First, the good news

By now everyone knows the Virginia gun ban bill was defeated — for now. That’s good even though we know they won’t give up on their plans to try to destroy the Second Amendment, or the whole Bill of Rights. But for now it offers a chance to regroup.

Lately it’s impossible not to notice the frenzied state of the left, as they introduce one extreme and totalitarian measure after another. One gets defeated (or wins) and they rush to introduce some other deranged and desperate idea. With their hyperactive scattershot approach to ”change” (that is, destroying the America that was) they are bound to succeed here and there despite their demented behavior.

But the latest craziness they’ve presented is a proposal for mandatory vasectomies for all men over age 50. This is being proposed in Alabama, incidentally, by a female lawmaker, Rolanda Hollis.

Why men over 50? How many children do men over 50 father? Apparently more than the controlling left likes. I do notice that when I search on the subject, a lot of hits come up which assert that older fathers produce unhealthy children, and unhealthy children cost $$$ and we can’t have that — unless the over-50 dads and their large families are, say, families of Dreamers or anchor baby families. Then of course it would be discrimination to force vasectomies on the fathers and genocide to prevent the potential children to be born — wouldn’t it? I’d be so disillusioned if those news anchors and reporters on CNN would lie to me about that.

I don’t know what the left is thinking of with this idea, but then if I started to understand how they think, I might be as delusional as they are, so for now I am content to accept that they are irrational.

The only reason I can think of for preventing older men from reproducing is that they are more likely to be right-wing and traditional than the younger men — they are, in fact; there are statistics. They are more likely on average to be ”right-wing” and to vote ”the wrong way.” They might also be more likely to be religious, that is, Christian. The younger men seem less likely, statistically, to have fathered children, and what with the woman-vs.-man rift in our society, marriage and family are far rarer among the younger generations.

Also, demographically speaking, the over-50s age group is less likely to be ”diverse” enough to be desirable as fathers, at least by our current criteria.

Apparently Ms Hollis is trying to make a political point by this extreme measure, actually, but it seems a very backward way to do so. How does preventing men (especially older men) from fathering babies equate to preventing women from aborting their babies? I fail to get the point of it other than just another bit of leftist shock-politics to shake up the remaining normal members of the population. If only it would shake people out of their lethargy.

Losing the will to action

It’s interesting that just about the time I wrote a post here commending what I saw as Canadian outspokenness about their situation, there was a thread posted at the Council for European Canadians, which took the opposite position. The counter-opinion, which just happened to appear at around the same time as my own post, came from a Hungarian-born Canadian, who had apparently come to Canada after the Hungarian revolution of the late 50s.

The thread became a little contentious as some people, especially those who had immigrated to Canada decades ago, perceived that Canadians has become, in their view, more passive or fatalistic about being demographically displaced, or replaced, to use the Trudeau verbiage.

So from another point of view, Canadians, rather than becoming emboldened to speak out against their dispossession, were becoming more passive.

It is probably true that, not having the historical perspective of these past refugees to Canada, that is, those who came as legitimate refugees from a Communist country, my context was lacking.

It’s probably also true, sad to say, that all the Western countries, all those who are being subjected to demographic replacement or displacement have become fatalistic about the chances of reversing the situation. How is anything to change when, behind all this drama, you have the U.N. engineering this whole scenario, knowingly, and you have all these unseen, unidentified movers and shakers, people who have deep pockets and huge influence, and yet who are mostly unknown by name or by face to most people. Yes, we do know who some of them are; but the politicians involved, those who are ”elected” to ”represent” us, are errand boys and front men, as seems obvious. To whom can we appeal? No one, because this has been decided over our heads, as I’ve said for some years now. We are not given any say in this. We’ve been written into the script as the villains and the ‘out’ group, and thus deserve no say.

Oh, but am I ”conspiracy” theorizing? Everything the left and their unthinking followers dislike or object to discussing is deemed a ”conspiracy theory” and thus a product of paranoia. Implicit (or in some cases explicit) is the risible idea that conspiracies don’t happen. Thus anyone who believes in so obviously false an idea is crazy, imagining things, living in a fevered dream, probably in need of ‘re-education’ or ‘psychiatric help.’ They’ve really got this sewed up so that there’s no way to even discuss this with the True Believers. Or are they ‘true believers’ or just fast-talking, slick liars? They are not honest, and they don’t argue in good faith, ever, on any subject.

I always said that I was at heart an optimist, yet how is it possible to maintain a shred of optimism when we are up against people who are so devious and so absolutely closed-minded? Believe it or not I still don’t believe in giving up. I said that should I ever become a cynical pessimist and doomsayer I would give up blogging because there could be no point.

It often does seem, most days, as if I have nothing positive to contribute and if I had, it would go unheeded as I seem to be out of step with the majority on ‘our side’, as pessimism seems to have won the day, hands down.

Yet there is a God in heaven and He will have the last word. If I did not believe that (which I do, firmly) there would be no point. So though I have to contend with illness and discouragement I am not of a mind to give up and conceded that the battle is lost.

Say not the struggle nought availeth.” We can’t see what’s going on behind the scenes. There are ‘principalities and powers’, and yet even they are not as powerful as they — and some of us — may think. They merely try to project a powerful image but we must not be fooled by appearances, and be ‘psyched’ into giving up. It’s hard to tell people to take heart when all seems (almost) lost. I think we are letting ourselves be spiritually defeated, and ‘demoralized’ in the true sense of the term by these relentless forces. But we have to stand for something, not merely against something.

Divisiveness

Generally it isn’t good policy to explain or apologize for an honest opinion, even when someone is offended. This seems especially true in our age of politically correct tiptoeing, trying to avoid ‘offending’ or ‘triggering’ some hypersensitive person. Some of the ”offense” is faked and staged in order to extract some kind of apology or concession. Still, I will admit my previous post may have been written in a peevish mood, though my opinions were honest. I genuinely don’t like to direct those thoughts at people on our side, so in that respect I hope I may be given leeway to get a little cranky sometimes. I don’t like family misunderstandings and I feel as though my readers are my extended kin.

I keep reading these tropes in various opinion articles about the division in our country. The QAnon posts say that ‘they’ (TPTB?) want us divided every which way. It does seem to be the case that they certainly want to exacerbate the issues that divide us. They want the divisions worsened and deepened, but it does seem that most of the divisions exist naturally and can’t be avoided. The “Democrats are the Real Racists” (DR3) according to the liberal Republican crowd and now are the Democrats are the Real Dividers, meaning that without them we would not have any dissension in our midst in this country? It seems some people believe that.

There are liberal Republicans who honestly think that things were fine between the races until the agitators came along and created trouble where there was none. This is not true; history books (and the long memories of some older citizens who are still with us) inform us that there were serious disturbances in the not-so-distant past. The riots in Detroit, for example. And there were earlier serious riots in Tulsa, I believe. Crime did exist; not everyone lived in a stable ‘monogamous nuclear family’as the pollyannas think was the case. There is a mistaken belief that the Democrats caused the sociological problems such as unstable homes, illegitimacy, poverty, crime, and so on. Yes, the social programs may have made things worse but the problems existed independently of, and before, all the programs like EBT, Medicaid, welfare, etc. There has always been a rift between certain groups of people because of essential differences. HBD, anyone?

Nature created differences. The differences are innate.

There was less friction between or among the various races in some cases but that does not mean that everyone ‘got along’ just fine. That idea is fallacious.

Regional differences existed to a lesser extent. I remember school textbooks treated Southron heroes with respect, people like Robert E. Lee and General Thomas ‘Stonewall’ Jackson . The Confederate dead were spoken of as men who were defending their country, though people were still taught that slavery was a great evil. The South itself was not ”demonized” as it is now. So that division has worsened greatly, and we can thank the Left for that escalation of hostility. They have equated the South with Nazi Germany, and that, in their minds, makes the Southern cause irreparably evil in the minds of the Left and of the sheeplike people who absorb every lie of the left unthinkingly. The traitorous media have become nothing but tale-bearers, blood-libelers, wormtongues, bearers of false witness against the Right, against the founding generations of this country and especially the South, with White people generally seen as the pinnacle of evil. The media are essentially agitators and trouble-stirrers, passing on false accusations and allowing no defense or response from those they accuse continually.

Women and men are also much, much more at odds than ever, thanks in great part to the Left/Media and their feeding a constant diet of lies to both women and men so that both misandry and misogyny are rife. It’s no wonder our birth rate is collapsing and families are broken.

Ethnic divisions are increasing within the White fold; there never used to be such animosity on the part of so many towards Anglo-Saxons (“WASPs”) in particular. Christians are now being essentially persecuted in some places as we see Franklin Graham, the son of evangelist Billy Graham, forbidden to speak publicly in the UK.

I don’t want to criticize blogs which are essentially on our side, but one prominent blog which is meant to be pro-South is frequented by more avid anti-Christians, who offer only condemnation and false statements about Christianity. Those far outnumber Christians on a blog which is pro-South.

The South has historically been the most Christian part of this country, as well as the most traditional. Paganism has nothing to do with the South or its history or its culture or its people. I know there are colonies of pagans in places like Asheville, N.C. but such is not the traditional South; it is alien to the South; it is people who hope to undermine and subvert and change the South. I would not be surprised if this is part of a studied effort to de-Christianize and de-culture the South. Likewise with Internet agitators who do nothing but attack Christianity. I don’t know why that is even tolerated on a blog meant to be about the South and its history and future.

Another such blog is also similarly inclined. Why? The South, despite the presence of so many who don’t belong to the South, is still Christian, at least for now. The South and Christianity cannot be separated without taking away the very spirit and soul of the South.

Where are the people who love the South, or who still love this country, who will speak up against all the dividers all the subverters who are, if not creating the divisions, at least exacerbating them? Have so many people learned to hate their own country that they really don’t object to the obliteration of our country, its people, its history and its future? Does nobody want to help mend the division, and if they can’t be mended, at least try to stop the bleeding?

I think that this constant ‘culture of critique’ has eaten away at any positive feelings we have about our country; it seems the leftist loathing of our folk, our history, our traditions, has infected much of the right as well until many people can’t muster up a little loyalty or affection for this country which gave us birth. ‘Patriotism’ has gotten a bad name, and is become a term of derision. Without some kindred feeling or some ‘pietas’ amongst us, without some feeling of pride in who we are and what our forefathers accomplished — despite all the destruction that others have wrought — we seem to have given up on this country and each other.

Breathes there the man with soul so dead…?” Or is the soul of our country itself dead now? Can it be revived, without a spiritual re-awakening?

Our country, Our business

One of the vexing things about living in this “global” “community” is that when you either go outside your country — wait: do countries really exist anymore, outside our imaginations? When I say ‘our’, I mean, those of us who still believe America is a country, much less our country? But when we go to other places on the globe, or even when we go on the Internet, which is a global phenomenon, we find ourselves reading all sorts of unsolicited advice and criticism of our country, and of ourselves. It seems to most people on this globe we are the ultimate bad guys. The world’s problems are caused by us somehow, and it is always up to us to fix everything, no matter how far away the problem is in physical distance or in our distance genetically from the people whose problem it really is.

As far as the criticism of us, as a nation and people, goes, the subject of guns and the control (or confiscation) of is the main subject of the carping and condemnation. It seems as if the prattling Tumblr teenagers (and some of them are in their 30s) have all the answers, and feel that they have the right to proclaim their wisdom to their elders and moral betters. Taking guns away is their only solution. It never occurs to them that they are all wet behind the ears and lacking in life experience, or the wisdom that comes with real experience of this world. They have been deluded into thinking they know more than their elders and more than the wisest men of past generations, including the Founding generations of this country. I suppose I can’t blame the youth of other countries as much because they probably learn little about the history of our country, still , no one has an excuse for not seeking the truth, or not knowing. Suffice it to say they are dumb enough to suppose that they have a right to judge the people who founded this country and of course the generations still living.

However even the older generations (and please, this is not about boomers or the ‘boomer’ bogeymen who are so popular now) in other countries are just as clueless and thick-skulled on these issues. When Australia passed their gun control legislation some years back I asked an older ex-LEO there what he thought. I thought surely he would have a more rational or studied opinion, but instead he spouted forth the usual: he saw no problem with the anti-gun measures, saw no reason why people could have a need to defend themselves, their families and property. Typical mind-conditioned leftist stuff, from a former policeman.

And there should be no excuse for people in the Anglosphere countries, as we all came from a background in which the ‘Castle Doctrine’ was part of the legal system (still is, in some American states) and in which the right of people to bear arms was considered necessary. You can look back in English history to see that this is true.

On certain right-wing websites with a lot of European visitors, some of the most ardent opponents of the right to bear arms were some of the English commenters, who obstinately think that they hold some kind of moral superiority on the issue of citizens bearing arms. I am sorry to say this about my English kin but it’s true. Still it’s not limited to the English or British. It’s almost universal outside America.

It’s hard to maintain amicable feelings towards people who are inclined to look down on you and to judge from on high. I would say, somewhat reluctantly now, that people of other countries have a right to their opinions about what we do here, though most of them have not been here, except perhaps for a vacation, and most don’t know the history of our country nor our culture, outside the distorted and uglifying lens of Hollywood movies or CNN. Still they feel free to tell us what we should do or what we ”have to” do, in their opinions, and this is crossing a line, in my opinion. I certainly have my opinions on what is happening in Europe and in the Anglosphere. But I don’t have the gall to condemn or castigate people in other countries because of what I think of their policies, their culture, their way of life, their political system. In this ‘global’ so-called village of ours, since the PTB have taken it on themselves to go over our heads and give away our countries, it seems some people think that they also ‘own’ our country and that they have a right to make pronouncements about what is essentially our business, and not that of our neighbors, however near or distant they may be.

Just as we would not put up with our next-door neighbors sticking their noses in our family business, the excuse of ‘global community’, which does not exist anyway, is not a valid pretext for meddling and offering unwanted advice to us. Neither should we be forced to put up with their sometimes nasty criticisms of us. I could express — I could, but I won’t — negative opinions of their countries, but in my book, unrequested advice, much less outright attack, is not done; it’s gauche, rude, crude, presumptuous (pot calling the kettle black, anyone?). The best people don’t do it.

For now, as far as I’m concerned, we still have the right to be left to ourselves to run our country and live as we see fit. Live and let live. Meddlesome behavior or opinions should be kept at home. And kindred peoples should not want to cultivate division and animus.

Dixie defamed again

The governor of what was once the state of Virginia, a state founded by my own ancestors (and yours, probably, if you are an original Southron), has now ended the holiday which honored Generals Lee and Jackson.

This, according to the governor, makes his People’s Republic of Virginia “a more representative and inclusive Commonwealth”. Representative and inclusive of what, or whom? Certainly not the oldest inhabitants of the Old Dominion. And by what rights can it now be called ”The Old Dominion”? You can read the history of that nickname here, but clearly it has to do with the origins of the state of Virginia, its founders, and its population, its history and heritage, in short.

The people who ‘elected’ the present governor of the current ‘state of Virginia’ constitute a group of people very unlike those who have populated Virginia since the English colonists first arrived, some 400+ years ago. This is not by happenstance; it’s by design. It’s an agenda, like Trudeau’s Grand Remplacement. The great ‘god’ diversity must be served.

Looking at a website which is supposed to be a biographical site for Northam, the only “memorable quote” attributed to him is the following, which I could have guessed at without knowing anything more about him than I do:

We live in a very diverse society — it is getting more diverse every day. It is that diverse society that makes this country great.”

quoted here

Now, if that’s not an original quote or thought. Imagine.

We’re additionally told that he was voted ‘most likely to succeed’ in high school or college or somewhere. Again, how predictable. But likely to succeed at what, exactly? Being the first to suggest legalizing post-natal infanticide? To succeed at pushing for demographic change in your own state, so that the original founding-stock are pushed out, or outnumbered at the polls? Or to make a run at abolishing the historical memories of Virginia’s greatest men? His ‘success’ is at the expense of history, heritage, tradition, memory. A country and a folk cannot thrive without those things.

Northam’s changeling Virginia (how long until the original name has to go?) is made up of a congeries of vastly disparate peoples who have little to nothing in common, except for an envy and covetousness that motivates the purposeful demographic changes which have transmuted Virginia to another mini-Babel. This kind of cobbled-together ‘state’ cannot thrive.

For those diversity-bots who go around parroting ‘diversity makes us strong’ or ‘diversity is our strength’ — prove it. Just saying it does not make it true. Just repeating nonsense does not make it sensible, much less factual. Yet we let every two-bit charlatan who gets behind a microphone or in front of a camera get away with uttering this tiresome drivel. Why, in heaven’s name, do we let them go unchallenged or unquestioned?

It’s a tragedy for us that we no longer seem to produce leaders of any calibre to challenge the demagogues and fakes. Where are our men of the talent of Thomas Jefferson, or any General Lee, or Rev. Dabney or any of the great orators or thinkers of our past? None of today’s leaders can hold a candle to any of them.

Still, it goes on: our country is being subjected to a ‘great replacement’, as are all of the countries of former Christendom. And to our shame, it’s people who are nominally of our own folk who are facilitating this compulsory transformation.

Worst, the ‘state of Virginia’ was trying to pass laws forbidding criticism of elected officials. How shameful and how very — shall I say it? — un-American. Yes, it is against the very principles laid down by our forefathers who created this country, but then few people seem to know those principles, much less to care to preserve them.

Theoretically my opinions would make me ‘guilty’ of refusing to bow down to the self-declared godlets who sit in legislatures or inhabit some public office. And that in itself is wrong. If such becomes law then America will well and truly be done.

Consequences of careless policy

The Canadian press is reporting that there are 176 passengers coming to Vancouver on a flight from Wuhan, China. They are being ‘evacuated’ as a precaution against catching the Coronavirus. These people, who are said to be ‘Canadian citizens’ will be under quarantine for 14 days.

Do the medical experts even know how long this virus is contagious? Or are they guessing? They have no experience of this sickness and just how it acts.

The same news source says that ‘several dozen‘ more passengers are arriving on a later flight. I gather these passengers are Canadian by paperwork but not by birth. The problem with this kind of thing, with people having a foot in two countries, is the apparent need to go back and forth from the home country to the host country. From a health standpoint this is favorable to the spread of any such epidemic. Do our feckless leaders ever think of this obvious fact? Or is this part of their ‘plan’?

And by the way, I wonder how many people is ‘several dozen’? That’s rather a vague number.

In the past, was it common practice to transport people who were possible carriers of a disease back to their ‘home’ countries rather than treating or examining them where they were? Of course today common sense and the public good are not even on the table.

Coincidentally there is an article at the Council of European Canadians about the history of the 1918 ‘Spanish’ flu, which actually did not originate in Spain. The piece tells how the flu spread widely despite the lack of the incessant and cheap air travel which now scatters people throughout the world so easily. Of course the World War and the mass movement of peoples played a part in the spread of that 1918 flu. You can read the story at the link.

I hope that the Coronavirus is somehow stopped from becoming a worldwide danger to people But at this point I think it’s mostly unknown which course this will take.

Our Canadian cousins

I’m taking a moment to compliment our Canadian fellow bloggers and activists (note the blog names in my blogroll) who are doing such a superb job of advocacy for their folk.

I notice the spirit and earnestness in some of the posts about the situation in Canada, where it seems that ‘old stock’ Canadians are in the process of being replaced. This is no ‘conspiracy’ nor is it ‘fake news’ as the crazy left terms everything they don’t like. Trudeau himself has admitted that replacement of old stock Canadians is on the cards. How much plainer does it have to be made?

We’re in a similar situation, though perhaps in slower motion. But where is the passion and spirit on our side? If only we could muster a little of that for our cause. Even if we think all hope is lost, as so many people say, it’s necessary to go on, even if only to act as though there is still something that can be done. To say that it’s hopeless becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

As I said before in a post about this subject, in my experience the Canadians are usually very amiable people, well-mannered and by our standards, seemingly mild. But to my surprise they seem to be speaking up boldly, and I know that in today’s world, that’s taking a risk, when ‘our’ governments do not want truth-speakers to be heard.

At the Canadian border, as some of you may know there is the ‘Peace Arch’, which is meant to honor the peace between America and Canada, and the long unprotected border — which sadly is being used by those who enter our countries furtively. But the inscription at the Arch is ”Children of a Common Mother.” The Canadians are our brethren genetically, at least the Old Stock Canadians are. Bone of our bone, flesh of our flesh, even more so than many of the current inhabitants of both our countries.

We should form a closer bond with those who are our kin, and those who are facing the same dubious fate as we are.

Keep up the good work, Canadian brothers and sisters. You are an inspiration to me at a time when I am in real need of it. I think that goes for a lot of us Americans, if we’d only admit it.

Can we say it's real now?

At Zero Hedge, Tyler Durden quotes an article by a Matt Agorist of TheFreeThoughtProject.com. It tells of how Congress has now allotted money for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to look at methods for cooling earth, via ‘geoengineering’ techniques.

“What could possibly go wrong?

Before we go any further, it is important to point out to new readers that we are not a satire site. We are not a conspiracy theory site. The information you are about to read is factually accurate and 100% real despite the ostensible ‘skeptics’ who claim otherwise.

Over the past several years, the “conspiracy theory” of spraying particles into the sky to cool the Earth has become more mainstream. It came to a head last year when CNBC put out a video titled How Bill Gates-Funded Solar Geoengineering Could Help End Climate Change.

The video is nothing short of an infomercial for chemtrails. It is truly bizarre how this subject has moved from the fringes of conspiracy circles and into the mainstream and no one is even batting an eye.”

Why, I keep asking, do many people insist on ridiculing any mention of so-called ‘chemtrails’, or aerosol spraying from planes? Whenever this subject comes up, (which rarely happens among ‘mainstream’ people who are averse to anything that involves ‘conspiracy theories’, there are derisive and dismissive comments. But why? There is ample evidence that these things are not only under consideration but are actually being put into practice. It’s hardly ‘secret’, given that one can see the aerosol spraying and its results, and it has not been done in a very covert way.

In fact I think I’ve posted pictures of documents relating to this subject of ‘geoengineering’ and weather modification. The documents were printed up and presented in Congressional hearings back in 1978. That was all of forty-two years ago — and yet it’s still denied as a ‘crazy conspiracy theory?’ Why?

How much paperwork or evidence is needed before people realize it’s actually happening, and not just a product of someone’s wild imagination?

I wonder why many people deny that there is any validity to it, and why it’s so important for them to ridicule the idea and anyone who suggests it’s real? It seems as though people have been conditioned, probably via the media (TV news, newspapers) to have a knee-jerk reaction to the subject, so that they immediately resort to derisive attitudes and comments?

I can understand why some people are averse to the idea of ‘climate change’ or anthropogenic ‘global warming’, because the left has been pushing that idea for some years now, and I myself don’t subscribe to their theory of what’s happening. Still, I don’t deny that the climate does seem to be changing, and that certain freakish weather phenomena (relating to the behavior of hurricanes, for example) are happening. I think something is amiss but I don’t subscribe to the UN’s idea or Greta Thunberg’s accusations.

Still the idea of ‘climate change’ and also ‘chemtrails’ seems to belong to the left; we associate it with leftist climate-obsessives. But even a broken clock is right twice a day, as the old saying goes, and what if the left is right about the trails, etc.?

And why should it be far-fetched to think that the government would use artificial means to try to control or modify weather? There are numerous articles to be found online outlining how the military would use weather mod and ‘geoengineering’ for various reasons. There have been stories (not verified as far as I know) that weather mod was used in the Korean war, for example, in creating heavy rainstorms over a battlefield. But now the interest seems to be in trying to curb the ”climate crisis’ that the young left in particular is obsessing over.

Years ago when I first began noticing the aerosol spraying and the effects on the natural cloud formations and skies overhead, I began to wonder if the whole ‘global warming’ threat was artificially created as a pretext for establishing more control over people, over our use of ‘fossil fuels’, the role of CO2 and so on. The thought I had was that TPTB were creating a climate crisis, in order to put more controls over the populace, or to start a panic among the volatile younger generations. It seems as though that has been the result.

When I mention the evidence of what we can see in the skies, don’t people notice how when the ‘trails’ are criss-crossing the skies, the trails don’t disappear like normal jet contrails, but spread out uniformly in a dull grey haze so that we rarely see a clear azure-blue sky as we used to. And there is a certain quality of heat to the sun; it feels more intense and focused. I’m not the only one to say this; other people who are keen observers of the skies and environment, people who work outdoors have made similar observations to mine. The climate has changed, and it’s most noticeable when the spraying is visible in the skies.

Yet other people deny anything is different, which is frustrating, because I don’t know how one can’t see and feel it.

It seems obvious that the global government would have, and does have, an interest in modifying the weather and in accordance, with trying to shape and control human activities in the context of this ‘threat’. Create the problem so as to implement a pre-ordained solution.

Unfortunately for now anyone who looks at this question without resorting to dismissal or denial is viewed as some kind of fanatic. I don’t know if the small bits of news about the subject that are appearing in the ‘normal’ media will be enough to convince the professional scoffers. It is baffling to me how people can live in denial of what we see and read and experience.

Religious faith and evolution

Ron Guhname at Inductivist discusses the role played by one’s religious beliefs in either accepting or rejecting Darwin’s speculations.

This is a question that interests me because I’ve come to notice over the years that fellow Christians often accept the idea of life originating spontaneously and human beings having ‘evolved’ from the primordial soup, or whatever today’s equivalent belief.

I don’t see how the two belief systems can be reconciled because Darwin’s ideas, at least as interpreted by postmodern Western peoples, have no room for a Creator, without twisting the plain teaching of the Christian Bible.

But it does seem as though most people on the right, though they may be nominally Christian, are willing to go along with the Darwinian orthodoxy rather than the Biblical teaching.

Not long ago I mentioned the results of a study by George Barna, the pollster who reports on Christian beliefs and practices. The results of the poll he had just done showed that the great majority of Americans who assert they are Christians do not in fact have a Biblical worldview. Instead, they seem to let the world shape their free-flowing interpretation of the Bible. For example, “the Genesis creation story can’t be true because archaeological findings prove that the earth is x billion years old, and the creation story in Genesis would seem to describe a more recent event” or words to that effect.

The Inductivist analysis of the data on people of various faiths vis-a-vis evolution show that (not surprisingly, I suppose) Moslems show the highest numbers of disbelievers in evolution, at 65.6 percent. Next, at 65.5, are those identified as simply ”Christians”.

Confusingly, next on the list are ”Protestants”, with a 63.6 per cent rejection of Darwinism or evolution. I don’t know why Protestants are differentiated from ‘Christians’ here. I would say the non-squishy Protestants (not liberal, not mainline) are less likely to believe in evolution or other non-Scriptural beliefs.

But in any case, comparing Protestants and Moslems it looks as though the numbers are pretty close as far as skepticism or disbelief in evolution. I just wonder why it seems that few right-wing Christians seem to question evolution, especially those people who accept the ideas of HBD. It seems to be necessary for them, in order to hold their current ambivalent beliefs, to accept that peoples “evolved” because of migration to different climates, producing ‘mutated” phenotypes, etc. It almost seems just a way of justifying their belief in HBD, because it sort of scientizes it.

But I don’t see how one can prove (sans a so-called ‘missing link’) that peoples can evolve into very different peoples no matter how much time might be allotted for this alchemy to take place, any more than the idea of life springing out of nothingness, caused by nothing.

Someone recently said, ‘if God wanted to create the domestic dog, couldn’t he just create the dog as He wanted him”, rather than taking the raw material (the wild canis lupus) and transmuting him into our pet dog? Couldn’t the same question apply to human beings? Maybe there were multiple progenitors not just two. Genesis even suggests this, if you read the book carefully.

Epidemic?

Time alone will tell if this latest threat in the form of a virus (Coronavirus) will develop into something very serious. The media certainly seem to be ginning up a panic about it, at least in certain quarters.

Some as usual are saying this story is just another attempt at distracting the population from something ‘more important’ — some people are always sure that whatever the headline story may be, it isn’t the ”real” thing; the PTB are always trying to direct our attention elsewhere while they pull some new sleight-of-hand on us. I personally don’t take that cynical a view: sometimes the headlines do carry important stories; we can’t always be looking for a hidden ‘man behind the curtain’ in every single case.

There are a number of articles about this Coronavirus; it’s hard for the lay person to sift the valid advice from the questionable. A lot of discernment and cross-checking is needed to be up to speed. I don’t pretend to expert knowledge on this.

It seems common sense alone dictates being rather more safe than sorry, and taking precautionary measures if we find ourselves in an outbreak situation; if we live in an area where we are are greater risk then it’s not very wise, IMO, to be cavalier about this — if it proves to be a real danger to life and well-being.

And during that ebola scare from some years ago, I think I wrote about many of these same issues: was that ebola scare real? or a dry run just to see whether the public would be OK with lax measures: no real quarantines, ”victims” riding on regular passenger planes while ill, people supposedly ill with the disease out bicycling with boyfriends (“it’s a free country! You can’t quarantine people — it’s unconstitutional!”) We heard it all, and it seemed that the handling of it, if it was a real outbreak, was farce, except the humor was missing.

Reports tell differing stories of a few thousand victims to half a million. Who to believe?

As of now, it seems that huge numbers of people from the epicenter of this thing are flying back and forwards with utter freedom. Most news reports say that ‘tourists’ are involved, but I have a feeling that many of those flying between the West and Asia are living in Western countries, and flying back here to avail themselves of the Western medical facilities. Not a wise policy. It would seem prudence and concern for human life would mandate a containment effort as much as possible instead of spreading the infection willy-nilly.

But then what do common sense and humane values have to do with life in the 21st century? And how much do we have to say about any of it?