Gaming the Game Theory Games, and other shades of 'Economic Thinking'

Gaming the Game Theory Games and other shades of Economic Thinking

"Theories are the creatures of men, which nature seldom mimics."- Thomas Reid

Shall we play a game? Should we? What game to play, how you go about it or what might be accomplished by playing it, I'm less concerned with, than with how some would advise you to decide if you should. Despite 'Economic Thinking' and Game Theory containing valid principles that can be followed to improve your activities in markets and/or your ability to 'play the game', I have concerns about leaping from engaging in principled actions, to using theoretical systems that have been built up around them to govern your life or our society with, as that game risks landing us all in a system that would 'justify' violating everything which those valid principles were derived from.

fauxYuri's game theory:

That was what was on my mind when an anon X account that I often enjoy when it's reflecting the commentary of its namesake, Yuri Bezmenov, and less so when not and is just fauxYuri, spun a thread on the glories of Game Theory, saying that:

"...game theory can be compatible with moral realism. In fact, it can clarify why moral rules and strong institutions matter..."

Compatible? The real Yuri Bezmenov, was the former KGB agent that wrote 'Love letters to America' and lectured in an effort to warn us of dialectical attacks upon what we understand to be real and true, that most people were unaware were already wearing our liberty away before our eyes. This fauxYuri, is writing to lure America into the arms of experts in Game Theory who promise 'improved systems' (?!) that will make things 'better'. One of these Yuri's is not like the other.

As fauxYuri despises my habit of defining terms that aren't being used clearly, it seems as if I should be sure to point out that since a key point of what being 'Compatible' means, is "...Capable of orderly, efficient integration and operation with other elements in a system with no modification or conversion required...", and so no, while moral realism can find theoretical computations to be useful, such computations cannot comprehend the fundamentally different nature of reasoning required by moral realism, and they should not be confused or otherwise equated. I replied that:

"I don't think so. An A.I. or a sociopath might be able to use game theory to blend their actions in with those of society, and it could generate stats to help them get away with that, but it can't clarify why moral rules matter, for the same reason why the A.I. & sociopath would try to use it to blend in - neither they nor it have any comprehension of right & wrong as understood by moral realism. Appearances can be deceiving, but they won't make unlike things, the same."

, not surprisingly that comment, and those of others who expressed concerns over fauxYuri's failure to distinguish between the two, were mostly deflected, minimized, dismissed, and ridiculed, which is itself behavior that you should be cautious of. In a separate thread where another account tried to make sense of that confrontational thread, I commented:

" Is game theory applicable to playing games? Sure. Can using game theory's calculations help you win games? I presume, so. Should you use game theory's calculations to win games of Scrabble? Chess? Poker? If you use game theory to answer that question, then IMHO you've either intentionally or unintentionally misapplied the word 'should', and so have lost the thread."

The order of 'Shoulds' - Don't 'should' all over yourself
If my point in that comment is less than obvious, you should take a closer look at the 'shoulds' here, as the issue is not about whether or not the calculations of game theory could improve your game. If within the context of the rules that you are employing game theory within, the use of those calculations are able to help you to optimize issues such as 'mapping' out corporate policy and business contracts within the bounds of The Law, or just helping you to improve your ability to think strategically within whatever games it is that you are playing, if that's the case and they are ordered to the good, then... good!

But. Whether or not you should use Game Theory where it's permitted, is not the 'should' you should be worrying about.

The more important Should, is that you should not use Game Theory to calculate the decision of whether you 'should' or 'should not' use game theory in your gaming of anything, because then you are no longer engaging in the ethical reasoning that the word 'should' is an expression of.

The concept of Should, rests upon what is (Metaphysics), and upon what we know of it (Causality & Logic), and it's with our understanding of those in mind, that we're able to properly consider what we should or should not do (Ethics). If you substitute a computational calculation for the links of that chain, and allow the output from that to determine what you 'should' do, then you have unplugged yourself from a vital connection to reality, and intentionally or unintentionally, you're no longer simply misapplying the word 'should', you've begun actively transforming your own understanding of what you 'should' do, into just so much output of artificial intelligence, and you are on your way to slipping out of reality and into a very different sort of game altogether.

This isn't new, BTW, it's all happened before, and with every bit as much self-congratulatory smugness and disregard for reasonable warnings as when 'Economic Thinking' was similarly 'sold' to us back in the 1890s, and if that process is not mitigated by us today, the consequences are sure to be at least as bad for those living in our future. If you're unsure what I mean by that, ask a random passerby (and yourself) what's of more concern to their lives, GDP & the state of the Economy, or a sound understanding of moral philosophy, and you'll likely see that for most people, as was warned, the latter has been displaced by the former.

Before the field was taken over by the calculations of economic systems theory, people from Adam Smith to Frederic Bastiat were concerned with discovering those principles of Political Economy that were the source of The Wealth of Nations. What they discovered was that the natural liberty of individual persons being able to make those decisions that they thought they should make, about whether to perform, grow, keep, buy or sell this or that during the course of their lives, was the true source of their, and their nations', wealth. Bastiat in particular showed how those decisions were derived from the nature of what a human being is, as well as how the folly of wrongfully imposing governmental force into what was rightfully an individual person's decision to make, violated natural law, and inevitably led to a cascade of inefficient decisions that not only wasted time and resources, but induced misery and poverty on a national & international scale.

The fact is, that deeper understanding of Natural Liberty which America was formed from, led to the unprecedented explosion of production, wealth, and prosperity across the 19th century, and with momentum enough to carry it into the 20th century, was a consequence of metaphysical realism's respect for orderly Causation. In that classical sense, Causation is understood as having: a Material Cause (“that out of which it is formed”), a Formal Cause ("what it is to be"), an Efficient Cause ("the active agent"), a Final Cause ("the goal"), and the informed and virtuous Exemplary Cause (“what guides their intellect”), which naturally led to those prosperous effects which historically followed.

The fact that particular formulas and calculations about the various aspects of those early ideas of Political Economy, were somewhat crude and inexact in predicting the economic consequences of either impeding or unleashing natural liberty (accurately predicting interest rates, price of gold, etc), were and should be considered to be of little importance. What was important, was the understanding that it is right for a person to be at liberty to make decisions about their own life & property, and so they should be able to do so, and that was and is the reason for, and the purpose of, preserving their Natural Liberty. That such ideas also helped to unleash prosperity to an extent that no one prior to that could have dreamed of, was a welcome consequence of upholding those first principles, but those effects are not why it should be done. A person is justified in being able to do what is rightful for them to think they should do, and though prosperity is a natural result of that, that prosperity is neither its causes or its justification - effects do not precede their causes.

