Follow by Email

Sunday, 29 November 2015

Chrystia Freeland: Canada's Minister of Treachery


Canadians Have Become Stupid

Observe Canada, what your hunger for change has purchased you; your pretty boy Prime Minister has stacked his cabinet with the most emotive and unreasoned of plebs, the modern Canadian woman fifteen in total: I would like to focus on one such creature an incognizant, emotive, and gutless Liberal Chrystia Freeland, who appeared on Bill Maher November 21, 2015.  
I know nothing of Freeland, except that in under one hour she was able to call forth more bile than any other politician in recent memory. And though, I am far from a fan of Bill Maher, on the issue of Islam he is exemplary, and this is where he and Freeland clashed the hardest.
Maher starts by asserting that polling numbers in America have concluded that 56% of Americans believe that Islam has values that are at odds with their own. Particularly, liberal democracy, which I have my own concerns with, but not in the shape of the Islamists. Maher immediately sets up the conditions for Freeland’s embarrassment by stating, “this is what liberals don’t want to recognize.”

Canada’s Leaders Cannot Forget Ideology Even for An Instant

After a brief quote from David Cameron, condemning forced marriage, honour violence, FGM, and other heinous crimes. Which, shockingly . . . proliferate in Britain’s large Muslim minority. Maher goes on to state that all religions are not equal, a shocking admission from a liberal, and that in fact we need to confront the issue of Islamic exceptionalism
Freeland of course strongly disagrees. . . .  She cites “real diversity” as the remedy for the ills of Islamic extremism. Not realizing that her first antidote is just what got Europe into the position it now occupies. Nor does she recognize that the “diversity is our strength” agenda in Canada has left us a nation of confused, frustrated, impotent, and self-effacing pussies.
She happens to be emblematic of such propagandizing; forced upon the nation by her Prime Minister’s father Pierre Trudeau. Who saw it as necessary to destroy everything Canada was and replace it with a fleshless liberal skeleton constructed on paper rights and void of muscular institutions and a brain built on tradition.
Bill Maher is close to the key here, he nearly admits Christianity is the answer, by admitting its superiority to Islam. Bill Maher, may not know that St Augustine wrote in City of God book XI, that the scripture necessarily required interpretation, or that authority vested in hierarchy makes it easier for the church to expunge ill ideas; nor was he likely thinking “Jesus . . . said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.” But he knew, like most intelligent people know, that Christianity has at its heart a very different institutional and theological framework. A framework, evolved over hundreds of generations that makes Christianity much more amenable to modern life and human flourishing.

But I digress. .  . .

When Freeland is confronted by the fact that multiculturalism means acceptance of the barbaric, in this case, FMG, spousal violence, honor killings, the lynching of gays etc. . . . She cannot say these things are wrong; despite her best efforts, her liberalism, her belief in universal freedom and equality prohibit her from voiding the equality of ideas. This is a phenomenon Aristotle predicted in Politics. “[E]quality requires that whatever the multitude desires is authoritative, and freedom and equality involve doing what one wants.” What this means is that democrats believing they are equal in rights, believe they are equal in thoughts, ideas, morality, and countless other things, and equality prohibits a hierarchical relationship. All discourse and information devolves into opinion. That is what Freeland sees, opinion, and either the majority of people or she cannot recognize her erroneous arguments as such.
Freeland then continues, “the culture is not worse,” and “Muslims are not worse than Christians or Jews.” As if I or anyone else cares about a Muslim person in absence of their faith?
Ben Domenech interjects to explain that polling in Islamic countries shows widespread sympathy for the sharia, and other horrifying practices; Turkey being 8% in support of ISIS this theoretically secularized nation, perhaps the most moderate Muslim nation in the world, and 6 million people are sympathetic toward ISIS? Freeland cannot wrap her head around it, her PC and Liberal alarm bells keep crying out with dissonance, but all she can do is squeak.

Freeland Knows Canadian Culture Better Than Canadians

Freeland replies to her interlocutors with the banality of “our culture is a diverse one” sure, it has to be, Canada no longer has one. She has the audacity to lecture Canadians on the supposed shared values and traditions of the nation. Ideas established in living memory with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; there is nothing historical about them. At least in America they wrote the constitution down before the social justice warrior generation took over . . . ours is a product of the 20th century, and our unwritten precedents have all been rejected.

