What of the rule of law?

Heather MacDonald at City-Journal has a good piece about the breakdown (or abandonment? — my words) of the Rule of Law.

A lot of the erstwhile ‘alt-right’ now scoffs at the Rule of Law as a useless abstraction and a red herring. Even if one insists on taking this ‘sour grapes’ attitude, it seems to me that the rejection of the idea by both left and ”right” is a symptom that should concern us.

MacDonald describes the growing number of instances of what can reasonably be called ‘savagery’ — or is that a politically incorrect word? It can and is being applied to White people now, especially by the incendiary media, in describing the White Antifa, who are oddly being blamed for leading blacks into group-mob violence. And the media tell us that there are some kind of ‘supremacist’ Whites who are behind all of the trouble. Only the far-left and their media franchises are able to detect any evidence of these troublemakers. I guess you have to ”believe” before you are able to perceive their presence, as some people say about ghosts or UFOs. But the media and their fellow-revolutionaries seem to be able to see the unseen.

Heather MacDonald mentions that what she calls the ‘pandemic of civil violence’ is worse this time, worse than the BLM riots and predecessors. This, she attributes to years more of the leftist narrative doing its corrosive work. I take it she is implying that Ferguson and other such events influenced many people of all ethnicities to accept the idea of a pattern of ‘racial victimology’ in which ‘racial and social justice’ are forever denied.

However, if this is her thinking, I would add that it’s not only POCs who are being influenced by this narrative of majority White villainy. It seems that people of European descent, especially down the generations, are often ready to believe the worst of their own folk, to believe that Whites are born with some moral defect which makes us forever and always the blameworthy party in these violent disturbances. There is ample evidence on this question but it is not allowed to cite it or speak of it openly; consequences always follow. The truth is disallowed from the public square.

It seems to me that as the ‘alt-right’ seem to have disengaged from any kind of involvement, even discussing this, in favor of cynical resignation, no one speaks up for our folk. We have no champions or spokespeople, though many on the moderate right are putting all their eggs in the Q basket, trusting that Q et al will save us.

Watching the Q YouTube channel, I get a sense that many of the members lack a basic knowledge of American History and many of them adopt a multicultural, ‘inclusive’ and tolerant philosophy, sharing the beliefs of the old Tea Party of the early 2000s that if we just follow in MLK’s path and practice understanding we can achieve ”unity” which is what Q tells us we must achieve before things can get better.

I can only think that the people who believe this (and they are legion) do not visit the real world often enough to be familiar with it. They seem to lack experience and the current events are lost on them. There is not much hope if it is this easy for people to get sucked into the left’s narrative so easily — because that is what it amounts to. They are just ‘leftists lite’ as long as they buy any part of the left’s daft belief system.

Unity would be wonderful but there are no indications that there is a way through our present confusion to some kind of idyllic unity. Unity can only be within truth. Self-deception and denial of reality, trying to unequally yoke disparate groups and individuals, only leads to more misunderstanding and estrangement.

Why are they doing it?

There seems to be a developing consensus on the part of realistic people — even including some ‘experts’, that the lockdowns were not just ineffectual in getting us through the ‘pandemic’, but that they were counterproductive in a number of ways.

In addition we now have a judge saying that the lockdowns and their associated rules and conjured-up ‘laws’ were illegal, and ordered Ohio health authorities to stop within 14 days. We’ll see if that happens.

While a lot of states are now opening up to one degree or another, some remain under lockdown, and some states (notably Washington state) are being told that mandatory ‘contact tracing’ is planned, along with testing of possibly everyone, and that anyone who is uncooperative will have regular visits from minders who will see that they comply.

And though the miracle vaccine is not available and not likely to be, the idea is that once it is available, we must all submit to taking it, despite Bill Gates’ somewhat dubious results with his ”vaccines” in the past.

Freedom??

There’s also been some ambiguous answers on the part of politicians and ‘experts’ as to when the lockdowns will end. There have been mentions of recurring lockdowns, meaning there is no return to normal in sight.

What are those in power thinking? Do they expect that we will just give in and accept the current state of things as inevitable, or will they attempt to return many of us to the state of fear in which we will accept whatever they tell us or require of us? Is this just how easy it is to demolish a country and its people?

It appears a lot of people believe that this is just a temporary inconvenience or a glitsch that is easily corrected, and that we still live in the same country in which we grew up. I feel as though we are definitely ‘not in Kansas anymore.’

From 1923, some thoughts on current issues

The following quotes are from a Canadian magazine, The Listening Post, specifically a piece called The University and the Nation, by Wilfred Bovey, dated 1923.

President Calvin Coolidge, in a speech made last 4th of July before the National Education Association of the United States, put forward an interesting theory regarding the basis of American Nationalism.

‘It can not be too often pointed out that the fundamental conception of American institutions is regard for the individual. The rights which are so clearly asserted in the Declaration of Independence are the rights of the individual. The wrongs of which that instrument complains, and which it asserts it is the purpose of its signers to redress, are the wrongs of the individual. Throughout it all runs the recognition of the dignity and worth of the individual, because of his possession of those qualities which are revealed to us by religion. It is this conception alone which warrants the assertion of the universal right to freedom. America has seen the working out of the modern effort to provide a system of government and society which would give to the individual that freedom which his nature requires. […]

[I]t seems to be a fair paraphrase to say that as President Coolidge here states the American ideal is the aim of the state to serve the individual. Indeed, he himself says, a little later on in the same address: ‘The end sought has been to create a nation wherein the individual might rise to the full stature of manhood and womanhood.”

There are those who will tell us that this interpretation of American ideals is not an accurate one. The individual if he is to reach his highest development must surely have before him an aim, and can that aim be higher that the good of his fellow men? If then our individual ideal be the acquiring of civil virtue we are logically forced to the conclusion that the chief end of the individual is service to the nation, a doctrine apparently opposite to that expounded by President Coolidge. Of course we can easily put ourselves back on the original path by saying that a nation which does not permit of individual freedom cannot arouse patriotism, and we can shortly lose ourselves in what a politician once called ‘The mazes of a vicious circle.’ Yet President Coolidge’s statement, worded as it is, can hardly fail to awaken in our minds a question whether the individual is not given today an undue measure of importance.

[…] Civilization in our sense of the word cannot exist without individualism. Nevertheless we must not allow our attention to the individual, his growth, and his privileges to close our ears to the call of patriotism and of civic duty.”

The author of this piece notes that young people, in late adolescence, tend to veer off into an unhealthy type of individuality which emphasizes emotion and sentimentality, based on the shared experiences within his age cohort. I would add to that the tendency to identify too strongly with his age-mates only. This makes for a more narrow outlook which is in conflict with any real ‘patriotism’ which involves the ability to identify with the larger group of countrymen or kinsmen.

Bovey’s article concludes with a quote from Dr Nicholas Murray Butler:

“The conflict is on between the principle of individual liberty which is the moving force of Western civilization, and the principle of social, economic, and political collectivism which is the essential principle of the civilization of the Orient.

[…] The struggle between liberty and equality has begun. The history of the next centuries seems likely to be written in terms of that far-reaching controversy. Victory over collectivism, with its attendant destruction, stagnation, and death, will not be had by an individualism which is grasping, self-centred, and selfish. If individualism is to have a chance to win on the pages of history it must be an individualism which finds its completion in the spirit of glad and generous service to country and mankind. It is still true that ‘whosoever shall lose his life for my sake shall find it.’

The crisis and what it says about us

At Malcolm Pollack’s blog, there is a good piece in response to a post at American Greatness. It’s about what the present Coronavirus epidemic says about American character, and what it says is not all good.

Among other things, we are seeing more friction between the two factions, one of which slavishly obeys every official pronouncements from the ‘Experts’ who have been so instrumental in encouraging some governors to give free rein to their ‘inner tyrant’, while the more freedom-loving among us chafe against the many and arbitrary rules laid down. Mostly the Left, in support of their leftist governors and mayors, are hugging their chains for security, and denouncing those who simply want their basic freedoms restored and protected.

What is troubling to me is the tendency, widely reported in the media, of people informing on their neighbors who are said to be violating the dictatorial regimes’ rules. Snitching, especially when the informers are likely fabricating the supposed violations so as to punish their ‘wrongthinking’ neighbors, does not ‘look good’ on Americans.

But make no mistake, the leftist governors can be said to have gone too far when one of them discusses mandatory testing for the virus, including contact tracing, and further, anyone who refuses a vaccine (provided a vaccine is available, which is dubious) would be subject to house arrest and visits from someone from the State to ensure compliance. Penalties? Withholding trips to the grocery store and access to prescription medicines.

Let that sink in.

Since those who censor internet content relating to the Virus, using the bogus term ‘fake news’ to disallow any dissenting points to view, want to remove anything that does not parrot the ‘Official’ dogma, I suspect the news media are removing any vaccine-skeptical comments or facts. A DuckDuckGo search, for example, was almost exclusively negative towards the so-called ”anti-vaxxers”, and most of the articles I found were quite stale, not relevant to the current situation. So anything less than positive that I might offer could be censored as ”fake news”. How very convenient of the left to discover a term like that which justifies their silencing any negative or troubling facts.

Since reading of this plan to coerce people into accepting forcible or coerced vaccines, or which make the penalty for non-obedience risky especially for seniors or people with chronic health problems, I have been exasperated at the apparent lack of righteous indignation; why are people displaying what appears to be indifference to their neighbors and families’ lives and well-being? Are Americans ready to turn a blind eye to this blackmail and pressure to conform?

And do the powers-that-be really believe that we Americans don’t even possess sovereignty over our own bodies and lives? That we can be threatened into allowing whatever substances someone proposes to inject against our will, into our bodies?

If the penalties for non-compliance involve danger to our health and our very lives, surely that constitutes threats being made against us. Denying access to food and necessary prescriptions is threatening to life and health. Talk about totalitarianism: did even the old Communist regimes do similar things to the vulnerable in their midst?

But just when I was becoming more incensed about the brazenness of this plan, and exasperated with the indifference of my fellow Americans, I was told that local papers in Washington State received angry responses from the decent folk of the state. I have to say that my faith was somewhat restored when I learned that people are angry about these threats toward ‘vaccine skeptics, particularly the old and the sickly. However the fact is that a mere 13 irate responses resulted in response to the proposals for involuntary isolation and testing. That’s a pretty meager response. It might be that most people care only if it directly affects them or their loved ones.

As for the many people who disparage so-called ”anti-vaxxers”, why are they so threatened by the idea that not everybody blindly trusts vaccines? Check our Bill Gates’ history in vaccinating people in India. Why should he be given carte blanche to try out his vaccines on large populations — again? Why has he never been held accountable for his ‘mishaps’?

Vaccines have at times had serious side-effects, such as Guillain-Barre syndrome among others. Doubts have been raised about their lack of efficacy among the elderly. Vaccines are hardly risk-free, and have at times done considerable harm. The media don’t want to discuss that usually. I offer the link as one example: it is factual, and not a story I concocted myself; I am just the messenger. In fact the story has been toned down since it first appeared, seemingly to discourage ‘vaccine skeptics’ doubts.

One more thing: those who think forced vaccines are justified because those who refuse the vaccine will allegedly ‘infect and kill’ healthy people by refusing — surely the vaccine Believers will be kept safe by their magic injections, won’t they? So how can a few vaccine skeptics infect those who obediently take their cure-all shots? Riddle me that.

Unnecessary and preventable

If only. If only the majority had not turned a deaf ear and a blind eye to what was obviously happening over the past several decades.

The old (and unfounded, it now seems) idea of American exceptionalism, the idea that “it [lost freedom] can’t happen here; we’re the Shining City on a Hill, we have a Special destiny; we’re God’s people here. True democracy and freedom and liberty. Above all, in this day and age, we are tolerant and inclusive and we welcome everybody who wants some of our Freedom and Liberty and Equality.”

Can’t it happen here? Are we a charmed country where bad things are prevented from entering our space, where we have some kind of magic immunity to being subverted, invaded, deluded into false belief systems, or just plain conquered, as people grow complacent and self-centered?

Those of us who started blogging after 9/11, or in the early 2000s, hoped we might get the word out, that there were some ominous clouds on the horizon, mostly manifested in massive, uncontrolled immigration, much of it (if not all) from countries which were hostile to our interests. In addition, there was a long series of terror acts (now forgotten by many or never known by the younger generations). The homegrown left was becoming increasingly vicious (in both the old and the current usage of the word) and more hostile and threatening toward anybody who differed from them. Increasingly they not only hated the “rich” but White people, particularly Christians, especially males, and their rhetoric was increasingly violent.

But most people seemed to have tuned all this out, giving all their attention to various distractions, such as social media, sports, gutter Hollywood ‘entertainment’, etc.

Globalism was seemingly not on most people’s radar. Try to talk about the planned One World government and you were ridiculed (“conspiracy theories”) or ignored. Yet it’s here. We can’t laugh it off or pretend it’s a figment of a paranoid imagination. Actually there are people who do still dismiss it that way. Some have an amazing capacity for denial.

So now some of us in this country (and in much of the world) are still under restriction of movement and various other mandates which are affecting our everyday lives, in some cases preventing people from getting vital access to medical care or other needs. The rules and restrictions vary from one state to another. It is worrying — and it should be — that at least one Democrat governor wants compulsory testing, while another thinks people who test positive for Covid should be forcibly removed from their homes and confined who knows where, and for how long. All those little details are being kept vague, but would people object even if they knew about these proposals?

I’ve read varying opinions about these worrying developments. Some of the bloggers whose opinions I respect have speculated that these rules and restrictions are meant to test us (as I suggested when the ‘pandemic’ was supposed to be getting under way) and to be an experiment in how to bring about their desired monolithic governance with the minimum of resistance from us, in those countries where we are used to independence in some degree. It’s all to evident that decades of propaganda and mind conditioning (Mockingbird, Tavistock techniques, etc.) have made us much more pliable in the hands of our would-be overlords as compared with our vigilant ancestors. If our colonial ancestors found King George III an intolerable tyrant, with his little tax on tea, what could they say about our situation?

Oh, yes, I know the American secession from Mother Britain was about more than the tea tax. I’ve mentioned before that my ancestors in both the Southern colonies and the New England colonies had an active part in gaining independence, so I know the story and I also know that a lot of sacrifices were made then so that we might be free people. And no, it was not about ”throwing the monarchy out” — we could have had George Washington as our King — but about not being ruled from afar, from across a wide ocean in a day when an ocean was a real barrier. It was about matters being governed locally, by ourselves and our neighbors, people who knew local issues and needs, people we knew face to face.

However we’ve lost all that, in a country which is too vast, too divided not just by geographical barriers like mountain ranges and rivers and deserts, but divided by innate differences amongst peoples and cultures and religions. We are not, and have for long not been, “one nation, indivisible”.

Neither do we find “liberty and justice for all” when criminals are being turned out of prisons lest they get the virus from other criminal, and all the while, lady hair salon owners are jailed and/or fined for re-opening for business.

Speaking of our Founding principles and of old-fashioned (outmoded?) patriotism, the ‘Q’ movement professes patriotism, and I give them credit for boldness in embracing the label in this cynical and anti-American generation, but sadly they seem to be aspiring to restore not an old America, united by ‘common ancestry’ as the Founding Fathers said but are hanging their hopes on a multicult America, the Proposition Nation writ large. ‘We don’t see borders. We don’t see color. You can’t divide us.’ Sound familiar? It’s just the left’s slogans recycled or refurbished with a “conservative” veneer. I know I risk offending those who follow Q but it is the truth. Watch the patriotic vignettes they run on the website. They have the mandatory quota of diversity; it looks like the U.N., demographically, and their pantheon of heroes seems to juxtapose Abe Lincoln and MLK with Robert E. Lee and a little of everything.

Maybe there is no going back; it seems to me that the future is a big question mark. And if this is a big experiment, it’s anyone’s guess. I can pray for at least a partial restoration of the great country this once was. But as I always say, change the people, change the country. And the generations who made this country so special are now no longer with us.

For now the focus is on what is to happen next.

Kierkegaard on the press

“The daily press is the evil principle of the modern world, and time will only serve to disclose this fact with greater and greater clearness. The capacity of the newspaper for degeneration is sophistically without limit, since it can always sink lower and lower in the choice of readers. At last it will stir up all those dregs of humanity which no state or government can control.”

Soren Kierkegaard. (n.d.). AZQuotes.com. Retrieved May 17, 2020, from AZQuotes.com Web site: https://www.azquotes.com/quote/381339
  • Soren Kierkegaard

An important but neglected issue

There are some long-overdue discussions on some of the blogs I read. One that I think is essential reading is at the Human Stupidity blog, here, and it’s about how lying is now considered virtuous and moral, at least when it’s for ‘politically correct’ reasons.

We are shocked about socially accepted lies and repression. But there is no widespread moral outrage about lies, deception.  No pity with the victims of political correctness. No sympathy with James Watson, no serious outrage about the raped children in Rotherham, Telford, a Million victims, rape victims in Cologne New Year], Sweden, Finland. “

I suppose for the ‘average’ college-educated European or American, who has probably been steeped in post-modernism, believing the all-encompassing lie that ‘there is no truth, just competing narratives’, there are no moral qualms about accepting patent falsehoods, like the idea that a man can become a woman or vice-versa. Now public officials such as those un-elected people, say, Juncker, sitting in the EU Parliament, saying openly that they have to lie.

Ideally, as the writer says, we would look at this situation, this ‘Empire of Lies’ as I think Ron Paul calls it, and see the necessity to imbue our citizens with the virtues of honesty and integrity, but somehow I don’t see that happening short of a Divine intervention or some kind of mass religious re-awakening — or more accurately an awakening, because real Christianity is all but forgotten; only the vestiges remain, sparsely distributed in society, and on the verge of being suppressed altogether. Why? in part, because it threatens the dominant ”narrative” being heavy-handedly pushed in all our media — movies, TV (including streaming) and in what passes as education.