Game Theory and 'Economic Thinking' reverses that process, as its projected results are taken as the justifications for implementing its strategies. That causal reversal ("let's raise interest rates to cool the economy!") is not compatible with moral and metaphysical realism.

These theories also loudly purport to be able to calculate their projections with great precision (just ignore their regular revisions of "...experts were surprised by the latest unemployment figures..."), and as the presuppositions of their calculations are reflexively utilized as if they were 'causes', they are reflexively used to justify imposing their predictions of what the 'data shows', upon local & national regulatory & legislative policies that 'experts' are then given the power to 'manage' production, demand, pricing, and other factors of 'economic growth', translates into their monitoring and regulating every move you make, as has been the case with the regulatory state.

The experts belief in their systems is the exemplary cause of every regulation on trade, finance, property, the 'Quantitative Easing' of printing fiat money, and so on, and on, and on.

But the fact is, that where the promises of such Economic Systems have actually led us to, have been typified by how 'Free Trade' was gamified into complex sets of international agreements and new international agencies to oversee them, all of which serves to bind and require, rather than free any one or any thing. These new systems of 'Economic Thinking' are contrary in nature & purpose to the Free Market of Natural Liberty that Smith & Bastiat described, and they have led to the greatest explosion in the growth of government and its regulatory laws, which tyrannically infringe upon the liberty of individual people to make their own choices about their own lives and property. To the Experts though, what an individual person might prefer or choose to do, is not valued in their calculations of what 'should' be done to promote 'economic growth', because the individual person has no place in their visions for the 'common good'.

That is the nature of their game.

It is what it is, and is not what it isn't
Again, the more important 'should' is not whether or not the calculations of either 'Game Theory' or 'Economic Thinking' (which are different... how?) could be of help in estimating various scores & outputs measured in economic growth, but whether or not individuals are at liberty to make decisions about what they should do based upon their understanding of circumstances, and that that 'input', is more important than any estimates of output.

Speaking of which, the 'Game Theorists' like fauxYuri, while positing their intent to analyze models & agents, will claim that we have no need to worry about their systems being imposed upon us, or to opening a backdoor of revisionary metaphysics, and that it will somehow 'operate' on a level beyond 'should':

"Level 3: formal analysis of strategic interaction. Once aims, motives, incentives, and rules are specified, what patterns of conduct are likely to follow? This is the level at which game theory operates."

Operates... how? On who? By what means? If they have no effects upon our "...aims, motives, incentives, and rules are specified, what patterns of conduct are likely to follow...", then what's the point of your theory's for gaming them?

More to the point, how does such a system utilize power in such a way as to anticipate and manage 'behaviors' which it cannot comprehend, but can only 'model' based upon... operator input (and not-put)? How are wrongs to be addressed 'strategically'? How are ethical wrongs, to be identified in their statistical 'models'?

Is their system going to somehow 'see' how some actions violate the individual rights of others? Spoiler: No.

Is their system somehow going to be used to monitor possible behaviors, which the system should then be empowered to anticipate and to manage? Spoiler: Yes.

fauxYuri likes to state that his game theory is 'Prudence friendly', and that:

"Madison stands in the same line of realism. If men were angels, no government would be necessary"

But James Madison was a prudent human being who understood SCSR (Scottish Common Sense Realism), the nature of man, and the role of government in upholding individual rights and curtailing the abuse of its power, and those 'angels' he spoke of weren't the calculated results of an algorithm dealing with 'models and agents', but with the understanding and identification of what human beings are, what the role of the rule of law is in our lives (more as restraints, than as the paddles & bumpers in a behavioralist pinball game), and the temptations of power in the hands of ambitious people in political life.

What the fauxYuri seems to miss, is that his pet theories are not the same as, or 'compatible' with, Realism, they are only computational models with numerical inputs that stand in for parameters of lust, shame, ambition, glory, and other easily quantified concepts [Ahem].

fauxYuri kant seem to fit it into his modeling mind that Game Theory can only deal with theoretical 'models and agents', and that to employ that application in the governmental administration of power, is to step out of the moral realism of reality, and into the computational realm of his theories, which will then 'somehow' apply those calculations, not to models and agents, but to people, and other people in positions of power, will then have that power to apply them, to still other people who are under their power.

IMHO, we don't we need computers to tell us about the nature of that game.

But again, if you disagree, then answer me: How?

How can a system of laws which are constrained by natural law to uphold and defend the individual rights of all, go about managing 'models' and 'agents' (AKA: you), without actively intruding upon what every 'agent' is doing in its 'model'?

Will that system's power somehow be limited by the understanding that it is derived from, and intended to uphold, individual rights? Who will write that code? Will they remember that its computations are based upon expected results, and not causes - systems management, not individual meting out of justice? Or will they be entranced by the 'beauty' of their theories?

If history is any guide - and it is - it will be managed and applied by experts in Game Theory (fauxYuri?) in newly established agencies which will advise congress and the POTUS's with 500 page studies (ever unread) and the ever vague message of "Better do this, or the game will go badly!", which will soon take the place of the venerable "Gotta keep interest rates low and raise GDP!". But what possible 'strategy' could justify the computational management of a population/human resources?

fauxYuri says that:

Game theory did not invent that terrain. It formalized part of it.

No, Game Theory did not invent the terrain, but Game Theorists like fauxYuri are attempting to terraform that terrain into a morally inert construct, with which they expect their theories will further perfect our cumulative behaviors with, but theses terrains are not compatible. Our great grandparents failed to consider what the results of getting into the habit of 'systems thinking', would be to their children and grandchildren, I hope for the sake of ours, that we won't continue on making the same mistakes today.

fauxYuri sets up what he considers to be the strong objection to his modeling:

So the objection runs: the model may not explicitly deny richer moral reality, but it still trains the mind to see politics through a narrowed lens.

That is a serious objection, and it deserves a direct answer.

, which he never actually answers, only models. Saying that:

"...Every analytic discipline foregrounds some features and backgrounds others. A legal brief does not capture the whole life of the parties...Yet none of these is therefore false or subversive simply because it abstracts."

