Monday, September 30, 2019

Zmirak's Problem with English Definitions

John Zmirak, on occasion, is an inspiring rightist author.

And on other occasions, he has trouble with the English language.

Zmirak likes to piss all over 'integralists' because.......something or other.  Maybe being a Libertarian wannabee--which is what he thinks the Constitution is all about.

We'll repeat, for Johnny's edification:

The simple definition of "integralism" is that laws should reflect a moral order.
Frankly, Zmirak is not only deficient in English.  He's also shockingly deficient in "Founders 101."  He can choose to forget all about ".....the laws of Nature and Nature's God...." but genuine Conservatives do NOT forget that phrase, nor that it underlies the thinking of the Framers.

OK, Johnny?   You want to compare that to being a Muslim, go ahead.  It's about your level of sophistication.


Dave P. said...

May I play Devil's Advocate here?

I don't think Zmirak would deny Natural Law being supported by the Founding Fathers. But I do believe I know who he's writing about: the likes of Tradition in Action, and particularly about the late Solange Hertz (who had some very interesting ideas). Tom Droleskey (I met him before he went sedevacantist) also comes to mind.

Dad29 said...

If he's writing about Hertz--who most certainly was a wackdoodle--and/or Drolesky, he can be specific. Nothing wrong with calling out the Royalists of TiA by name, either.

Instead, he disparages "integralists" in general, which is precisely what the Libertarians want done.

Is Zmirak that stupid?