Maher Breaks Freeland’s Brain

“Are you saying by definition the Muslim faith is worse than other faiths?” Freeland asked.
“Yes,” Maher replied. Skip ahead, “what about Indonesia . . . the moderate country . .  . only 18% believe in honour killings.”
Offhand Indonesia has an approximate population of 250 million. That’s 45 million people who think honour killing is potentially justified. If Freeland could math, she would recognize that that is 10 million more people than the population of her native country, but still it is our fault for demonizing Muslims.
Finally, and to conclude, Freeland comes back to the great straw man: “the bible says, ‘an eye for an eye.’” If she had read, anything theological, or any serious Christian apologetics, which her liberal education would not bother to teach, because that is a product of cis privileged old white men, she would realize that scriptural literalism has long been in contention is Christian thought; Allah makes no such accommodations for revisionism, and here lies the problem.
Freeland does not understand culture, statistics, or philosophy, and she can’t ideology gets in the way, but here are some numbers for Freeland, from the Ayan Hirsi Ali’s new book Heretic:
Percentage of Muslims in 3 countries (Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Iraq) countries with high emigration to America.
Favour the death penalty for apostates Pakistan 75% Bangladesh 43% Iraq 41%
Say that Sharia is revealed word of god Pakistan 81% Bangladesh 65% Iraq 69%
Religious leaders should have. . . large influence  Pakistan 54% Bangladesh 69% Iraq 57%
Say honour killings are justified Pakistan 55% Bangladesh 66% Iraq 78%

I could go on. Our values indeed.

Wednesday, 18 November 2015

A Definition of Conservatism

What Makes a Conservative, at least one drawn from the British tradition and not the American liberal conflation?

I was asked in a comment to define my stance, and so I will. I am going to write the basic principles "I" believe underline the conservatives conception of the world, and then expand upon them in my book at a later date, but for now here they are. I do not claim such thoughts are original, but as much as possible they are mine.

1. The Conservative knows all good is predicated on order and allegiance.

2. The Conservative looks to the past, and the great body of historical knowledge for answers.

3. The Conservative knows that the social contract espoused by Burke is the only one.

4. The Conservative believes in absolute truth both spiritually and empirically.

5. The Conservative believes virtue is the key to politics.

6. The Conservative Recognizes all men are flawed and perfection and futility are synonyms.

7. The Conservative protects property.

8. The Conservative does not claim to know what is best for other societies.

9. The Conservative knows big business is just as dangerous as big government

10. The Conservative affects all things with moderation not recklessness.

Tuesday, 17 November 2015

Is it Time to Rethink Universal Suffrage?

This post was First Written for and posted on Return of Kings. You can find it here:

 http://www.returnofkings.com/ http://www.returnofkings.com/73343/is-it-time-to-rethink-universal-suffrage



Ah, what an apparatus we have built for the enrichment of the poor.


It was relatively recently in the Western world that we extended the franchise to all adults, the United States gave women suffrage with the 19th amendment; in Canada, my native country, we finally, gave the aboriginal people suffrage in 1960, despite the fact that some reserves fail to acknowledge the crown as sovereign. Universal suffrage was a quixotic notion, one that came without any kind of assessment, as the old property and education requirements also fell away.

According to Elections Canada, Canada had property requirements as of 1885, but in the pattern of the British Great Reform Act of 1867 (the Second Great Reform Act) abolished requirements in all but Quebec. Meanwhile, the American founding fathers, according to the Lehrman Institute of American History, established property requirements as a means to determine the stake one had in society, but all but four states had abolished qualifications by 1860; worse yet, only eight states kept the criteria of paying taxes as a prerequisite for going to the ballot. Instead, we offered not just self-government, but the capacity to govern others directly to the electorate without concern for any sort of basic qualifications.

We are bleeding money, and they will just vote for more


Since the installment of universal suffrage welfare state entitlements have grown immensely. The national debt in the United States is over 18 trillion dollars according to the treasury department; aside from a handful of years during the Clinton administration debt has consistently clambered upwards at an ever accelerating pace. Canada, likewise, has hit 1.2 trillion owed, with rapid growth since the 1960’s and the establishment of a welfare state. Is there potential for a correlation here?

Perhaps people vote for what they covet. The poor may covet fiscal means and easy living; after all, the hardest working are rarely poor. The top 1% of North American income earners tend to work in jobs that demand extreme overtime according to American economist Thomas Sowell in his book Economic Facts and Fallacies.