But again, those analytic disciplines and legal briefs are not computational outputs and only LLM prompting fools (or worse) would confuse the two. Neither do computational models abstract. People do (developers kinda do abstract, but the software they develop does not). Only human beings with knowledge & wisdom in regards to a subject and its ramifications, are able to observe and abstract from that, to better understand and act in accordance with their understanding of the world. People who mistake computational models for abstractions, and confuse selective Input for informed observation and understanding, are the kinds of people who are a danger to every person that comes under the power of those they advise with their models.

fauxYuri somehow expects 'moral realism' to continue unabated, as their grasp of the underlying reality is increasingly replaced with Game Theory's models of it, because like most people enraptured by their own notions, they imagine their brilliance to be a cause, rather than a fleeting effect.

As it was the case with 'economic thinking', the proponents and practitioners of these theories come to use their impressive calculations ("...experts were surprised by the latest rise in interest rates!..."), to convince people to begin to subordinate principled thinking, to those calculations (promises) output by their theories. What then will soon come to guide our thoughts and actions, will be the always promised appearances of utility, and under which, what actually should be done, and why, will recede from our awareness, as what most serves the interests of those who're interested in acquiring the power to manage every aspect of your life, will be what is used to calculate what 'should' be done to you for the 'common good'.

A quantitative measurement or calculation cannot provide either understanding, strategy, or even a single 'should', not even when that data is shaped to appear as if it does. Calculative tools, even when named as a theory, can only supply data which a person can make use of in understanding how to support a 'Why', but that is a very different thing from what a model abstracts, and when you confuse the two, you're outsourcing your judgement to quantitive comparisons, and as the reality behind them recedes from your thinking, you sever your ability to be prudent.

It's the same game
But Van, why do you keep equating Economic Thinking, with Game Theory? Because in many respects they are the same kind of thinking, and there have been developed by the same people, and for the similar purposes. I've had those who've doubted my concerns about Game Theory, point me to links such as this one from Britanica, which explains that Game Theory is simply a tool to better model the reasoning of how 'agents' behave towards each other:

"game theory, branch of applied mathematics that provides tools for analyzing situations in which parties, called players, make decisions that are interdependent...."

, and my 1st reaction is that the last thing that we need those in power to do, is to take an even less personable and more 'abstract' view of our lives, rights, and property, to see us as computational models of agents and players, as elaborately automated calculators 'reason' about how people should respond to each other, or in their words 'play'. I'm also curious about what kinds of interactions they think we would be unable to determine the nature of for ourselves? Have we no schools to spread knowledge & wisdom? Oh... yeah... that's right... our great-grandparents converted them into more pragmatic, economically minded, institutions. Huh.

Another question is, are we even talking about actual person to person interactions... or something more like abstract scenarios where individual people and circumstances aren't actually examined, but only those probabilities that can be utilized in systemic schemes to develop more efficient aspects of population management?

That sounds a lot like 'Economic Thinking' to me... how about you? If you're doubtful, you should take a look further down the Britanica link, where it helpfully notes that:

"...In fact, game theory was originally developed by the Hungarian-born American mathematician John von Neumann and his Princeton University colleague Oskar Morgenstern, a German-born American economist, to solve problems in economics. ..."

The purpose of Game Theory, in the end, as is the case with 'Economic Thinking', is to model (meaning to substitute theory for reality) how best to escape from the 'restrictions' (AKA: the nature of your individual rights), which those in power feel are interfering with their desire to manage society more efficiently, so that experts can calculate the optimal utility of how best to serve the 'common good', through ever more efficient calculations of every move that you 'should' be made to make.

Personally, what I oppose is not 'economic growth', but justifying the abuses of our natural liberty on the basis of what either systems calculates they will have on economic & societal growth. I am not opposed to what can be learned from the data of Game Theory, but I am opposed to using such systems to target not just material decisions, but chipping away at more fundamental political, legal, ethical issues, along with our grasp of the metaphysical realism which they all ultimately rest upon (and cannot long continue as such without).

Those like fauxYuri deny that such a technocracy is their telos. I think that their denials ring hollow. Courtenay Turner summed up the issue of such denials on that first thread, with:

" Courtenay Turner @CourtenayTurner If that’s true then why are the game theorists so invested in hollowing out realist metaphysics? Because they explicitly say metaphysics must be redesigned to create a “scaffolding” that serves (science) their model! They need to erode the foundation so they can build models without the pesky confines of reality!! That’s constructivism!"

Those advancing 'Game Theory', are, knowingly or not, intent upon transforming that understanding of what is (Metaphysics) and what we know of it (Causality & Logic), which is the basis for Ethical Reasoning, into an artificially constructed tool for quantitative calculations which they need for more efficiently managing our 'input' (everything you think, say, and do, or as they like to refer to that as: 'The Economy'), as the means for using technology to reformulate the ends of our society, and to justify whatever means their calculations tell them 'should' be imposed upon us, for the 'common good'.

That is why those 'tech bros' that Courtenay notes, are proponents of technocracy, and of Game B (Nick Land, Brett Weinstein, etc.), who very much use (all) theory, towards their constructivist ends.

I want to see that growth and prosperity and winning, but I want it to be real, and not a pragmatic facsimile of it that is sure to precede total defeat.

I see no 'winning' in that 'game' for any of us.

Why are they called 'Protestors'? Because the pen is mightier than the sword and your carelessness can kill you

Not 'protesting': Stochastic terrorism

Stop calling them protestors. The pen is mightier than the sword, and wielding it carelessly can kill you. And they know that.

These people who've been acting violently in the streets (again), are not protesters, and you should not tolerate the misidentification of their threats to your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

These people that are stopping people's cars in the streets, these people who are rioting outside federal facilities, these people that are harassing and interfering with law enforcement officers, rousting people out of diners, accosting random passersby while demanding that they identify themselves and denounce our laws, these people that invade and disrupt church services - these people are not protesters, and they are not in any reasonable way, committing their violent actions in support of any civil liberties, whatsoever.

CRT ...Maoism by any other name

Who and what these people are, are pro-regressive insurrectionists, who're driven by marxist totalitarian ideologies, and they are engaged in violence against the public peace of America. They're able to do what they are doing, day in and day out, because their unchecked misuse of our words is shielding them from the consequences of committing violence against us, consequences that should and would unquestionably follow, if we took our own language seriously. If you're one of those who was taught to think of grammar as unimportant & arbitrary conventions about the use of commas, see Josef Pieper's brief (and terrifying) essay: "Abuse of language, Abuse of power".

