Trapped on our home page with no table of contents?
Here's your escape hatch.

Don't miss Ronn Neff's Thornwalker site!

Skip down to boilerplate.

New article by Douglas Olson posted November 2, 2020.

Posted November 13, 2020.

Ronn Neff: The System is authorized to announce: "There is no evidence of voter fraud. And we're going to make damn good and sure it stays that way!" Ω

Posted November 8, 2020.

Ronn Neff: What anyone can learn from the so-called pandemic: People who are afraid have little use for even marginal liberty.

That should not come as a surprise, for we were told centuries ago by the Prince of Liars himself: "all that a man hath will he give for his life."

Truly, we should consider health-tyranny a species of the genus Satanism. Ω

Posted November 7, 2020.

Ronn Neff: New rules. The pollsters and news guys were right! They said we might not know for several days who won the election, and that came to pass.

I have now formulated a new rule of interpretation: when the news readers and ventriloquist dummies tell us what is going to happen, or when (other) Democrats tell us what is going to happen, we should hear them saying:


Posted November 6, 2020.

Recounting: Most people have forgotten that there was some short-lived controversy about whether [Jimmy] Carter had won the election in 1976. The election had been extremely close in Hawaii and Ohio, and there was some talk about a recount. But after a day or two, most of that talk had died down. Lyndon LaRouche's National Caucus of Labor Committees continued actively trying to generate concern about the accuracy of the vote count, insisting that [Gerald] Ford had won. In the end, LaRouche and the NCLC were both so marginalized that the public simply took no note of their efforts. They were like men who wear their hats upside-down and who argue that Jesus was really a Swede. And in any case, Ford was not interested in a recount and soon announced he would be working at the American Enterprise Institute, which cleared out an entire floor of its building on Massachusetts Avenue for his offices.

Ronn Neff, "Time to bail: 'They just don't care,'" Unsilent Truth no. 24, September 2, 2016. Ω
Posted November 5, 2020.

Ronn Neff: One of my darker thoughts: In 2016, most of the people who voted Democratic actually wanted Hillary Clinton to be president.

In 2020, not only do the people who voted for Joe Biden not really seem to want him to be president — he was just a placeholder they thought they could push over the finish line — but their "leaders" are already plotting to toss him out using the 25th Amendment. Ω

Nicholas Strakon: More on the big blurry election, again courtesy of Ryan McMaken at Mises: "The Election Was a Tie. Now What?" (November 4, 2020).

McMaken writes: "... [A]ll the usual tired bromides about democratic elections should be more clear than ever. There is no 'will of the majority.' The winner doesn't represent 'the nation.' There is no consensus. We're not coming together 'as a people.' These tired slogans should now strike every intelligent person as nonsense uttered only by pundits and politicians desperate to claim some sort of legitimacy for a ruling cadre that has clearly been rejected by approximately half the country."

Meanwhile, he notes, "The nation continues to creep left." Ω

Posted November 4, 2020.

Nicholas Strakon: That big blurry election. At Mises, Ryan McMaken writes: "Close Elections Force Us to Ask Unpleasant Questions about Democracy" (October 31, 2020).

He observes: "... [T]he longer a disputed election is up in the air, and the more a 'correct' outcome appears unattainable, the more likely a contested election is to undermine the perceived legitimacy of both the electoral system and the U.S. regime itself." Ω

Ronn Neff comments: McMaken writes that "contested elections illustrate that democratic contests have no theoretical or moral answer for the problem of a 'tie vote.'"

Strictly speaking he is correct. However, since most Americans are "practical," they do not require a moral answer, but only one that "works." And there is one that "works" in democratic contests, and we are seeing "working" right now. Fraud.

Nicholas Strakon comments: Since the invention of kings and queens, and until recently at least, the premise of regime legitimacy has been a crucial labor-saving device for the posturing criminals who presume to rule the weefolk. But over the past couple of decades I've often wondered how important that premise still is among the degraded American genpop.

Posted October 30, 2020.

Nicholas Strakon: The leash tightens. Glenn Greenwald has been on my provisional list of righteous leftists for a long time. In light of recent developments I wonder whether I ought to render his name in all caps.

It turns out that The Intercept, of which Greenwald is a co-founder, would rather lose him than run a piece of his criticizing the Biden Crime Family: "My Resignation from the Intercept" (October 29, 2020).

His intro: "The same trends of repression, censorship, and ideological homogeneity plaguing the national press generally have engulfed the media outlet I co-founded, culminating in censorship of my own articles."

