Quotes

“Communism is the final synthesis of all heretical tendencies that have pervaded Western civilization for many centuries. Communism is the culminating hubris of Promethean man who reaches out for the world and means to remake creation. It is scientism gone political.”

William Schlamm

“Political equality is against nature. Social equality is against nature. Economic equality is against nature. The idea of equality is subversive of order.” – Edmund Burke

”There is nothing more unequal, than the equal treatment of unequal people.”

Thomas Jefferson

You are what you eat

The old saying “you are what you eat” is a phrase that is generally used to remind people to ”eat healthy”. In these days it conjures up different connotations, in a world which in which whole populations are in movement from one continent to another. There is a general blurring of lines between populations in countries which are now welcoming people from every continent.

Some years ago on my blog we discussed how changes in eating habits in ‘host countries’ might be changing people’s health. If we are literally “what we eat”, as the old cliche has it, how does going from a meat-and-potatoes-and vegetables diet to heavily-spiced Mexican dishes affect us? It does seem as if dietary habits have changed in the sense that Americans and other ‘WASP’ types have developed a real craving for Latino foods and other spicy cuisine, such as Indian (dot, not feather) and other spicy Asian foods: Sriracha sauce, curry, and Szechwan style Chinese food. And where did ”ghost peppers” (bhut jolokia) originate? In India, apparently.

I’ve heard that the taste for extremely spicy foods, which cause endorphins to be produced in response to the fiery-hot foods or condiments, is a cultivated one.

A few of us, very few it seems, are holdouts who still prefer more bland and mild foods. We in my family always had roast beef on Sundays and who does that now? Most Americans like adventure in their foods — I like to play it safe; that makes me an oddity I suppose.

The “experts” on diet, at least according to mass media sources, say spicy food is good for you; healthy and conducive to avoiding obesity. But according to the medical magazine The Lancet, we read that the obesity rate in Latin America is 57 percent. So that contradicts the popular wisdom.

“In 2014, more than 300 million adults in Latin America, were overweight. Of these more than 100 million were obese.

Guillermo Garcia, M.D., The Lancet

I don’t know if eating lots of heavily-spiced food is going to cure that, if it hasn’t happened by now.

American society has never been so health-and-diet obsessed as it is now, so it’s strange that people are eager to eat a lot of high-fat and high-carb food — but it seems Mexican food is one of the most popular cuisines with other more exotic foods vying as the new American preference. So now multiculturalism is expressed in the food we eat. I won’t be the least surprised if the media/government starts calling it ‘racism’ if people prefer plain old American cooking, the kind our grandmothers made.

In one of the recent articles at the Council of European Canadians, someone points out that whereas roast beef and potatoes was once the national Sunday dish of Britain — but it’s been replaced by Tikka Masala.

I have often heard that a few centuries ago, the French called Englishmen ‘rosbifs‘ because of their fondness for roast beef.

The linked article says, though, that roast beef is still as popular as ever as the main dish at Sunday dinner.

“The British love of beef, particularly for lunch on a Sunday, is a part of the national identity. Roast beef is eaten so often that even the French started calling Englishmen “rosbifs” in the 18th century. The Sunday roast is as much a tradition today as it was a few hundred years ago. It has even spread from the family dinner table to pubs and other days of the week.”

Elaine Lemm, The Spruce Eats, 6 Dec 2019

Well, that’s heartening to hear.
Can it be that the foods we habitually eat, and prefer, reflect a possible greater compatibility of certain foods with the constitution or metabolism of a particular people?

The hot, spicy foods are suited to hot, tropical climates because they induce perspiration, which is cooling. I am not a doctor or a dietician but I’ve heard this said many times, as I grew up partially in a hot climate, without benefit of air-conditioning. Highly spiced foods serve a purpose in that kind of climate, though now air-conditioning is universal for the most part.

But must a change in populations lead to a change in our eating habits, just because shrewd marketers choose to promote these exotic foods? I am glad there are some people who stick to tradition and don’t follow along blindly with what is popular or a novelty. But it seems as if many of our long-time favorite dishes are disappearing from supermarkets as room is made for the exotic foods which are taking up more shelf space.