Why does it matter whether we call them 'protestors' or 'insurrectionists'? Because the pen is mightier than the sword!

If you persist in using their language of deception - a deception that goes back at least as far as the 'Berkeley *free speech* movement' (which was itself nothing more than organized political violence against the public peace) - that misidentifies who and what these folks are, then any reaction you have to their actions (actions which are plotted by them to instigate an overreaction from you), will be easily spun by them and their co-conspirators in the popular media, academia, and bureaucracies, to portray you as being in the wrong and as some form of anti-American fascist that is opposed to free speech and civil liberties.

Willful insanity

Our society is held together by language, do you really think that misusing and misunderstanding the language we use can be tolerated and engaged in without consequences?

Do you not understand that the laws that uphold and protect our individual rights, lives, and property, are made from those same words that we've got in the habit of not paying attention to? The Rule of Law cannot be any sounder or stronger than our understanding and commitment to the words they are made from!

The pen is mightier than the sword and mishandling it can lead to serious injury to you and those around you.

They are following the insurrectionist tactics that have been taught by Marxist revolutionaries, from Alinsky. to Prairie Fire, and Beautiful Trouble - each of which expresses a violent opposition to the principles of the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and the Rule of Law - which is what makes them Pro-Regressive (they seek to regress our society to the time before those principles were understood and upheld), and a danger to every aspect of our lives.

Stop calling them protestors. Just stop it.

Training in Insurrection

You need to read this

Attacking persons & property

Another Shocking New Year's Resolution: Have a Questionable 2026!

As the year 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 comes to a close, and a new last half of the decade begins continues, ask yourself this: Can you spend fifteen minutes in a room alone with yourself, with no digital devices, TV, music, books or anything else but your own thoughts? According to a study - the details of which I find questionable, but in general terms, likely - 67 percent of men, and 25 percent of women, would rather give themselves painful electric shocks, than spend an uninterrupted 15 minutes of being alone with their own thoughts, without any distraction at all.

Apparently, there's a connection between that, and why “depending on where you get your numbers, somewhere between 81 percent and 92 percent of New Year's Resolutions fail.”

Can you face fifteen minutes alone with your own thoughts? I'll just add, that anyone who expects America to continue while filled with Americans who can't stand being alone with their own thoughts, is... to put it politely... a fool.

While I have zero interest in making New Year's Resolutions, that seems like a worthy one to strive for!

This is an interesting article on how most people fail to face themselves without distraction:

"...What is striking, is that simply being alone with their own thoughts for 15 minutes was apparently so aversive that it drove many participants to self-administer an electric shock that they had earlier said they would pay to avoid.

Wilson and his colleagues summarized their findings this way: “The untutored mind does not like to be alone with itself....”

Their 'studies say' that your resolutions to avoid snacking, drinking, surfing online fail, because you need those distractions from yourself, and that,

"...We reach for a donut the same way some study participants reached for the electric shock.

Is it a surprise that we turn to celebrity gossip or Facebook again and again? Anything seems better than an uncomfortable feeling. Coping works for a few minutes, but then we reach for a distraction...."

If you too would rather indulge in any distractions, even to the point of experiencing pain, over the prospect of being alone with your own thoughts, might I suggest that rather than making New Year's Resolutions to break bad habits... which you are 80% to 90% likely to fail at, that you instead begin the novel notion of getting comfortable with your own thoughts, by, wait for it: Thinking upon things worth thinking about?

I've suggested some of this for beginning a New Year before, and for giving thanks within the year as well, but now that 'studies show' that my suggestions might have a 'scientific basis' for them 😎, I'll suggest again that instead of making New Year's Resolutions, I propose some old questions to be newly asked. And while you won't have to return any membership fees if you fail to answer them, if you get in the habit of just asking them, you might also get to the point of preferring your own company, to that of a painful electric shock!

Start off with some basics:

"...Western Civilization didn't catch on because of its answers... those are still being argued about more than 3,000 years on... but because of its questions, and its method of comparing your answers to reality, and pursuing the questions which those answers lead to. Questions such as:

• What is real and how do we know it?
• What is Good? Why should we care?
• How can we recognize what is not Good?
• What is a Good life?
• What is Happiness?
• Should what is Right and Wrong, guide our actions?
• What is Beauty?...What is Truth?...What is Justice?
• What does it benefit a man to gain the whole world, yet lose his soul?

Ask the right questions, and your listeners [even if that listener is you] will question their own answers, and reality will do the rest...."

Most of all, question what you assume to be true.

There is of course also another very practical, and very important reason, to get comfortable with asking yourself these questions, and for questioning what answers you might first come to, and that is that they are consequential to your life, and to the future of this nation in the year 2020, and for the coming decade of the 20's. The immediate impact of considering such questions is in fact very likely to be far more compelling to our new present, than when I first suggested asking yourself them five years ago:

"...As the old year slips out and the New Year opens up, it's a particularly good time to ask questions that have to do with what is timeless... lest auld acquaintance with them should be forgot. And while it might not seem so, on the surface, these questions we've been asking most definitely involve issues that are timeless - see if you can see how. For instance: Where do you think you fit in, in today's world, are you Pro-Progress, or Pro-Regress? Are you for the Rule of Law, or the Rule of Rules? Are the 'Big Ideas' of Western Civilization something you think much about, or do you mostly shrug them off and just kinda make a snap judgment on various news stories that happen to flit into your view, now and then... and then forget about 'em? Or are you one of the many of us who don't see the point of considering such questions at all, especially not in the midst of the current events raging around us today - ''I'm not getting sucked into THAT mess!'? I hate to cast a pall upon the coming New Year, but I have a sad suspicion that what most people think doesn't matter, isn't going to matter much longer.

Can anyone really think that the precious snowflakes on our college campuses, or the SJW (Social Justice Warriors) brigades in our streets who are openly advocating to eliminate the Freedom of Speech, or 'unbiased' newscasters talking openly of how those they violently disagree with are 'enemies of the state', can anyone really think that these types are going to be tolerant towards those who say 'Oh, I don't pay attention to that stuff' for much longer? How much longer? And when that vocal 'majority' refuses to allow others the choice to either disagree or evade deciding, what do you suppose is going to be the reaction of those who do disagree with them, and what options will they have to do so?