Meanwhile, astute observer of culture, and founding father of neoconservatism Irving Kristol notes in his essay from the year 2000 “Two Welfare States” that the masculine conception of the welfare state as a last resort of minimal aid and maximal choice, along with a sense of paternalism, has been replaced by a maternal welfare state that is an expert in care.

Kristol writes:

The feminine, maternal vision of the welfare state now has the support not only of public opinion, but of institutions and professions that have been nourished by the state . . . there are large numbers of working women loyal to the state . . . and men, too, who are loyal to these women [my emphasis added]. These are . . . collectively the ‘helping professions,’ and include social work, nursing, psychology, public health . . . teaching, and branches of tv journalism. These professions . . . are politically active. . . . the largest single contingent at the Democratic convention [was] . . . the teachers unions.

We have stripped our entitlement programs and welfare reforms of virtually all obligation and sacrifice. Prior to the great depression it was the workhouse, the labour camp, or the road crew that would earn you your daily bread until you could find someplace else.

Peter Hitchens notes in his book The Abolition of Britain, that the workhouse was considered much too cruel for single mothers, so that last sacrifice was abolished. It is reasoned the poor suffer enough, and perhaps they do, but should they be able to impart such burdens as their upkeep on the rest of society without due consideration?

What is the answer?


The privilege of voting has become holy writ. Should it be?

I offer a solution: a temporary recall of the franchise for those currently receiving welfare and income supplements from the Federal government. This recall would affect those who are currently lacking in work, (I would have been in this category a handful of times myself) not those unfit or unable, but those currently unemployed and collecting assistance on a voluntary basis. Until society can come up with a better income supplement plan, and perhaps it never will, this is the only valid course of action.

Some critics may assert that it is an injustice and that many collect from such supplemental programs who do not necessarily desire such dependence, and no doubt it is true, but not pertinent to the proposition. Why? Because the democratic process is inherently discriminatory against the established population of a society. The great masses are flooding the ballot box with their ignorant assumptions and minds placated by bribes from sophist politicians.

If we take a look at prior American elections we can see the pernicious influence of universal suffrage in action: according to polls by CNN and Gallup, in the 2012 election unmarried women 66%, non-whites 90%, and those with less than a high school education 51%, as well as 60% of those who earned less than $50,000, and 73% who earned $15,000 or less voted for Obama. Not surprising, but it is readily apparent that these demographics skew electoral outcomes significantly. The idea that a large swatch of the population that creates little economic value can act as a political power broker is dangerous indeed.

Democracy is not conservative, it does not link generations past and present; democracy concerns itself with the winning of votes, and hence why a coherent philosophy will never be found in an elected official. This same concern for the now has led to the expansion of government spending across the Western world, and damaged our economies and our societies, possibly irreparably. Dependence on the state is at an all time high. We are all Greece; it’s just a matter of time before the collapse, and who can fault the voters for such behavior? It is certainly in their own interest.

However, take away the right to vote, and I believe you would see a rapid change. Democracy would become an incentive to leave poverty, and those who have means would no longer fear that the greater portion of the population will inevitably vote against their effort and work ethic.

Certainly such a proposal is shocking, and does not cohere with our current fetishizing of democracy. But we can ill afford to accept the lie that the customer is always right when it comes to government.

Saturday, 14 November 2015

Sunday, 8 November 2015

The Conservative Standpoint Part 11: The Conservative on Freedom of Expression




This is Part 11 of the Conservative Standpoint by Cole D

Before I begin I’d like to post a handful of examples for the consideration of the reader:


  1. the pathetic failure of modern music embodied in Mily Cyrus “We Can’t Stop” Vs Rachmaninoff’s “Piano Concerto No. 3”

2.  A brief excerpt from the emetic Last Exit to Brooklyn, which will come up later as an example. Selby writes:
Georgette sat back and sipped her gin for many seconds. Harry got up and chirped at Georgette, stoned out of his head, and plopped down beside Lee. Georgette followed him with her eyes, still sipping gin and still fighting for control of herself. She could not fuck it up now. It wont be long. Vinne and MS. She picked up the bottle of GIn and asked him if he would let Goldie do him. . . . [she] went to tell Goldie that everything was arranged. O everything is just so wonderful. Vinnie and his boys are stoned out of their heads and soon she would have Vinnie. . . . Goldie took her into the bedroom and gave her a syrette. Arent you going to take one? Not now honey. I/ll wait until after that big cocked guinea has fucked me. . . . everybody was swinging. . . . Camille felt real bitchy and daring and winked at Sal and he tried to speak but he couldnt stop grinding his teeth and his head just lolled back and forth, droplets of scotch dribbling down his chin, but he was so strong and handsome . . . she giggled thinking of the letter she would write to the pinkteas back home: O honey, do you know from nothing. What a gorgeous way to lose one's virginity!