The “Great Replacement” also seems to require that we adopt new eating habits; it’s our foods as well as ourselves who are slated for replacement.

Relevant quotes

I may have posted these quotes, or some of them, previously. They do seem very relevant right now.

“The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather of that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections.”
— Lord Acton

“Democracy is the rule of mobs, tempted by newspaper editors” – Ralph Waldo Emerson

“The acceptance of democracy by all European nations is deadly for the proper governorship, freedom, law, order, respect of authority and religion, and at the end will lead to chaos, out of which will appear the worldwide tyranny” – The Duke of Northumberland, in a booklet called ‘The History of World Revolution‘, 1931

I suppose we all know these things, whether we consciously think about them or not. I think most of us never thought we would be in the situation in which we currently find ourselves.

Most Americans believe what we were taught in school: that we live in a democracy, which is absolutely the best and freest form of government — theoretically. But we were also taught, at least by high school, that our governmental system is republican; we live in a republic, not a democracy. And it’s duly noted in most history books that some of the greatest philosophers of centuries ago warned of the flaws in a ‘democracy’ yet most Americans continue to praise democracy as our greatest asset as a nation.

Yet here we are, wondering who is to be ‘elected’ president, and the choice is stark.

We, as a people, learned all the stories about our Founding Fathers and our Presidents: Washington and his little hatchet and the cherry tree, Lincoln and his log cabin childhood, etc. But we should have been taught more, as we grew up, about how our government works, and how it ideally should work. But nothing is ever ideal or perfect, or even optimal, human nature being what it is.

How did the corruption ever reach such a staggering level? Why did nobody seem to want to clean things up long ago, before the dishonesty and the resulting edifice of lies grew to such proportions?

The one aspect of all this that still stuns me is how our foes are able to continue with their blatant denial of obvious reality all this time? Surely it’s at pathological levels, this insistence that right is wrong, true is false, up is down — because they want it to be so, facts notwithstanding. They want us to become unstrung and they want us to parrot their lies.

Thomas Jefferson famously wrote that ‘the will of the majority must always prevail‘ under our system of government. The opposition proclaims that the ‘winner’ of the election can be the person with the fewest votes. Since when has a ‘winner’ ever been the one who comes in dead last, or the guy who brazenly cheats?

The opposition seem to be desperate to win at any cost. But if they ‘win’ our whole system will be finished, and we will have to conform to the lie-based narrative. If that is what awaits us, we can no longer be who we are, or who we were meant to be.

I hope that the majority of us will not submit to this sham ‘election’ and I sincerely hope that our opponents will return to reality instead of the warped parallel universe they seem to be inhabiting.

Courting ‘new’ votes

During the recent election campaign I couldn’t help noticing that Donald Trump devoted considerable attention to Hispanic and black voters, two demographics that normally do not vote for right-wing parties — not that the GOP is right-wing, really.

I was all ready to write a piece pointing out the futility of courting those who find their interests better answered by socialist-leaning parties. The official line out of the Trump campaign was that Trump was making great inroads into the Hispanic voting demographic, and even better, was winning “unprecedented” (that was the word they used) numbers of black voters. At the time I was skeptical.

But just as I was composing a piece in my head about the subject, I find that at the Council of European Canadians blog, there was this article, by a Pedro de Alvarado, cautioning that the American right would be wise to avoid ‘minority outreach.’ In the article, the writer cites the fact that Trump’s share of the White vote decreased slightly, from 57% to 55%. And despite the boasts of a sizeable increase in the share of the black vote and the Hispanic vote, the reality was apparently not so impressive:

“Trump’s numbers with Blacks remained stagnant — staying at 8% in 2016 and 2020 — and Hispanics — going from 29% in 2016 to 32% in 2020 — were a solid increase but nothing to write home about.”

Pedro de Alvarado, Council of European Canadians

The same thing happened when George W. Bush’s campaign claimed to have garnered a larger share of the Hispanic vote than the actual 44 percent. Even having Hispanic family ties through intermarriage did not get Bush a majority of that ‘coveted’ demographic. And why is it so important to our politicians (“our” politicians?) to pursue minority voters? For the sake of holy diversity-and-inclusion? And what does that mean, in itself? Our own replacement?

But here’s an idea that many American voters might not have considered:

“The Trump campaign’s fetish with attracting minorities may have likely cost President Trump his re-election. Upon reviewing the initial data, Trump traded miniscule minority gains for marginal, yet crucial drops in the overall white support. A foolish gamble indeed.”

Pedro de Alvarado, Council of European Canadians, 12 Dec 2020

I’ve always felt, too, that trying to bring in minority voters just for the sake of meeting quotas or increasing our diversity points was wrong-headed. Bringing in people who are, as Pedro de Alvarado says, ‘not natural conservatives’, works against a supposedly conservative party’s natural goals and misdirects the party and its members in a leftward direction, from which it’s all but impossible to turn back, having committed to meeting the ”needs” of the new minority members. It puts the party at the service of the ‘diversity’ vote. No one can serve two masters; like a polygamous marriage with more than one wife to keep happy, it won’t end happily.

Please read Pedro de Alvarado’s piece; it’s informative and it’s a viewpoint that’s rarely heard in this diversity-driven society.

When the moon is in the seventh…

I find it interesting and somewhat dismaying to note how many people believe or half-believe in the power of astrology to influence human lives or ”the universe” generally. I’m referring, of course, to that rare conjunction of several planets yesterday.

It’s visually fascinating; I’ve been interested in astronomy (which is not the same as astrology) since I was a kid. I like to observe these things; they are impressive and sometimes beautiful. As a Christian I marvel at God’s creation. But I think it’s a step backward for people today to turn to a sort of superstitious attitude towards the planets and stars, to credit distant celestial bodies with ‘governing’ our lives and fortunes. But then lots of people today (I’ve encountered a few) actually pray to “The Universe” in the belief that “The Universe” is a divine personification who can answer prayers and heal people of illnesses — in other words, the “Universe” is the successor to the living God in their minds.

Isn’t it also interesting how if the Lefties have any religion other than Self and Power, they are likely to believe in “primitive’ religions or New Agey things like The Universe as a divine being who wants you to have everything you ask for. Sadly though, I know leftists who belong to liberal churches, who can’t see the inherent contradictions between their leftist politics of power and real Christianity.

If you are a praying sort, it seems prayer is sorely needed now as it seems our situation gets more complicated by the day, with things looking darker; this is very much the case when I read the news and commentary online; a recent discussion on /pol really makes it look as though everyone on the right has given up on Trump, though I don’t think that consensus necessarily applies to the real people out there in the country.

I hope not. I am thankful our colonial forefathers didn’t give up so easily — though it’s said that only about one-third of them were committed to win our Independence — and to take a part in it, not just from the sidelines.

Possible corroboration

If you haven’t seen this post from the Vulture of Critique blog here, it seems there are some sources who have said that the story about the angry confrontation between Roberts and his colleagues over the ‘Texas case’ actually happened. Read about it at the link.

The story, as it’s told by the people close to the situation apparently, doesn’t exactly depict the people in question in a favorable light, nor does it make our justice system look good as a whole. If the objective is not only to weaken and discredit our system but to disillusion the people who trust blindly in the Constitution and our founding principles, then their objective has probably been accomplished to a great degree.

Change and decline: our fault, or the world’s?

In the aftermath of the recent débâcle in the highest court in the land, it seems our judicial system is in need of some examination, and some would say our entire political system could use some re-thinking.

That, however, may be for another day as we try to digest these events that are now being pondered.

Today there is a piece by Edwin Dyga at the blog Musings of a Pertinacious Papist,
It’s titled “Why Conservative Justices Run Interference for Liberal Causes“. Well might we ask; it seems to be a chronic problem in our time.

The article is under copyright so I can’t quote from it, but I will recommend reading the whole piece at the link. It isn’t necessary to be a Catholic to profit from the article’s viewpoint.

The writer (who is Australian, apparently) notes how scholars often place the blame for the problems in in both the Australian and American judicial systems with the founders in both countries. The problem was mostly said to be due to the government being too lax in choosing judges. I think that the situation here is also blamed on lack of care in choosing, especially is this evident when looking at the last round of Supreme Court appointments. It seems, though, that the younger generations want to blame their elders and predecessors for the unhappy results of the choices made, but what if the problem is, as the writer of the piece suggests, the lack of care in maintaining and preserving the integrity of the institutions? Over time there seems to have been a decline in that area; it seems as times passes, the younger generations no longer hold to the same standards and traditions as those of the original judges. In recent years there has been a noticeable obsession with seating judges who are of the correct background, by politically correct standards. Ethnicity and ”gender” seem to be one of the most important criteria, rather than academic/scholarly standards as well as the appropriate personal characteristics.

The need for the standards of the office or position to be rigorous, and to be carefully preserved down the years, rather than relaxed or disregarded as ‘outdated’ or ‘old-fashioned’ is more important than our careless, lackadaisical society likes it to be. Yet today it is in fashion for younger people to blame their elders (specifically, Boomers) for everything that is wrong with the world, but many people of all ages have contributed to the general decline of institutions, not just one generation. No matter how sound an institution is at its beginnings, it has to be maintained and preserved, not falling prey to societal fads and passing trends. Political correctness has swept all before it, becoming a dominant force against which we have little resistance. The educational system is a shambles and a failure.

It seems, too, that because of different attitudes in today’s world, as contrasted to the world of a century ago, or even just half a century, there is more of a psychology-centered worldview. It is based on some less-than-sound and very subjective beliefs about life and human nature, and it has led to a certain amount of the deterioration we see in all our institutions. That worldview has colored the thinking of almost everyone, even replacing, for many, the older Christian ideas and ideals. There is more of a concern with being ‘nice’ than being good or moral, let along righteous.

This has all led to a sort of weakness on the part of those who live by that set of ideas; to try to sum it up briefly, I’d say that it seems as if the good people always lose because they have passively accepted the idea that while the well-intentioned people try to be ‘nice’ and to play fair, they are too obsequious to oppose what is wrong. The ‘bad guys’ always seem to win because they have few scruples, and few standards to deter them from doing wrong. I am not advocating for adopting the attitudes or actions of the conscience-free people, but to stop focusing on ‘niceness’ when niceness means being supine and being timid about taking a stand for what is good and right.

Do read the linked blog piece; it’s worthwhile.

When and how did cynicism prevail?

This morning I’ve been reading lots of discussions of the troubling events of recent days. It seems there are almost as many differing outlooks and interpretations as there are people. But the common factor seems to be the cynicism about one facet or many facets of the situation — or the people involved.

On a blog discussing the proposal of secession in Texas, hardly anybody believed it would or could ever happen, and most of their reasons for their scoffing at the idea was because they implied the people of Texas were not capable of it. There were few commenters who believed secession could happen; one nonbeliever mentioned the Mexican population of Texas — a factor which I blogged so much about for several years, to no avail — but many of the newly-arrived immigrants are politically inert, except for agitating for open borders, by which they arrived.

It appears that many of us lack faith in other Americans — I suppose there is truth in Putnam’s assertion about how diversity makes us ”hunker down” and not associate as much with our disparate neighbors. And nowadays we cannot associate with neighbors because of restrictions. So increasingly we are disconnected socially and mentally from those around us. And it does not always involve ‘diversity’, but our own kinsmen.

Someone in a blog discussion said (paraphrased) that ”boomers” were a hindrance or impediment in our present crisis. The reason cited was that boomers think we still live in the days of an idealized America. But someone answered that the only two Supreme Court Justices who voted the right way in Trump’s Texas case were Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito — two ‘Boomers’. I don’t have to remind anyone that the President is a boomer also. I doubt the truthfulness of the idea that boomers are disconnected from reality, in an idealized vision of America. Some people have watched too much television or seen too many warped Hollywood movies that have influenced their idea of the past. The media have been gaslighting people for a long time, and the younger generations were especially targeted. The older generations lived in reality and were not glued to TV. Of the living generations the oldest were the ones who were most ‘realistic’ in their idea of the world. I think that is the natural course of things.

In these blog discussions it’s noticeable that as you go down the generations, the youngest seem the most cynical, expressing scorn or disbelief in a lot of things; they are more apt to disbelieve in what they read. It’s true that the media lie incessantly, sometimes by omission, deliberately not reporting things that don’t fit their leftist/globalist narrative. They also fabricate stories, reporting falsehoods knowingly.

Obviously there is good reason to distrust and avoid the ‘MSM’. But then with some people the disbelief and distrust extends to every source of information and news. I’ve known people whose first reaction to any news that’s unusual or out-of-the-ordinary is to say “I don’t believe it. That can’t be true!’ Nowadays there are a hundred rationales for rejecting whatever one hears or reads. It’s very popular in some circles to believe that actors (such as ”crisis actors”) are everywhere in the media; it’s all showbiz and the blood seen at accident sites is red paint.

Can we imagine our grandparents or even our parents reacting this way, and basically denying the evidence of their senses? It’s become disturbingly common not to believe your eyes and ears or your common sense.

Now it seem hard if not impossible to reach a consensus in discussing a situation because everyone seems to have an idiosyncratic belief to which he or she holds. How do juries ever come to agreement these days? And speaking of legal decisions, I can only wonder how the Supremes came to their abrupt decision, seemingly without much discussion. There must be some idiosyncratic differences, with such a disparate group.

There are, sadly, more people who will say openly that they hate America. There certainly are things to dislike about our country, things to decry and lament — just as there are with the people closest to us, sometimes the people we love who are deeply flawed but yet we love them.

Those who were readers of my old blog may remember that I was a very partisan lover of America. To some people I’d be seen as what they so charmingly call a ”Patriotard”. It’s the sort of name that sounds as if it was coined by a sixth-grader. Whatever; I am capable of seeing the flaws, deep flaws, in my country. I won’t say the flaws in our system are to blame because the Founding Fathers warned us that our system was only designed for a ”moral and religious people,” and when were we last a moral or religious people? We are not anymore. There is an occasional fit of religiosity (which is not always genuine) and as for being moral, given that we can’t even bother with simple civility, how can we claim to be moral, which demands more of us?

I include myself as one of those who don’t live up to the ideals and standards which I say I believe in.

With all its flaws I am still a lover of my country, but above all, of the people, despite all the divisions and disagreements. If so many of us misunderstand or distrust one another, or dislike one another for petty reasons, how can we possibly coexist in the same space?

Because of our disunity we will find that we have to go through so much more turmoil until this situation is resolved. How long that will be, and how it can be resolved — ? That’s yet to be seen.

SCOTUS declines Texas case

The decision by SCOTUS not to hear the Texas case is disgusting though not unexpected. It’s been evident for some time that the newly-installed Supreme Court Justices were liberal and would vote with the liberals on the court. It’s a little ironic that the most reliably ‘conservative’ member of the Court is Clarence Thomas.

Just from sampling people’s opinions about the Court’s refusal of Trump’s case and hearing their thoughts about the situation in general, it seems there is a lot of pessimism and resignation on the part of some Trump followers; lots of people have their own ideas as to what President Trump should do, and how he should do it. When the “Crossing the Rubicon” option is mentioned a lot of people say he won’t do it, or is not capable of doing anything of the sort. Are those critics wrong? It’s easy to sit on the sidelines and tell others what they should do, but have any of us ever been in the situation POTUS is in right now?

