Comment Policy
BY Herschel Smith
5 years, 4 months ago
I am disturbed at the nature of the comments associated with the blog lately. Certainly, some of my posts are very negative, but if your impression is that the nature of the posts and the fairly open comment policy means that I’m simply giving you an opportunity to write protracted gripes, you’ve misunderstood my sentiment.
I write what I do in order to chronicle the decline of America, to educate my readers (and me), to enable and encourage us to prepare for the worst, and to make us better men and women. For instance, chronicling the influx of immigrants doesn’t mean that readers need to ramp up the gripes and moans, but rather, be about our business preparing. This isn’t going to last for long. Chronicling the infringements on our God-given RKBA doesn’t mean that readers are invited to lay out threats against anyone. It means that we need to understand the times, resolve never to be disarmed, and prepare for the worst.
I also have a certain religious viewpoint, and I’ve tried to make that abundantly clear on numerous occasions. So for instance, rather than engage in hate towards ethnic groups, we should all understand the following from the WCF.
Section 2.) By this sin, they fell from their original righteousness and communion with God,(1) and so became dead in sin,(2) and wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body.(3)————————————
Section 3.) They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed,(1) and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed to all their posterity, descending from them by ordinary generation.(2)(1) Ge 1:27,28; Ge 2:16,17; Ac 17:26; Ro 5:12,15,16,17,18,19; 1Co 15:21,22,45,49 (2) Ps 51:5; Ge 5:3; Job 14:4; Job 15:14————————————Section 4.) From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good,(1) and wholly inclined to all evil,(2) do proceed all actual transgressions.(3)(1) Ro 5:6; Ro 8:7; Ro 7:18; Col 1:21 (2) Ge 6:5; Ge 8:21 ; Ro 3:10,11,12 (3) Jas 1:14,15; Eph 2:2,3; Mt 15:19————————————
Section 5.) This corruption of nature, during this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated;(1) and although it be through Christ pardoned and mortified, yet both itself, and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly sin.(2)
Thus, the focus of my efforts won’t be to hate an ethnic group, because in the absence of that group, whatever it is, there will always be another to take its place. The total absence of central banking only means that there will be a white dictator to take its place, or an Idi Amin or Pol Pot. If you think that evil is ensconced in a race, you have entirely missed the point of the Gospel, and you believe a lie.
Thus, from now on I intend to deal with comments without hesitation or remorse. If you don’t like that, you can find another place to comment.
1] I do not intend to become embroiled in endless pedantic debates with readers. I’ll end the debate by deleting the thread.
2] I do not intend to allow readers to hijack discussion threads, thus trashing the hard work I’ve put into the articles. I’m not paid one penny for doing this – I won’t turn this site over to ne’er-do-wells who want to make it look like 4Chan or reddit by posting trashy things anonymously.
3] If you intend to make threats, e.g., “hang all pols, make a list and check it twice and get ready for war, war, war, give me violence NOW …,” you can expect to have your comments deleted without prejudice. You won’t be returning to TCJ. I do find it amusing and ironic that most commenters don’t use their real name, but rather, a nom de guerre, and then proceed to use this blog to lay out vicious comments about others, while I am the one who uses my real name rather than a nom de guerre and bear the brunt of whatever comes my way as a result of those comments.
Per counsel I’ve sought, I possibly bear some legal liability for comments like that, and I certainly suffer reputation when I give platform to such things. And I also know that not a single reader is going to do anything about the comments he’s making to make a step change in society without God’s sovereign blessing upon the nation.
It isn’t true anyway. You understand that, right? Not all pols are evil. Some are good. Not all Latinos vote for progressives. To render racial judgments based on the actions of a few, or many, is a formal logical fallacy.
4] If you engage in Jew-hate in the comments, you can expect to have your comments be deleted forthwith.
5] If you engage in any other kind of race-hate in the comments, you can expect to have your comments be deleted forthwith.
6] If you get into fights with fellow commenters, you can expect to see the entire discussion thread deleted.
I have never promised that I read all comments, and I’m not promising that here. I simply cannot review all comments – at the present, I have over 35,000 comments on the site. But as I catch them, I’ll deal with them appropriately.
Next, we’ve dealt with this thing of incrementalism before. I advocate it, and you know that. Readers have commented that the progressives have mastered the art, while we’ve been left in the dust (or maybe the dustbin of history). But then those same readers reject out-of-hand the notion that any victory, however small, means anything.
I find it patently absurd that anyone thinks that we’re going to reverse course in America in a step change by doing anything. You want lawlessness and lack of government? Okay. Then 99.99% of you will die an ignominious and meaningless death without being able to bequeath either your wealth or your heritage to your children or children’s children. Prepare yourselves for Kosovo on steroids.
You want to reject incrementalism? Okay. Sit on your couch and lose to those who believe in it. You want to try to do everything in your own power? Okay. Hold your fist up and engage in “high-handed sin.” Tell God you don’t need Him. Tell me how that goes.
