Paradocracy

Upon discovering a crucial error in the book   Heritage Studies   by Eileen Berry, I contacted the publisher BJU Press in order to report it. I informed the publisher that the author incorrectly refers to the offices of government in Washington, D.C., as representing the “national government.” I advised that this term is incorrect, as the Founding Fathers of the United States described the form of government primarily as the “general government” or, otherwise, as the “federal government” or “central government.” I stressed that this is not merely a matter of semantics but a critically important distinction, as it represents the critical attitudes and apprehensions at the time of America’s founding, as well as the intentional preservation of sovereignty among each of the several states in the Union: states recognized as independent at the signing of the Treaty of Paris; states comprising a "confederacy" under the Articles of Confederation (whereby Article II dictated that ...

Over the course of President Trump’s two terms, there has been much talk around the matter of tariffs — taxes on imported goods. However, much of the talk seems to miss the point. After all, for those of us who seek the truth, it’s not really a question of whether tariffs are ‘good’ but whether they are preferable to other kinds of taxes — assuming, of course, that taxes are the rule, as certain as the eventuality of death. First, let’s establish the theory: beyond the generic purpose of revenue generation for the state, the institution of tariffs ordinarily serves to  reduce (or discourage) imports by making them artificially more expensive, while encouraging domestic production by making domestic products more appealing on a relative price basis. In the realm of foreign affairs, tariffs are instituted or threatened in the course of international trade negotiations in order to signal dissatisfaction with existing trade barriers and to push for more favorable trade terms; or in ord...

Tools enhanced through artificial intelligence equip charlatans and sophists, and laymen alike, with the occasional talking points to sound compelling and impressive (and maybe even erudite or scientific), to the extent that opportunists and useful idiots are likely to grow ever more certain of themselves and ever more capable of refining and expanding their cons; and, through these kinds of technological advances aiding their schemes, they will continue to take advantage of their contemporaries (in the relative minority) more predisposed to integrity, and others (in the majority) more predisposed to indolence or plain obedience.  However, only so much can be done to continue the charade by those lacking enough nuance and perspective to elaborate on each point, let alone to coherently stitch together the information in a way that actually consistently makes sense, reconciles contradictions, admits any unknowns (or unknowables), and acknowledges any plausible counterarguments or cri...

The American flag — proudly known as the Stars and Stripes — is more than a banner of colors stitched together. It is a living symbol of rebellion, unity, and the sovereignty of the people. It was never originally the flag of a government, but of a movement; not a mark of officialdom, but of revolution.  Having evolved from the Continental Union Flag, its stripes — with their roots in the "rebellious stripes" of the Sons of Liberty — represent resistance to abusive power, a stand against imperial overreach, and a declaration that legitimate authority flows from the consent of the governed. In this light, the proliferation of the “Thin Blue Line” version of the American flag is not merely a modification of a unique American symbol; it is a mutilation of the flag’s fabric and its meaning. It transforms a people’s flag into a government’s flag, in direct contradiction to its foundational ethos. The Stars and Stripes emerged during the crucible of the American Revolution. Designe...

Forgiveness is often hailed as the ultimate moral virtue — a cleansing of the soul, a sign of spiritual maturity, and the first step toward healing fractured relationships. But in modern discourse, particularly in religious and pop-psychological circles, “forgiveness” has extended beyond the sensible, beyond etiquette, and beyond justice and useful application. The concept of “forgiveness” has been stretched far outside of the realms of that which is easy to “forgive”, that which is merely inconvenient or annoying, or relatively innocuous or insignificant, where “forgiveness” is merely part of tolerating people’s human shortcomings, their mistakes and  their accidents , or extending ‘mercy’ to those who’ve disrespected or “trespassed against us” (and have since offered sincere apologies and the necessary restitution). This reimagined kind of “forgiveness” has taken on a dangerously idealized form ignorant to or dismissive of the laws and limits of human nature and the potential imp...