Now let me ask you, what about the above examples is redemptive? Because that is the content, the apologist must defend if he wishes to draw a false equivalency between nonsense art, free speech, and free expression. Such an argument necessarily requires an assertion that logos and obscenity are one. I do not intend to make the case that we can effectively ban media from the public sphere; the internet, self-publishing, and cheap technology such as video cameras have heralded an end to that. Instead, I would like to assert the position that we have elevated freedom of expression to an absurdity, and we have failed to differentiate between expression and speech; in turn we have failed to at critical toward art and artists, and any such qualitative assessments are verboten any attempt at restriction is censorship, any assertion of good taste and aesthetics is backward. Our works and our media are important contributors to the life of the soul. Not only do we commit the cardinal sin of relativism if we deify the works of artists, but we also abandon our critical faculty and open ourselves to corruption. The real conservative is wise enough to know that free expression is not akin to free thought and free speech. The conservative believes the medium matters.


Free speech being the ability to communicate freely any message you desire, subject to specific restrictions within the nation (one may or may not agree with). For example, Canada prohibits sedition as well as hate speech, the United States technically does not, but the spirit of Free speech embodies a spirit of logos (reasoned Speech) as the ancient Greeks conceived it. A concept where the individual had the capacity to discuss ideas and debate them in a civil and professional fashion.


Expression however, has completely different connotations, yet so frequently is conflated with the freedom of speech. Expression by no means contains a message as a priority; it is a broad term, and an emotive term. Everything is expression not everything is speech. Expression does not depend on reason or civility one can just as easily express anger, sadness, and hatred, as one can express depth of thought and compassion.


The case to be made rests as Irving Kristol suggested in, “‘Porn Obscenity and the Case for Censorship,” on the way we used to understand society as encapsulated in a moral framework; a framework that places humanity at the forefront and believes in the deep effects of subtle things. In the essay, he notes that the pedagogical professions, which direct their efforts toward creating ethical and rational adults morally prepared to interact with the world, do so on the presumption that the material presented to children has a positive moral value. Yet, as Kristol states if we concede a book (or any other media) can enrich that someone, we must likewise concede that a book may corrupt them.


The conservative knows that many would certainly concur with the initial premise, but would recoil at the second; for better or worse, such an assertion has become morally alien to modern man. The cult of reason does not leave adequate room for the subtle manipulations of the consciousness through artistic works.


In our understanding of the capacity for art to be transcendental, we have failed to realize that the great body of artwork is not. We have divorced the form from the message not realizing that the form conveys meaning just as deeply. Irving Kristol noticed this trend was a part of a deliberate goal in America to both prohibit criticism of artwork and to use it as an instrument for political ends. Kristol makes the arguments in “It’s Obscene but is it Art?” as follows.  The government, to Kristol, writing after the establishment of the National Endowment for the Arts, should have never brought its finances to bear on the artistic community. The government placed itself in a trap; the arts community, and dispensations too it, were too broad to track, and yet, if they failed to regulate the works they undermined the concept of moral and aesthetic judgment and removed their ability to legitimize artistic works.


Kristol describes postmodern art as, “politically charged art that is utterly contemptuous of the notion that educating tastes and refining the aesthetic sensibilities of the citizenry [is a desirable goal]. Instead its goal [was] to deliberately . . . outrage . . . and . . . trash the very idea of an ‘aesthetic sensibility.’  To Kristol the postmodern art movement as a radical attempt to liquidate the bourgeois society of the western world. The arts community, “is engaged in the politics of radical nihilism; it has little interest in, and will openly express contempt for, ‘art’ in any traditional sense of the term. . . . Self-destruction . . . is a key point in its agenda, accompanied by the ‘deconstruction,’ of . . . Western civilization itself.”  Humanities courses were at the vanguard of the movement to extinguish artistic standards. The universities were by this time just as likely to offer a course in a study of the Simpsons as Dante, and if there are no standards of excellence outsider ourselves who could object?