It's no longer just we deplorable non-leftist munchkins who fall under the interdict. It's looking as though everyone on the Left, however previously respected, must now keep up with the current Party line and strictly adhere to it. Or else.

Greenwald has sought refuge with an outfit called Substack. At VDARE, Steve Sailer asks: "How much does Substack pay, anyway?

"And how is Substack set up to not be taken hostage by its own 20-something woke woman interns like everywhere else?" Ω

Strakon's list.
Posted October 29, 2020.

David T. Wright: Further observations on the presidential debate.

The first half of the October 22 debate was a wash. But the second half revealed why there is so much chortling on the Right that Trump won.

The tide began to turn for President Trump when the moderator disinterred a well-used leftist theme fashionable a few years ago. It was calculated to put Trump in a bad light: "How will families separated at the border be reunited?" Thousands of children are supposed to have been torn from their parents' arms and thrown in cages. And now 500 kids' parents can't be found, and it's all the fault of the evil racist Trump. I have to say, I don't understand how such a thing can happen. Would any loving parent abandon his own child to the tender mercies of La Migra? Wouldn't he instead keep in touch with the authorities in hopes of being reunited?

Trump's response: "Children were brought here by coyotes and lotsa bad people: cartels. And they used to use them to get into our country," thus explaining the mystery of the missing parents. (Trump's use of the word "coyote" resulted in a hilarious backlash the next day among clueless leftists, who gleefully mocked him for suggesting that an animal smaller than a Golden Retriever could drag a child over the border.) "They built the cages," said Trump, pointing to Joe Biden. "They said I built the cages, but ... they did."

Biden resorted to feigning outrage: more than 500 kids were "ripped from their parents!" he harrumphed. And that "violated every notion of Who We Are as a Nation!" Trump fired back pointing out that the policy of separating families was enforced under the Obama regime. When Biden denied it, Trump badgered him: "Who built the cages, Joe? Who built the cages, Joe?" Biden was beginning to look sullen and defensive, perhaps realizing that he had just put himself firmly on the wrong side of the biggest issue that got Trump elected.

A second question about immigration gave Trump the chance to hammer Biden again. Biden doggedly defended the Obama policy of "catch and release," which allowed thousands of illegals caught at the border to disappear into the interior. Trump pointed out that "they don't come back" to their court hearings, which Biden lamely tried to contradict. Trump's rejoinder was that only those "with the lowest IQ" showed up to face the music.

Biden proposed some lame immigration reform measures, to which Trump smugly replied, "You had eight years to do that. Why didn't you do it then?" He needled him again when Biden tried to pander to the black underclass with promises of penal reforms: "Why didn't you do that four years ago, Joe?"*

By now Biden was starting to look a little punch-drunk, spending more and more time looking down at his notes. Trump kept up the pressure: "You keep talking about all these things you're going to do, and you're going to do this, but you were there just a short time ago, you guys did nothing. Joe, I ran because of you. I ran because of Barack Obama. Because you did a poor job. If I thought you did a good job, I would have never run."

Biden, clearly rattled at that point, then made a huge mistake: attacking Trump on the issue of "character." That gave Trump the chance he was waiting for to bludgeon his hapless opponent. Over the frantic protestations of the moderator, Trump raised the credible influence-peddling allegations against Biden, and threw down the gauntlet: "So don't give me this stuff about how you're this innocent baby. Joe! They're calling you a corrupt politician! It's the laptop from hell. They're calling it the laptop from hell."

With Trump still mocking him silently, Biden tried to resort to the claim that the damning evidence is a Russian disinformation campaign. But Trump gleefully shot back with, "You mean that now the laptop is another Russia Russia Russia hoax? ... You hafta be kidding!"

The knockout blow came minutes later, after the moderator brought up the Holy Grail of the Left: "climate change." As an issue in the campaign for Emperor, "climate change" is a loser. Less than one fifth of the electorate really cares about it, while huge numbers rightly worry about the economy and jobs.

So Trump responded with relish. He pointed out that countries such as China and India have little obligation to clean up their emissions ("... the air is filthy!") under the Paris Accords. "The Paris Accords, I took us out, because we were gonna hafta spend trillions of dollars, and we were treated very unfairly. When they put us in there (pointing at Biden), they did us a great disservice, they wanna take away our businesses. I will not sacrifice tens of millions of jobs, thousands and thousands of businesses, because of the Paris Accord."

