come, and so strangely after the slaughter of October 7—if not from the campus?

Where else in America were young Jews fleeing to a library with the mob pounding on the windows? Where else are Jews roughed up by a thug who is subsequently given an award by their university? Where did demonstrations arise on behalf of those who murdered 1,200 on October 7?

Why, in the aftermath of the murder of Charlie Kirk, are so many teachers, professors, and college-graduate bureaucrats so eager to gloat over and cheer his death? Who taught them that?

Are universities critical to America’s prosperity and security now only in terms of the sciences, math, engineering, and medical schools?

As for the humanities? They scarcely exist at the elite universities as we once knew them. Either de facto or literally, they have been overwhelmed and distorted by endless studies-courses, DEI radicalism, 90 percent leftist faculties, and suppression of free thought and free expression.

Where did the envisioning of violent crime as the fault of a flawed society, the institutionalization of modern racialism, chauvinism, and essentialism, and the empowerment of militant transgenderism that in so many insidious ways has filtered throughout society—if not originally birthed in the university—come from?

Those sins of commission are force-multiplied by those of omission. Hundreds of thousands of students emerge from campuses not just indoctrinated with contempt for the Western tradition and American exceptionalism, and not just often thousands of dollars in debt from inflated tuition, but also poorly educated by the standards that once defined education.

The working classes and high school graduates, supposedly the losers of our society, are not those who are dividing the country. They are not often advocating violence or trying to use any means necessary to overturn the established order. But so often the products of the modern university are doing just that.

Sadly, in all these recent horrors, the ideology behind them—the premise that either birthed or appeased them—was birthed in modern higher education.

Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals