The title is over the top, as is the book. I do however love the title if the review, "Jung Love" ... just the kind of sophomoric humor that I know I'm not supposed to like, but do. Sort of like "Spinal Tap" ... whose appeal is becoming "more selective" ...
Much like Biden, who went to the basement to be on the same level as his core supporters, the dead, who don't care about energy, because they consume very little. At least they were really happy to mail in their votes.
The book is blatant hagiography fan mail ... much like the MSM "reporting", or lack thereof on the Biden "presidency". I hate the title, thought it is a proper warning -- Jordan is in no way a "messiah", nor does he claim to be. He is also totally not "savage" ... he is very compassionate and easily emotional.
Spectator is honest about the "fanboy" nature of the book, and the review is still useful as long as you keep that in mind. It does give some insight into the life of Jordan, his struggles both personally and publically as he fearlessly (and correctly) points out the dangers of the totalitarian left. Will that save us? No, but being aware of danger is better than being clueless -- even if you can't do much of anything to mitigate it.
We live in the age of one dimensional hype and marketing on all sides and everywhere. It is all leftist politics all the time. This book is on the other extreme.
Since I share Jordan's depressive nature, as well as to a lesser degree his drive (compulsion?) to read, study, and write, I somewhat share Prosser's possibly over compassionate and admiring view.
Prosser reminds me a bit of the Obama fawning groupies ... BO thought he WAS the "messiah" as did the MSM.
The linked is a nicely done remembrance of Vernon Jordan, a big time DC power broker, civil rights activist, lawyer, Democrat.
My main reason for posting is a comparison of how Democrats are often treated when they die by conservatives, vs how conservatives like Rush Limbaugh are treated by liberals and media when they pass.
We all have death in common, it is a great opportunity to show a bit of civility relative to political difference could maybe be dispensed with in the face of eternity.
Many left wing reactions though, tend to resemble Jack Nicholson's character in Batman.
When one side of civility dies, can the other be far behind?
The problem with this kind of thinking is that it imputes an agency to history that doesn’t exist. Worse, it assumes that progress is unidirectional. But history is not a moral force in and of itself, and it has no set course. Presuming otherwise embraces the dangerous tendency that the great English historian Herbert Butterfield dissected in his 1931 essay, The Whig Interpretation of History. Butterfield was writing about the inclination among certain historians to see the Reformation as a unalloyedly positive force—a secularizing, liberalizing movement that led inexorably to liberal democracy in the 20th century. Butterfield objected that this wasn’t at all how things worked. It was just a retrospective reading.
The philosophical term for this thought is eschatology, thus giving rise to a somewhat common intellectual conservative criticism of liberalism/progressivism as "immanentizing the eschaton". Marxism, Christianity and Progressivism often assume an inevitable "arc of history" to a wonderful final end. With Marxism and Progressivism, "the end/goal" is some sort of hazy "utopia", with Christianity it is the return of Christ.
Wokeism and Cancel Culture believe that they are part of this inevitable march.
Last Friday, [February 5, 2021] Donald G. McNeil Jr., a science reporter for The New York Times since 1976, and one of the mainstays of the paper’s coverage of the coronavirus pandemic—a matter of life and death for millions of people around the planet—was forced to leave the paper. “Dean and Joe” (Dean Baquet, the paper’s executive editor, and Joe Kahn, managing editor) announced to Times staffers that McNeil had cited a racial slur in a conversation with two high school students, and therefore had to go, since “We do not tolerate racist language regardless of intent” (italics mine; I will come back to those words later).
McNiel ran afoul of the "Woke/Cancel" culture, because he had used "the N-word" in reference to someone else being suspended for using "the N-word". It offended people, so he had to go -- offence is in the mind of the offended, that is the only "standard" in exactly the same way as "sexual harassment" is proven if the "victim" feels "harassed/offended", the "perpetrator" has to go.
The top link goes into more specific depth of the parallels of "Wokeism" to Stalinism.
This all seems so bizarre that it is hard to take is seriously, but they came for Kermit! If you are not a Muppet, you may feel secure, but if they can get Kermit, is anyone really safe?