Biden confidently walked into the trap: "Climate change is an existential threat," he solemnly declared. "We have a moral obligation to deal with it," going on to promise "millions of jobs" from new environmental measures. Biden was starting to stumble and hesitate as the magic potion he'd been given wore off. But he forged onward, promising huge green infrastructure projects that would bring about environmental and economic paradise.

After accusing Biden of getting his plan from leftist congressthing Alexandria (Crazy Eyes) Ocasio Cortez, Trump mocked it as "the craziest plan that anybody has ever seen ... They wanna spend a hundred trillion dollars ... They wanna knock down buildings and build new buildings with little, tiny, small windows! It is crazy! It will destroy our country!"

And then Trump sprang the trap. Boasting about U.S. energy independence, he accused Biden of wanting to get rid of the oil industry and of opposing fracking, the economic lifeblood of swing state Pennsylvania. Biden denied it outright: "I have never opposed fracking!" and accused Trump of "flat out lying," but then had to backtrack and admit he opposed fracking on federal land. And then he foolishly volunteered that he opposed all oil drilling on federal land.

In response to badgering from Trump, Biden went on to admit that, yes, he wanted to replace the oil and gas industries with "renewable energy." Meanwhile, Trump joyfully mimed astonishment to the audience, and then, talking over the moderator's attempts to shut him up, said "... Basically, he wants to destroy the oil industry! ... Will you remember that, Texas? Will you remember that, Pennsylvania and Oklahoma? Ohio?"

That effectively ended the debate for Biden, who had given Trump some juicy quotes to use against him in two vital battleground states, and failed to defend himself convincingly from accusations of serious corruption. He managed to pull himself together for his closing statement, but clearly realized his defeat.

Trump, on the other hand, looked like he was ready to go another nine rounds. And the next day he ebulliently addressed a packed, cheering crowd in Pensacola for an hour and a half. He's been doing at least two rallies a day, all to packed venues, while Biden and Harris seem unable to raise more than a few hundred fans at a time — sometimes far fewer. At his rally in Allentown, Pa., four days after the debate, thousands of people, many of whom had come early in the cold, wet morning to secure a place, cheered themselves hoarse while Trump effortlessly entertained them extemporaneously. Not since Ronald Reagan have I seen such enthusiasm.

Trump may not have fulfilled his 2016 promises. He may be erratic and ineffectual. He may be a narcissistic, boastful manchild. But flawed as he is, Middle America seems convinced he's a lot better than the alternative.

* Trump himself boasted about a penal reform plan that would put black criminals back on the streets. And his eclectic agenda includes something called the "Platinum Plan": a bundle of federal goodies for blacks, much like those of the Democrats. I've seen little indication that those have affected his appeal among either blacks or whites. Whatever support he does have among blacks — and it is apparently significantly higher than previous Republicans have received despite the frantic accusations of "racism" from the Left — seems to be the result of better employment prospects and the budding realization among a minority of blacks that the Democrats care about them only as a means to win elections. Ω

What do you think?
"Stop and think" archive.

TLD is a forum of opinion, edited by hard-core market anarchists, that does not flinch from any of the most pressing issues of our time. We are especially interested in questions of culture and ethnicity, our Polite Totalitarian ruling class, and the homicidal humanitarianism of the U.S. Empire.

Our writers include anarcho-pessimists, Old Believers in the West, unreconstructed Confederates, neo-Objectivists, and other enemies of the permanent regime. We are conscientiously indifferent to considerations of thoughtcrime. Thus, from individualist and Euro-American perspectives, we confront the end of civilization — and do our level best to name its destroyers. (More about who we are.)

— Nicholas Strakon, editor-in-chief
Ronald N. Neff, senior editor

WTM Enterprises
P.O. Box 224
Roanoke, IN 46783

General e-mail to The Ditch: (Please note change from old "thornwalker" address.)

"If this government cared about ideas, it would crack down on The Last Ditch. It could be called The Joy of Thinking."

Joe Sobran

"Whoever said 'Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty' didn't realize it, but he was thinking of The Last Ditch."

— Jared Taylor, editor of American Renaissance

Permanently recommended readings

"What Is Austrian Economics?" (Mises Institute)
"I, Pencil," by Leonard E. Read (Liberty Fund;
scroll down for text)
"The Epistemological Basis of Anarchism,"
by Roy A. Childs, Jr. (TLD)
"Polite totalitarianism," by Ronald N. Neff (TLD)

Published by WTM Enterprises, P.O. Box 224, Roanoke, IN 46783-0224.

Please note that Thornwalker is only the "landlord" for The Last Ditch. WTM Enterprises is solely responsible for all design and content on this site.

Nicholas Strakon