Not only are the old virtues being forgotten and slighted but the ‘new virtues’ demand denial of reality and obvious fact in favor of flattering certain individuals and groups. Flattering is really a euphemism; I should say “lying’; that’s accurate. Lying is thus seen as morally superior, and worryingly it has the force of law behind it. Lying is increasingly demanded and expected of us, and some people suffer legal penalties for honesty and speaking truth. Solzhenitsyn, the Soviet dissident who suffered imprisonment for holding to his principles, famously said “live not by lies.” But increasingly it’s required of people in certain countries to give our assent to falsehoods and to live by them, cooperate in perpetrating lies.

This is a real problem for Christians, I mean, real Christians, for whom lying is not allowed, and giving approval to lies is forbidden, even for ‘politically correct’ reasons. And the “Temple of Political Correctness” knows this, and wants Christians to bend the knee and accept the lies, as a sign of submission on our part, I think.

The linked article deserves to be read; it’s a subject that I never see addressed on most blogs.

“Mass misdirection”

Bruce Charlton asks an interesting question, one which I’ve also been puzzling over. How is it that having seen and absorbed so many dystopian novels, movies, and TV series, people are not able or willing to recognize the totalitarianism at work in our real world?

How is it that the majority of people seem to have accepted the situation in which we suddenly found ourselves a couple of months ago, when the restrictions on our liberties were put into place with so little objection?
Dr. Charlton offers some answers to the questions.

It does seem that as far as any spiritual (negatively spiritual) element to this situation, most people, even Christians, have been conditioned towards a strictly materialistic and scientistic view of life. And as Dr. Charlton surmises, they recognize a system as evil only if it is overtly, openly violent and punitive towards the population. So far it has been more subtle; soft-pedaling it seems to have lulled people into the belief that all is meant for our good, our well-being.

Dr. Charlton also notes the tendency to omit the idea of moral agency on anyone’s part, and I believe I touched on that in my previous post. Nothing is anybody’s fault or responsibility, and that lets the average citizen off the hook as well as the people in power — whoever they are. Well, we do see the faces of the leftist governors who are issuing all these draconian orders, but even that fails to set off any warning bells in most minds, with the exception of a few people.

By degrees and by degrees, it looks — sadly — as though people in general are prepared to accept being herded and treated as property rather than as free people.

There have been news articles asserting that people are turning to their religion lately, though I’ve seen little sign of it. There are some people who are reportedly planning to hold religious services in spite of the edicts banning such gatherings. I’ll believe in a religous revival when I actually see it. Just after 9/11 people reportedly got religion — for about five minutes, after which business as usual proceeded. But then 9/11 was not as world-changing as these recent events, if people but knew it.

Enough evidence?

Al Fin’s post here cites some evidence in the form of a leaked dossier out of China, suggesting that the Covid virus did originate in a Chinese lab, and if the information is true, that it was engineered for certain qualities:

“To examine the emergence potential (that is, the potential to infect humans) of circulating bat CoVs, we built a chimeric virus encoding a novel, zoonotic CoV spike protein — from the RsSHCO14-CoV sequence that was isolated from Chinese horseshoe bats — in the context of the SARS-CoV mouse-adapted backbone,” the study states.

One of Dr Shi’s co-authors on that paper, Professor Ralph Baric from North Carolina University, said in an interview with Science Daily at the time: “This virus is highly pathogenic and treatments developed against the original SARS virus in 2002 and the ZMapp drugs used to fight ebola fail to neutralise and control this particular virus.”

Read the whole post. I realize that this claim might be greeted with more skepticism on the part of those who have their minds made up in advance — people, sadly, tend to believe what they wish to believe. But I keep wondering why so many people are reluctant to assume anything but benign or neutral motives on the part of those involved in this. To me it seems just the latest manifestation of Political Correctness on the part of the “just an unfortunate accident” faction. How many coincidences can a reasonable person accept? Infinite numbers? Somewhere there has to be a possibility of intent on the part of somebody. Or?

On some blog where the respectable ‘conservatives’ gather somebody tsk-tsked about the suggestion of a deliberate creation of the virus. The plea they made was that ”remember, it’s just the government, not the people.” It’s very much like the favorite Churchian saying ‘love the sinner, hate the sin.” Which is nowhere in the Bible, but it’s the respectable thing to say, so that no human being can be held accountable for anything. Stuff just happens, without any human intent or moral agency on the part of anyone. Very handy, then we can be safely resigned and passive because no one is to blame.

Meantime it seems a lot of people are in favor of everybody hiding from the lurking virus which is waiting to pounce on us as soon as we open our doors, while some are visibly chafing under the restrictions on our movements as well as the bans on religious events, etc. Who’s keeping watch over our jeopardized liberties?