Will the one side have any option left open to them, but to take the other side at their own words, as being their enemies?

No, the time is coming where all will have to decide, one way or the other, where they stand on these issues, because they are what is driving our current events, and your place within them, and brushing them off cannot remain an option much longer. Each person is going to have to choose what they support, and what they will reject. But for those who haven't been paying attention, those - Left, Right, Libertarian and the target rich Moderate center - who've been coasting along on the strength of their snap judgments on this and that - what are they going to base those decisions upon?..."

Again, don't worry so much about whether the answers that come to your mind are correct, just focus on questioning them. Even questioning just one or two of those questions, is likely to carry you through at least fifteen minutes of time. And at the very least, the results are likely to be less shocking than being left alone with nothing to distract you from them.

And remember, as the 'studies show' showed,

"Try to notice: Right before you reach for the habit you want to break, do you experience an uncomfortable feeling that you are trying to distract yourself from?

You won’t break a habit if you are not comfortable with being uncomfortable...."

Break the habit. Prefer the company of your thoughts for fifteen undistracted minutes, to getting an electric shock, for after all, the new year, not to mention finishing out the decade, is going to be very much longer than 15 minutes... prepare!

Happy New Year!

The Gift of Christmas to the World

(With a post from 2011, here's wishing you a very Merry Christmas!)
What meaning is there to be found in Christmas, even by those who find no meaning in Christmas at all?

First off, grant that the false alternative of 'Not all Christians are good, therefore Christianity is bad', is in fact a false alternative, one that you should not burden your thoughts further with. Don't look at how Christians often misbehave as badly or worse than non-Christians, or that Christianity has failed to make heaven on earth, look instead at what is here in our lives as a result of the birth which Christmas commemorates.

Christianity has given us the ability to see that each person, peasant or prince, is as beloved of God as another, and that their choice is such a holy a thing that even God himself does not attempt to prevent it - not even with the choice of whether or not to accept God into their lives - Christianity declared that every man has the ability to accept God into their life - or to reject him - and that such godlike power is given to every man, the power to gainsay the will of All Mighty God - now there's a gift worth giving.

And every man, Christian or Gentile, has profited from it.

It has brought us the concept that the mistakes you make are of little value against what you eventually get right and true. Even if everyone of your choices were to reject God and what God wanted for you... your change of heart is enough to restore you to him... as if you who had persisted your whole life in adding two plus two and behaving as if the answer were three, or one, or any number of other numbers - the fact that you might finally see, and admit, that two plus two equals four, wipes your slate clean (note: it doesn't claim that the consequences of your errors will be wiped away, only that you would be accepted as finally whole and true).

Western Civilization is inextricably a Greco/Roman Judeo/Christian One

Through Christianity and the philosophy of the Greeks and Romans; the Good, the Beautiful and the True, are not just ideals, but principles of eternal Truths attainable by every person, birthrights, no matter their station in life. With this understanding comes the realization that every man, woman and child has the God given right to pursue them, and that the worldly power of government should be devoted to defending their choices in that pursuit. That is an ideal that would not exist, America would never, could never have been, without Christianity having come into the world first.

Phenomenal.

Has this realization made men better? Perhaps not entirely so. But it has made it possible for men to see that they can, and should, be better, and because of that the world is immensely better off than it was before the advent of Christianity.

Prior to the Judeo-Christian views, the world was ruled by power without rival. Even on those rare occasions where truth and wisdom was sought, and an effort to see the scales of justice balanced was made - Greece and Rome - nowhere did the desire to do good have value in and of itself, so much so that people would expend great amounts of time, effort, blood and treasure in an attempt to improve the lot of others, to bring them not just goods but Goodness, nowhere else did this occur upon the globe (and I do not mean do-gooders, a mirror image, and often a rejection of doing good).

Charities are something you will look in vain to see in pre or non-Christian cultures, and those few exceptions which you might find some semblance of them, simply prove the rule.

Even Art - not as decoration or garish depiction, but as an idealization of truth and goodness and a means of mending and lifting the soul - that is not found outside the Greco/Roman-Judeo/Christian, world view (and no, do not attempt to compare an oriental gong or pipe to Gregorian Chants or Bach, do not attempt to equate a golden Buddha with the Sistine Chapel - do not).

More than all of that, Christianity has brought with it the idea of 'you must be born again', or 'born from above' to a central position in every life; even to secular views this brought the conviction that your ideals and actions must come from and align with higher principles, rather than settling for greater quantities of measures and pleasures; that Quality is infinitely greater than Quantity. With the idea that God became Man, came the possibility of the idea that man could participate in the divine, and that even though you will never become perfect yourself (itself a monumental realization), you can strive to become more perfect through aligning your ideals with those of God - the meaning of progress itself is meaningless without that.

And that is Good.

And through this, there comes the possibility that men can, and should, strive for peace on earth and good will towards all. And whether or not you believe that Jesus was ever even born, let alone the Christ, the idea that he was, has opened the possibility of more meaningful lives for all in this world, than was ever possible before Christ.

From our house to yours,

Merry Christmas to all!

The 234th Birthday of what we today are most divided over today: The Bill of Rights

234 years ago today, December 15th, 1791, our states united in ratifying the first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America! How weird is it that many of the individual rights protected by these amendments as being essential to living in liberty - freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freeing religion from government interference - are what We The People are most divided over, and by, today? 

We should all pay especially close attention to the preamble that I've put in bold below - IOW: if our Founders didn't trust govt led by the Founding Fathers themselves... why should we trust the bunch we've got in our government(s) today?!

It's a convenient turn of providence that the first two amendments originally proposed, weren't ratified at the time (one of those two was ratified in the 1990's), because the keeping of government out of religion and its practice, and barring it from tampering with the freedom of speech, the press (which, BTW, doesn't exclude you), the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances should be the first set of individual rights protected from abuse by governmental powers (even and especially if the We The People are urging it to 'do something!' about something), followed immediately, as it now is, by the right to keep and bear arms in their defense, as the 1st & 2nd Amendments do. 

If you too would like to see our Bill of Rights enjoy many more birthdays, I strongly suggest that you click the links below, and read some of what was in our Founder's minds, when they proposed, debated, and ratified them.

Proposed Amendments and Ratification
1789 Elliot 1:338--40

Congress of the United States;

Begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday, the 4th of March, 1789.