A key paradigm separates those who take our existence as political animals for granted and those who do not, the majority of whom are what one would term conservatives, and that is the belief in unknowable and unquantifiable things, things beyond reason as well as understanding; concurrent to this is the conservative, as well as classical Greek belief that our City, as Aristotle supposed, exists for the discovery and maintenance of an authoritative good, and that such a Polis requires virtuous men. The idea that a virtuous people would build a virtuous society is unfamiliar to use now, but Burke expressed a similar sentiment, “But that sort of reason which banishes the affections is incapable of filling their place. . . . There ought to be a system of manners in every nation which a well-formed mind would be disposed to relish. To make us love our country, our country ought to be lovely.” Who at this time can say we live in a lovely country? And who can reasonably say it has not be harmed by an excess of arbitrary freedom, often driven by profit, and the inundation of filth our communities have suffered?


Now critics would say lovely would be subjective, but Plato defined that, which he deemed virtuous and it is not an arbitrary definition, but one that is essentially eternal premised on two different ideas. One that the search for knowledge and wisdom is the governing principle of the just and virtuous man; second that a virtuous and just person lives in harmony with themselves not allowing the appetitive or spirited parts of the soul dominion over reason and judgment, but what does our current culture do but feed us a constant stream of indulgence for our appetites. None of us deliberate when we consume hedonistic, vulgar, and obscene materials. To Aristotle we have abandoned our capacity to deliberate. Despite our plethora of freedoms, we are no more than what he terms natural slaves, base and unconcerned about it.


Many both conservative and liberal will find my propositions objectionable: I state them as a true concept of a conservative relationship with the media definitive and right. To those who object I wish to examine a handful of the oft given apologies for absolute free expression.


I have already briefly mentioned that many would assert that the media and the consumption of materials can do no harm to the well-being of an individual, and proved this fallacious unless we completely abandon our assertion that media can produce or elevate the good in people. Secondly, some perhaps would maintain that even if it causes harm to consume such media that is not sufficient cause to abandon obscene or objectionable works, but what if, and it is not only harmful to those who consume media as such but also harmful and denigrating to those who produce such works. Take for example the analogy produced by Kristol in “Porn Obscenity and the Case for Censorship” he maintains that we are not all complete libertarians and that we would prohibit a great many activities, which seem outrageous to us, but at the same time are resistant to arguments of censorship and consent.


For example, we do not approve of cockfighting, gladiatorial contests, and artistic suicide, and as Kristol asserts this is not because of consent, affection toward animals, or a lack of artistry, but rather because authorization of such conduct is debasing to the human spirit.


Kristol makes the comparison of a well-known man, dying in bed, in a great deal of pain; he suffers so deeply that he can no longer communicated and he voids his bowels and bladder regularly: his death is just a matter of time. Kristol suggests, “it would be, technically, the easiest thing in the world to put a television camera in his hospital room and let the whole world witness this spectacle. We do not do it . . . because this is an obscene invasion of privacy. . . . we would be witnessing the extinguishing of humanity in a human animal.”


Thirdly, one may make the argument that we do not— have— to consume the forms of expression, which we reject. All I can say to such a proposition to look around you to the billboards, the signs, the depraved souls who wander the street with vomiting forth lewd comments, the television and its endless adverts ever more salacious; the public world has become private in its entirety and we cannot avoid it, but we can and should expect a level of civility on behalf of the public world. A person has no right to avoid offence, but a good society offends in an intelligent way. Truly valuable offence has a telos, there is an end to it, and good satire is different from crudeness for the sake. To feed our consumptive desires however is no worthy purpose and the vast majority of public display on offer directs itself at the commoditization of the violent, the vulgar, and the venereal.


Fourth and most common of the arguments against any form of restriction on the freedom of expression is the dystopian fear that any form of regulation will start us upon a slippery slope into the arms of Big Brother, the Thought Police, Newspeak and the Telescreen. However, our world would not look like this and the conservative can comfortably argue this because in the past it did not. Prior to the 1960’s the western world had a great many restrictions on the distribution of harmful media. To object to some degree of censorship marks a person out as a product of 1968 and willfully ignorant.