Americans have no one to blame but themselves. We have allowed the deaths of innocent victims through abortion, we have allowed the fleecing of widows and orphans by the taxation of men who are trying to do well by “leaving an inheritance of their children’s children.” We have invited Hollywood to send smut into our homes at its whim. We have sent children to schools of communist indoctrination, where they learn that there is no God, there is no family, and the only entity is the state.
Is it any wonder we are where we are? Why would anyone believe that we could avoid God’s curse? There is a way to recover America, but it doesn’t involve a step change in anything except a return to God’s Holy law. Doing that isn’t likely to happen without re-educating children, home schooling them, and engaging in what Rousas J. Rushdoony called “Christian Reconstruction.” The enemy has incorporated incrementalism, and it’s absurd to think that it’s going to be made easy on us at this point by rejecting that approach. Horace Mann took a very long time to accomplish his goals. It will take us equally long to undo what he did, or longer.
By way of final comment, you are helping no one with gripes and moans, not even yourself. You are helping everyone when you make comments that encourage fellow readers, bolster their belief, and make practical suggestions for how to live in troubling times. It’s okay to say “thank you” to the host of this web site from time to time. It’s also okay to say “thank you” when a reader makes a good, educated, measured, intelligent comment that benefits you. I like to see comments from measured men who speak intelligently and with an eye to history and philosophy. Be that kind of commenter.
|
|
On July 15, 2019 at 8:08 am, June J said:
Thank you. This post has given me a great deal to think upon.
On July 15, 2019 at 9:49 am, Ken Bryan said:
Thanks for your blog. It allows us to see the world from different views, not that I agree with all of them and sincerely hope that the USA stops the downhill slide as I see it into lost history. The only way to change the government is to vote out ones that you don’t agree with and vote in ones you agree will help. I personally don’t think that politics should be a career.
On July 15, 2019 at 12:31 pm, Equilibrist said:
Your house, your rules.
Me? I think it’s a nice house and these are good rules.
You can have an “open house” and still reserve the right to expel the clown who takes it upon himself to arrive wasted and then proceeds to relieve himself on your living room couch.
On July 15, 2019 at 2:14 pm, moe mensale said:
Herschel, this thread has been a long time coming. I was never a heavy poster but I was even less inclined to comment as the level of vitriol seemingly continued to ratchet up. Honestly, your blog was starting to get hijacked and transformed into a junior version of another “gun rights” blog. I won’t mention its name but anyone who’s been around can probably figure it out.
As for those who take umbrage at you for wanting your blog to reflect your perception of things, well, the internet is a large place.
On July 15, 2019 at 3:20 pm, Renov8 said:
This is my first post here, but your comment on comments is very much something that has been on my mind as well. It seems the general mood in comment sections across the many forums I read, have become more biting and ascorbic in readers responses. Speaking for myself, I have, on occasion, responded with a not so very nice response, more out of frustration with what is going on in general around our country. Frustration which I know is a result of feeling like there is nothing we can do to help what is going on. The daily fake news has taken a toll. I am responsible for my actions and responses.
Thank you for posting this and I would like to borrow it…if you have no objections.
God Bless us all,
John
On July 16, 2019 at 1:17 am, TheAlaskan said:
Bless you.
On July 16, 2019 at 8:08 am, Fred said:
Chap. XIX. – Of the Law of God Section 2. This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables: (James 1:25, James 2:8,10–12, Rom. 13:8–9, Deut. 5:32, Deut. 10:4, Exod. 34:1) the first four commandments containing our duty towards God; and the other six, our duty to man. (Matt. 22:37–40)
I had come to this realization through personal study and prayer. This is why one MUST read and study on his own. I had never heard it expressed before. When I have brought it up with other believers they would/could not refute it. It’s nice to see this at the WCF, a group I might have only vaguely heard of. There are lots of definitions of the Natural Law of God but to me, these 10 are it, and every man more or less knows them in his heart yet kicks against them and therefore Holy God. And sometimes I will refer to the Natural Law as that which is evident in nature on this fallen world, which might be wrong as it would seem this is more evidence of the Natural Law by proving it’s truth when observing God’s created order, in a fallen state. Hmm? Something to think about.
I believe it is possible to begin to return to the 10 commandments, and the case law and rightful application thereof. There is a lot of complaining about it around the edges in Churches. Everybody, because of this nature written on our hearts, understands this if only as a sense never articulated. God’s Law is real, it is Holy, it is a Covenant, that can be ignored and refused but it can not remain broken for long without serious consequences, as we are witnessing in the fall of Western Civilization. Perhaps Preachers and churchmen need course work in the legal framework that is the Holy Bible. I know, that thought is scary but I’m not talking about the schoolmaster of Old Testament ceremonies. The 10 commandments are timeless, er, eternal but the American Church may have a streak of Antinomianism that extends beyond the ceremonial law to have allowed themselves to misunderstand/represent Grace. Grace is not general license, God’s Law applies. It is the fleshly, carnal, ceremonial aspects of the Law that have been completed the final Holy Sacrifice. If you think that’s a theocracy then so be it, but is merely, to the unbeliever, a knowledge of right and wrong.