The conventions of a number of the states having, at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added; and as extending the ground of public confidence in the government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution;--

Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both houses concurring, that the following articles be proposed to the legislatures of the several states, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said legislatures, to be valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution, namely,--

Articles in Addition to, and Amendment of, the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the Fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Art. I. [Not Ratified] After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than one hundred representatives, nor less than one representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of representatives shall amount to two hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred representatives, nor more than one representative for every fifty thousand.

Art. II. [Not ratified... for two centuries, now the 27th amendment] No law varying the compensation for services of the senators and representatives shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened.

Art. III.[1st] Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Art. IV [2nd]. A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Art. V [3rd]. No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner prescribed by law.

Art. VI [4th]. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue, but upon principal cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Art. VII [5th]. No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia when in actual service, in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject, for the same offence, to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

Art. VIII [6th]. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right of a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law; and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.

Art. IX [7th]. In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reëxamined, in any court of the United States, than according to the rules in common law.

Art. X [8th]. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Art. XI [9th]. The enumeration, in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Art. XII [10th]. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states, respectively, or to the people.

FREDERICK AUGUSTUS MUHLENBERG,

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

JOHN ADAMS, Vice-President of the United States,

and President of the Senate. 

Attest. John Beckley
Clerk of the House of Representatives.
Samuel A. Otis, Secretary of the Senate.
Which, being transmitted to the several state legislatures, were decided upon by them, according to the following returns:--

By the State of New Hampshire.--Agreed to the whole of the said amendments, except the 2d article.
By the State of New York.--Agreed to the whole of the said amendments, except the 2d article.
By the State of Pennsylvania.--Agreed to the 3d, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th articles of the said amendments.
By the State of Delaware.--Agreed to the whole of the said amendments, except the 1st article.
By the State of Maryland.--Agreed to the whole of the said twelve amendments.
By the State of South Carolina.--Agreed to the whole said twelve amendments.
By the State of North Carolina.--Agreed to the whole of the said twelve amendments.
By the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations.--Agreed to the whole of the said twelve articles.
By the State of New Jersey.--Agreed to the whole of the said amendments, except the second article.
By the State of Virginia.--Agreed to the whole of the said twelve articles.
No returns were made by the states of Massachusetts, Connecticut, Georgia, and Kentucky.

The amendments thus proposed became a part of the Constitution, the first and second of them excepted, which were not ratified by a sufficient number of the state legislatures.


The Founders' Constitution
Volume 5, Bill of Rights, Document 12
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/bill_of_rightss12.html
The University of Chicago Press
Elliot, Jonathan, ed. The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution as Recommended by the General Convention at Philadelphia in 1787. . . . 5 vols. 2d ed. 1888. Reprint. New York: Burt Franklin, n.d.

Help to keep the horrific surprise of December 7th, 1941, in the past, by remembering Pearl Harbor Day today

Remember to remember. Remember that while we're preoccupied with our concerns of the day, the worst lessons of our yesterdays - such as the unexpected attack upon us 84 years ago today - can return in an instant to consume our present. Remember that when such lessons are least expected, is always Today. Remember to remember the lack of awareness that shaped our past, so that today and tomorrow may be different for us.

Remember that December 7th, 1941, dawned as just another morning, when a world of change suddenly came upon the world from out of a clear blue sky.

Sometimes you need a bit of perspective... today, the 7th of December, is a fine day to get it. Don't just recall, which we all so routinely do, but mentally, spiritually, put them back together - Re-member what led to those events, re-member them, or we may be doomed to repeat our history again after all.

Remember that days like the 7th of December 1941, can bring with them a very different sort of crisis, than the sort of thing which our media calls a crisis today, and every other day. A real clash of cultures rang out eighty-four years ago today, that truly should live in infamy - but it can do so only if we remember to re-member that it was a day that saw two thousand four hundred and three people slaughtered, and which led us into four years of war and the loss of millions of lives worldwide.

Remember that the smoke that rose over our ships December 7th, 1941, led to the smoke that rose over Hiroshima and Nagasaki four horrifically bloody years later, as well as the age of nuclear war that hangs over our heads still today.

Remember that things can become infinitely worse than they are right now, in an instant.

Remember that on December 7th, 1941, in the midst of negotiations to preserve peace, those we negotiated with, attacked us. Remember that sometimes negotiations for peace are simply preparations for war.

Remember and re-member, the 7th of December, for if history becomes only about the past, it will lose all of its meaning, and your children will have to learn its lessons anew.

Remember also that those who serve in our military are always at risk of having the ultimate price demanded of them - and they have agreed up front to pay it for you.

Remember that at Pearl Harbor 84 years ago, Americans were reminded that the freedom to be an American, and even to identify as being on the left or right, is not free.

Remember to honor them, and to honor that which you share with them, the liberty and freedom of being an American.

These are lessons to learn, and to remember.

Remember... because it matters that you do.

For Our Veterans on Veterans Day - Thank You For Persisting 'The Harder Right', Across Time

William Ernest Henley. 1849–1903
Invictus
OUT of the night that covers me,
Black as the Pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds, and shall find, me unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.

Ralph Waldo Emerson (1837)
The Concord Hymn
By the rude bridge that arched the flood,
Their flag to April's breeze unfurled;
Here once the embattled farmers stood;
And fired the shot heard round the world.

The foe long since in silence slept;
Alike the conqueror silent sleeps,
And Time the ruined bridge has swept
Down the dark stream that seaward creeps.

On this green bank, by this soft stream,
We place with joy a votive stone,
That memory may their deeds redeem,
When, like our sires, our sons are gone.

O Thou who made those heroes dare
To die, and leave their children free, --
Bid Time and Nature gently spare
The shaft we raised to them and Thee.

John McCrae. 1872–1918
In Flanders Fields
IN Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

Commemorating Veterans Day once again, on the “11th hour, of the 11th day, of the 11th month”, with two earlier memories (and a bonus of soul food in the sidebar); one from ten years ago now, which was itself remembering this day from four years before that, and doing so recalls what persists across time on this day, our fellows who choose 'the harder right' by volunteering to serve in our military. No matter where they may end up being stationed, when they volunteer to serve, they are volunteering to put their lives on the line, period. There is no assurance that they won't at some point be sent to physically put their lives at risk, be injured, or be killed. None. Whether their service ends up being given entirely stateside in administrative duties, or repeatedly at hazard in war zones, the worst case is risked by all at that moment when they sign their lives on the dotted line. In pledging their lives to support and defend our Constitution, they serve to secure to us the ability to live lives worth living (should we choose to).

To all of our Veterans - Thank You.

[And now, back to 2015:]
For Veterans Day this year, I'm going with a re-post from four years ago, which isn't - for me or others - the typical Veterans Day post, but for me it really goes to the heart of the occasion. This post came back into mind a couple days ago when a 'Memories' app popped up some pictures from the 2011 Veterans Day parade in St. Louis that I took part in with Chris & Dana Loesch, "Patch" Po/ed Patriot and our kids [Patch just confirmed my sketchy pictureless memory, Stacy Washington was with us too). The memories were a nice tug - I mostly only see Patch online now, and the Loesch's have since moved to Dallas (catch "Dana" on the BlazeTV), but more than the sentimental value, was the point of this post, well-illustrated in the movie clip, of the importance of choosing the Harder Right - not only in the sense of putting your life on the line for it, but the importance of choosing the harder right to a life worth living, and that is what I associate most with our Veterans.

Our Veterans volunteer their lives onto the line, and in pledging their lives to support and defend our Constitution, they serve to secure to us the ability to live a life worth living, should we also take the harder right, and choose to.

To our Veterans - Thank You.

[And now, back to 2011:]
For Veterans Day, a clip that doesn't at first appear to have anything to do with Veterans or Veterans Day. It's the climactic scene of a movie that's really grown on me over the years, The Emperor's Club. In this, the point of not only an Education, but of a life well lived - or squandered - is conveyed in just a few moments.

The now aging Mr. Hundert, a Classics Professor, is found in the restroom after a debate competition, by his former student, Sedgewick Bell, who is now grown and launching a campaign for the Senate. Bell was a student he'd tried far more than he should have to help, and Hundert has realized that Sedgewick has yet again cheated in the "Mr. Julius Caesar" debate, which Mr. Hundert was moderating.

He lets his former student know that he knows he tried to cheat, again...

Mr. Hundert:"I'm a teacher Sedgwick, and I failed you. But I'll give you one last lecture, if I may. All of us, at some point, are forced to look at ourselves in the mirror, and see who we really are, and when that day comes for Sedgewick, you'll be confronted with a life lived without virtue, without principle - for that I pity you. End of lesson."

Sedgewick Bell:"What can I say Mr. Hundert? Who gives a shit. Honestly, who out there gives a shit about your principles and your virtues. I mean, look at you, what do you have to show for yourself? I live in the real world, where people do what they need to do to get what they want, and if that means lying, and cheating... then so be it.
So I am going to go out there, and I am going to win that election Mr. Hundert, and you will see me EVERYwhere! And I'll worry about my 'contribution' later.
(Sound of a toilet flushing, stall opens, Sedgewick's little boy comes out, stares at his dad in disgust)
Sedgewick Bell:"Robert? Robert...."
(Robert turns and leaves)
Sedgewick stares after him, stares down, glances at Mr. Hundert, and leaves.

What Mr. Hundert has, he has without need of power, position or wealth... what Cedric threw away, he can't replace through any amount of power, position or wealth.

The best things in life are free... but you've got to earn them, and sometimes fight for them; and some worthy few even choose to risk their lives for your chance to enjoy them.

Thank you to all those who chose the harder right, and especially the Veterans who agreed to risk their lives for it, if need be.

UPDATE - Pictures from the St. Louis Veterans Day Parade
Special thanks to Dana Loesh for inviting us to march with her crew in the parade, my daughter & I were honored to show our support.

Dana Loesh (in a strep throat burqa), Me, Patch Adams and Chris Loesch , ready to roll	... coming around the corner... (pic swiped from Patch Adams)
Parading past Soldiers Memorial	The best message of all!

Patch posted a video that should be an alarming shame in contrasts to all. For those who did turn out for the parade yesterday, thank you, your quality isn't questioned, but for the quantities of others who couldn't be bothered, shame on you.

Is this the Heritage of an intellectual backbone? Happy Halloween

Well. Kevin Roberts of the Heritage Foundation, has tweeted out a statement regarding 'canceling' Tucker Carlson & Nick Fuentes, that went way beyond making a reasonable statement in defense of sometimes awkward friendships. FWIW, Real Clear Politics also has the video, and a (mostly accurate) transcript of it.

It may be late night on a worknight, but... it stirred up a response, soOooo, let's run through it, top to bottom:

KEVIN ROBERTS:" I'll have more to say on this in the coming days, but today I want to be clear about one thing. Christians can critique the state of Israel without being anti-Semitic."

To the extent that this equates to the obviousness that criticizing the policies of the government of the United States of America, doesn't make you anti-American, this is a purely 'duh' statement... so why say it?

"And of course, anti-Semitism should be condemned."

This also is, or shouldn't be, an issue, but still... again, it's pure 'duh' level obviousness - 'Never again' is understood and affirmed by most reasonable people - why would any reasonable person feel the need to come out and say this, or that the sky is blue... unless there was something that made it particularly concerning? In the context of this statement, and those he's responding to, it'd be interesting to hear why he thought it needed to be said. Unfortunately, he doesn't go into that.

"My loyalty as a Christian, and as an American, is to Christ first, and to America always.

Perhaps I'm being too picky here, but... with the fluctuating nature of politics, such as with the Biden administration's recent policy of putting Christian protesters silently praying at Planned Parenthood centers in jail, should you pair 'America always' with 'Christ first', as if they were equally weighty and eternally defensible statements? I can't help but question whether he's saying, "Christ first" and "America always" as statements of honest conviction, or as patronizing flattery.

When it serves the interest of the United States to cooperate with Israel and other allies, we do so with partnerships on security, intelligence, technology. But when it doesn't, conservatives should feel no obligation to reflexively support any foreign government, no matter how loud the pressure becomes from the globalist class, or from their mouthpieces in Washington."

Again, most of this is obvious, and one wonders why a representative of the Heritage Foundation, or any other organization, would feel the need to come out and state such obviousness? And the answer to that, seems to come with the insertion of 'reflexively', as that seems to imply something more than merely a difference of policy - simply saying 'be nice until it's time to not be nice', is plain speaking, but adding 'reflexively' into that, implies other purposes, one that - call me crazy - seems to imply that there is a 'they', that won't allow them to simply agree to disagree. Why phrase it so?