In “The Way We Were” by Irving Kristol he writes about the generational changes that swamped America and the issues related to absolute freedom in society and the culture it engendered.  He noted prior to the 1950’s so called censorship was a normal part of American life, and the only people who seemingly resented it were those who thought they could profit off the trafficking of explicit materials. As Kristol states:


“Perhaps no issue excites such hysteria today as does censorship, and the threat it supposedly poses to our liberties. . . . I do not know of a single case where the prohibition against pornography/obscenity was directed against political speech, political writings, or scholarly books. . . . Hollywood, for its part, has decided it’s a ‘creative community,’ . . . so any interference with its pursuit of prosperity by producing entertainment with soft porn, hard porn, or obscene violence is a censorship that threatens all freedom of expression. . . . The confusion between liberty and license, or entitlement and privilege, is one of the least endearing traits of the American character today.”


From the conclusion we can effectively note that not only was, freedom of expression not sacred to our ancestors, but it did not need to be. Other objects in life took on the air of the sacred: the family and the church stand out in this regard. We effectively deified our artists and made expression into holy writ as unquestionable as the Sermon on the Mount. We have abandoned our critical thinking as well as our connection to the transcendental and filled the void with artistic works of unquestioned merit.


The conservative will note that not only was the battle against censorship in many ways a superficial one, errors were made, but censorship itself was infrequent. The conservative likewise will note that the failure to circumscribe expression in the public sphere has had great consequence and it was not a partisan political issue, but one rooted in time and the hunger for freedom expressed by youth and allied elites who saw the need to restore a system that by functioned adequately.


Peter Hitchens notes the same in the Abolition of Britain Britain experienced a non-partisan divide in the case of censorship and obscenity laws; it was a generational divide. Hitchens notes that after Lady Chatterley and the advent of the required literary merit as a standard of judgment, and a horribly subjective one at that, it would be impossible to ban a book in Britain ever again. You could always find some intellectual or liberal to testify on the behalf of the media.  The culture warriors’ campaign was largely successful because not only had the old defenses of high culture ceased to stand, but that the instigators framed the debate in terms of the ability to act as free citizens and to question authority, a point which, for a democracy was very hard to reprobate.


Following Chatterley, Oz Magazine, and later The Little Red Book as Hitchens describes it “a manual of sexual license of children,” came Hubert Selby’s Last Exit to Brooklyn a book, which is so vulgar that they asked that no women sit on the jury. Yet, once the hearings had begun, one witness managed to compare the violence in the book to the blinding of Gloucester in King Lear.


This time an effort was made to prevent publication of the book and the defence mustered McGill Professor George Catlin, who said the book was absolutely obscene, and that the only reasonable motive for publishing the work was that its significant earning potential for the publisher, who by some estimates, had already sold 250,000 copies in America. Meanwhile, one publisher said it absolutely harmed his “memory and mind” to read the book and that he had withdrawn the book from the shelves of his store once he had discovered its nature. Others from the church testified for and against the book. The divide was clear even among the so-called traditionalists. Hitchens notes, that such matters as the British book trials were not such a big thing, but the precedents they established for the TV industry were immense.


Nevertheless, it was not just the precedent set for the television that harmed us. Rather it was the expectation, which only a true conservative maintains of a civil life, of civil conduct, and civil people; people who act virtuously (through good judgment, wisdom, and self-rule) to determine the good of the community as a whole, and to do so requires judgment. Judgment to Plato was the number one reason for censorship, the Poets were harmful not because they told stories, but because they failed to judge them in terms of right and wrong. Amoral gods were entertaining, but not substantive. This was the ethic of the west until the middle of the twentieth century, and such a paradigm deserves reassessment. The failure of our western societies to place value in judgment has left our communities and nations as soulless and empty as everything else, and is always the case we cannot turn back the clock. The future marches on.

I haven't forgotten

Just a heads up everyone who reads here. I haven't forgotten the blog. I'm just busy 3 major papers on politics and history for Uni right now (I do a very thorough and comprehensive job on research). And I have one article for Return of Kings that was just finished. Meanwhile, I am working on another Conservative Standpoint Chapter that will go up here as well. So, I have been busy, but its not why I haven't posted. Quality thorough posts take time, and I just don't have the flexibility to be regular with them.

Also, I am a horrible blogger. I do not do short, I do verbose, can't help it; I naturally write long. J

Just an Update.

Thanks: Cole.