There are some optimists out there who say it’s too soon to give up, and that there are still the individual states’ cases to be heard. I don’t know what the outcome will be and few, or none, of us can say with any certainty. That’s part of what is so troubling: the uncertainty. However, even though we don’t know exactly what will happen next, I don’t think it’s ever helpful or productive to dwell on all the obstacles and difficulties that might prevent the good outcome. I don’t think pessimism or cynicism ever helps. It leads to passivity or a sort of paralysis, an inability to act because we tell ourselves that all is hopeless anyway.

Yesterday I wrote about the ‘normalcy bias’ and I can see it appearing in some people’s comments online; they seem to think that even if the worst happens, we can just vote for some ‘real Republicans’ and then we can return to business as usual. It is pretty certain that voting Republican will not solve our problems; will any right-wing political party even be allowed in a future which might be even more left-dominated than what we have now? I truly think lots of Americans think we can have much of or America even under a political system in which we will be low man on the totem pole.

I don’t know if this is just normalcy bias or if it’s an indication that people do in fact know what kind of future may await us, and are in deep denial.

Texas is seriously discussing secession. Most Americans have a stubborn bias against that idea, labeling it as ”treason”. They see the ‘Union’ as a sacred bond, even more than the marriage bond, it seems — so they express anger at the idea of secession. However there are those who are willing to entertain the idea.

Texas, when it joined the Union, reserved the right to leave the Union and return to being an independent nation as it was before it was a State. Some ‘authorities’ of today deny that there is or ever was such a stipulation. I find today’s authorities less credible than those of the past; I wonder why? Could it be because it’s the fashion for the experts to lie these days? I notice when searching for articles about secession that I got many articles meant to discredit the idea of secession; “it isn’t Constitutional”, is the usual line, as if anybody cares about the Constitution these days anyway.

I don’t know if the censors will forbid us to talk about taboo subjects like seceding. And speaking of that, the fact that we are increasingly being told what we may and may not say should be a little hint to the denialists that we’re not in Kansas anymore, maybe not even in ‘America’. We’re in uncharted territory, and I’ve been saying that for years — but we’ve drifted far away from the America of a few decades ago.

What is next? We don’t know. I have my opinions about what will ensue if the left attains power. I can only hope and pray that our world isn’t irrevocably changed for the worse. And that may depend, in great part, on DJT.

Normalcy bias

We’ve all heard of normalcy bias; it’s one of those psychology terms, meant to explain the tendency of many people to ignore a danger, or an impending disaster. Usually people apply the term to people who, being warned of a coming natural disaster, like a hurricane, ignore the danger and tell themselves it won’t happen, or it will happen to some other town or area; not mine.

Now, however, it isn’t natural weather phenomena I’m thinking of, but man-made, political situations, human interactions, people who are on a collision course. I am seeing or hearing that a lot of Americans are affected by this normalcy bias, talking as if life will go on as usual, maybe with minor changes, in the near future, regardless of who holds the reins of power.

What I hear in a lot of people’s remarks is a hint of resignation. We can only adapt and adjust ourselves to minor annoyances or inconveniences; just go with the flow, play along. This sounds like the 21st century version of the ‘Silent Generation’, who lived by the phrase ‘Don’t Rock the Boat‘. Maybe that’s appropriate; I don’t know.

It could be that optimism is the right attitude rather than succumbing to the opposite; it could be said that this ‘normalcy bias’ is a form of optimism, and if the situation in question does in fact turn out to be less of a disaster, or if the hurricane luckily misses your town, then your normalcy bias, believing that it will never happen, has not misled you. But if the opposite is true, the ‘normalcy bias’ has blinded you to reality, and as a result you’ve been unprepared for the unpleasant events that have in fact proven to be real.

So with our current, politically precarious situation it’s hard to judge what will happen. More of the same? I am inclined to say yes, but is there no silver lining to the dark clouds? Some people, especially the online prognosticators, preach doom and despair but then the others believe life goes on unchanged or undisturbed.

Is there a middle ground between the two outlooks, a happy medium?

The fact is nobody knows the future, not even the best ‘pundits’ and bloggers. We can only do what we can while we can.