The Heritage Foundation didn't become the intellectual backbone of the conservative movement by canceling our own people or policing the consciences of Christians, and we won't start doing that now.

IF the Heritage Foundation, or any other entity, can be said to be "the intellectual backbone of the conservative movement", it would presumably be for a solid reputation for stating what is true, backing it up with sound arguments and sources, and fearlessly questioning those who err, misrepresent, slight or slander those principles and history.

Right?

Assuming that is so, what is meant by 'our own people'? Does that mean American Conservatives? How do you define American Conservatives? Does that 'intellectual backbone' involve giving a pass to them? If someone egregiously violates the principles and history of American Conservatives, do you point those issues out, or dismiss it if they say or have said "Hey, I'm an American Conservative!"?

And what is meant by 'policing'? Would the possibility of people on X or some of your donors - or 'Friends' - charging you with 'policing', stop you from citing those issues and defending American Conservativism from such charges?

Similarly with the pairing of 'Christian' and 'America' at the opening, I'm very curious how you determine who is 'our own people', is it by being faithful to a set of principles, or by some form of 'friendship' or blood and soil? And presuming the former, if someone repeatedly, egregiously, strains and violated those principles, would you ignore that out of loyalty? Most of us understand that a person can still be friends with, even love someone, who behaves or speaks in a manner that is incompatible with many of your convictions and beliefs - and that is admirable trait - but does that friendship with them require that you ignore or even implicitly endorse their violations of those principles you (supposedly) hold dear? Would you let their slander or otherwise impugning of 'Christian' and 'America', go unanswered?

If not, why phrase it that way?

Is what you mean by 'Policing', simply using good judgement? Or is it using fraught terminology to excuse someone not using good judgement?

We don't take direction from comments on X, though we are grateful for the robust free speech debate. We also don't take direction from members or donors, though we are inherently grateful for their support, and we're adding more every day. This is the robust debate we invite, with our colleagues, our movement friends, our members, and the American public. We will always defend truth. We will always defend America. And we'll always defend our friends against the slander of bad actors who serve someone else's agenda.

Yawn. Yes, admirable as well. And also 100% bromide. Why would someone like the Heritage Foundation, issue such a statement? And it should be pointed out that 'Truth' is easy to defend. What is, or isn't true, OTOH, takes a wee bit more commitment... seemingly quite a bit more than you're expressing here.

That includes Tucker Carlson, who remains, and as I have said before, always will be a close friend of the Heritage Foundation.

Ahh... there's the answer. Let's leave aside for the time being the notion that a person can be the 'friend' of a foundation, and put it into a terms that actually makes sense, such as Roberts himself being friends with Tucker Carlson. Ok, fine. I've got some friends, that I've been friends with for decades, whose political ideas I find horrific. When the occasion of those topics come up, I tell them so. If we're in a gathering of friends or a public setting, and they express some of those horrific beliefs while leaning on my shoulder, I do not let them slide by as if I in any way support them, and when the moment to raise my voice comes around, I do just that. That doesn't mean that I would do so in an unfriendly way, and it doesn't mean that I'd be any less friends with them for doing so, or because of their statements, but it does mean that I believe the principles involved are important enough to highlight and defend, and that doing so doesn't infringe upon our friendship, which is based upon other issues than philosophical and political principles.

So the question that comes to mind is, does Roberts not find anything that Tucker Carlson has said - with Fuentes or elsewhere - to be objectionable? Or does the mere appearance of 'friendship' - or political party polling - override the importance of pointing out when your cherished principles are being violated or impugned? Does that in some way involve having a 'intellectual backbone'?

The venomous coalition attacking him are sowing division.

Is pointing out that something has been said that is untenable and in conflict with your deepest principles, an attack? Can you not disagree, without 'sowing division'? And if the comments are in fact violating your principles, is it best to characterize that as dealing with disagreements in a principled manner, or as "sowing division"? And if the former, what does it accomplish to express it as the latter? And perhaps most pressing, if your 'intellectual backbone' doesn't clarify when someone impugns or violates your principles, won't that sow division amongst Conservative Americans?

Their attempt to cancel him will fail.

What is meant by 'Cancel'? Does the mention of 'canceling', mean you can't criticize where criticism is due? Does it meant that principled disagreements should be ignored, because, ya know... 'principles' aren't something that are worth explaining or defending, if doing so would mean causing embarrassment or discomfort to those who violate them?

What is it you mean by Principles, and how highly - or lowly - do they rank in what you 'value'?

Most importantly, the American people expect us to be focusing on our political adversaries on the left, not attacking our friends on the right.

Maybe I'm speaking out of turn, but I think the American people are sick and tired of people who use political excuses to minimize or ignore those who do something objectionable or flat out wrong. I'm beginning to think we need a clearer explanation of what you mean by 'intellectual backbone', could you supply that?

I disagree with, and even abhor things that Nick Fuentes says.

Why? Did something HE say, violate your principles? Does it not also violate those principles if Tucker Carlson - your friend - says, or seems to condone, those statements? What are those principles, and what was it he said that you abhor? Or... can you not say so without 'canceling'? Is that another example of that 'intellectual backbone'?

But canceling him is not the answer either.

Again, what do you mean by 'canceling'? Does it mean unreasonable condemnation of a friend, or are you using the flavor of unreasonable condemnation, to excuse your saying nothing about someone impugning or speaking out in a way that violates your principles?

When we disagree with a person's thoughts and opinions, we challenge those ideas and debate, and we have seen success in this approach, as we continue to dismantle the vile ideas of the left.

Again, obviousness, and simply a bromide that did not need to be announced in such a public manner. But... I do wonder, in what way does challenging the 'vile ideas' that someone has expressed, differ from 'cancelling'?

As my friend Vice President Vance said last night, what I am not okay with is any country coming before the interest of American citizens.

I too agree with that. But... does that mean that you're saying that something that Tucker said, or that those who disagreed with what he said, are somehow putting another country before the interest of Americans? Are you... 'cancelling' those who find fault there?

And it is important for all of us, assuming we are American citizens, to put the interests of our own country first. That's where our allegiance lies. And that's where it will stay.

Again, a good and obvious truth. I wish that the preceding hadn't gone so far as to call the sincerity of the Heritage Foundation, and its 'intellectual backbone'? into question.

But it most definitely has.