Change topic:
I’m not against incrementalism, I’m against it where that increment is more damaging the helpful.
On July 16, 2019 at 9:05 am, Ned said:
Thank you Herschel. I don’t read comments at WRSA anymore because the comments have go off the rails. Pretty sure your regular audience appreciates your thoughts and efforts. It’s why we stop by every day.
On July 16, 2019 at 9:48 am, BRVTVS said:
This blog has been a beacon of truth. Thank you for providing this resource.
“The total absence of central banking only means that there will be a white dictator to take its place, or an Idi Amin or Pol Pot.”
If I might ask you to clarify this point, it’s not clear how eliminating a central bank would lead to a dictator.
When I think of an absence of central banking, I think of Tyler’s veto of the Bank of the United States and the mob (19th century antifa) that attacked him in response. (see https://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h353.html) I also think of central banking as one of the 10 steps advocated in the Communist Manifesto to impose communism on a nation.
On July 16, 2019 at 10:22 am, Herschel Smith said:
Libertarians make the same mistake the progs do. There isn’t anything about doing away with central banking that will “lead” to another dictator. I do not advocate central banking. In fact, I consider that to be an unbiblical form of economics, viz. Rushdoony, “Institutes of Biblical Law.” Gary North has also done a good bit of writing on this.
The point is simpler. Progs feel that with the right controls in place instituted by social workers and people smarter than we, with the right race eliminated, with the right schools controlling what children think, etc., etc., the world will enter their utopian dream of peace on earth.
Libertarians feel that if we only get rid of the right people, eliminate central banking, blah blah, we can then enter the libertarian utopian dream where everyone leaves everyone else alone.
But it’s a daydream. Men won’t leave each other alone. Central banking is a symptom of the problem, not the problem. The problem is the sinful nature of mankind, and his desire to rule others with his own ways, always and forever.
So I say, that we should eliminate central banking. Good. Then we should prepare for yet another tyrant, yet another yet another army of thugs, yet another abusive neighbor, yet another group of lawless men, who will incorrigibly attempt to rule over others, whether it be by mass or individually. That’s the nature of things.
The only remedy is Jesus Christ. Pol Pot and Idi Amin are examples of such men. Cain killing Abel is an example of an individual in anarchy. There was no central banking then to cause, disrupt, catalyze or otherwise encourage the sin.
If anyone wants peaceful utopia, that chicken flew the coop in Genesis Chapter 2. God has determined that men cannot find their own solutions and are in need of Christ. That’s the scandal of the Gospel. Men have to admit that all of their efforts to bring peace on earth amount to the tower of Babel.
On July 16, 2019 at 2:34 pm, June J said:
@Herschel
“Men won’t leave each other alone.
The problem is the sinful nature of mankind, and his desire to rule others with his own ways, always and forever.
The only remedy is Jesus Christ.
God has determined that men cannot find their own solutions and are in need of Christ.
Men have to admit that all of their efforts to bring peace on earth amount to the tower of Babel.”
So much wisdom and truth in 5 simple sentences. Thank you.
On July 17, 2019 at 9:31 am, Michael (from Utah) said:
I consider myself to be a libertarian, but I admit that I’m not on board with the concept of “open borders” because we live in a country with a welfare state in addition to the fact that we as a society do not actually believe in private property. I likewise believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and mankind cannot be redeemed without him.
Then, there’s this: “Libertarians feel that if we only get rid of the right people…”
Libertarianism is about the Non-Aggression Principle (sometimes called the NAP), and nothing more. The NAP simply states that you (and I) have no right to use aggressive force against another person except in self-defense. Government is nothing but aggressive force, which is why libertarians want to see it severely reduced and/or eliminated wherever possible.
The best definition I’ve found is in this post: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/03/lew-rockwell/what-libertarianism-is-and-isnt/
I appreciate your blog and look forward to your future posts.
On July 21, 2019 at 11:19 am, =BCE56= said:
I visit this and several other blogs daily, read the posts and comments with interest, and comment with care when I think I have something to add to the discussion.
I find it mostly futile to disagree with commenters- I will not incite a “Flame War” and I ignore obvious trolls.
I have some experience with firearms and am always looking to expand that knowledge.
My political views are conservative, in alignment with the Founders, Jefferson, Monroe, T.R. and Frederic Bastiat. It seems the current trend in our Republic is to the lowest common denominator, and the bottom has fallen out.
My taste in literature includes history and biography, and novelists such as Dickens, Tolstoy, Faulkner, Steinbeck and Hemingway. Elegant prose is difficult to find these days, especially on the interwebs.
I appreciate your blog, Herschel. Keep up the good work.
BTW, I notice my comment on the KaBar post above has disappeared.