We hear a lot about the evils of "whiteness" in these days of "wokeness". It is human nature to prefer "like" -- we are social beings with our natural urge being to prefer those most like us (our family), our community (the country mouse and the city mouse), our profession, and on and on. We by nature prefer our "group/identity". Historically, "Americans", or "Christians" were large groupings that superseded most other "identities". In the Civil War, "Northerner" and "Southerner" became identities that superseded being "American", with the results being less than optimal.
Identity politics seeks to divide on many factors -- race, sex, wealth, etc. The "old ideas" of things like Western civilization, the Constitution, the two parent family, Christianity are "white, racist, sexist, etc" ... BAD! The goal of identity politics is to divide and conquer.
In the view of the left, this human "preference for same" is a beautiful thing when it used by people "people of color" or other approved "identities" ( women, gays, trans, etc ). Increasingly since the late 1980's, the concept of "whiteness" is a new branding of old terms like "conservative, Christian, or Republican". (for the left, all synonyms for "bad")
Here is a discussion from the linked.
The notion of whiteness emerged from debates among academic leftists near the end of the Reagan/Bush era. They were wrestling with the old American political anomaly: why working-class whites supposedly voted against their own interests by failing to embrace socialism. The recent appearance of Reagan Democrats and growing working-class support for the Republican Party had been a particularly galling development. Alexander Saxton’s The Rise and Fall of the White Republic: Class Politics and Mass Culture in Nineteenth-Century America (1990), followed closely by David R. Roediger’s The Wages of Whiteness: Race and the Making of the American Working Class (1991), attempted to tackle this “problem” with a new perspective. “Whiteness,” each book claimed in its own way, explained all.
I like the idea of "Whiteness" as a "white whale" (and I hope it is as unsuccessful as Ahab) . I see Whiteness as an obsessive desire to destroy the foundations of Western civilization.
Whiteness, according to this pervasive left-wing narrative, inspires and shapes all problems in the United States, which therefore must be relentlessly racialized in order to root whiteness out. As one critic who accuses Greek and Roman classical texts of undergirding a Western civilization of racial repression recently put it, “Classics and whiteness are the bone and sinew of the same body; they grew strong together and they may have to die together.” To such ends a flotilla of progressive Ahabs grimly pursues the whale of whiteness into every inlet and channel of American life with political harpoons poised and ready to strike.
"Whiteness" is more or less a new version of the old cry of "racism" -- it is another all purpose smear that can be thrown at anyone at any time, and if they complain it is not a valid charge, that is tacit admission that the charge is valid!
"Dog Whistle Politics" gives a good description of the "White privilege / racist" attack. Whiteness is just newer and more generic.
The 1918 lethal flu started out mild like typical flu. The common flu (and colds) spread easily and don't kill their hosts ... or often don't even make them ill enough to stay home. All the better to let their hosts get out and spread better. The strains that are LESS lethal are naturally selected.
In 1918 europe however, the sick soldier was often sicker (cold, nasty trenches, etc) and was therefore transported to hospitals by healthcare workers. The sicker you were, the more likely you were to get transported and spread the flu. The MORE severe (and thus more likely to be lethal) strains were naturally selected.
Ridley (the author of the column) is smart and quite humble (I've read books and other articles by him) -- he admits to making mistakes, unlike our "experts" and mass media.
There is some evidence that the response to Covid may be causing selection of more severe (and thus more likely to be lethal) strains with the health system as a vector.
**IF** this is a factor, encouraging people to go and get tested (not a problem if you believe masks are very effective), and making them afraid enough that they are driven to seek hospitals for treatment.
If we allowed the general population to get out, the less severe strains would win the selection race.
As Ridley points out, we don't KNOW that ... it is a possibility.
If we were a free society with lots people thinking and discussing their thoughts, very little censorship (either overt or through shaming) of possibly "crazy" ideas, past experience would suggest that better ideas being "naturally selected" would win out.
In our current culture, the expression of thoughts like this article is likely to get you labeled as a "dangerous crank" and possibly "cancelled", or at least shamed.
Respect for actual free speech and diviersity of thought/discussion as a prime cultural value once "naturally selected" the old territory between Mexico and Canada as "exceptional".
Being able to civilly discuss and disagree is critical to human relations. We are all unique, and being comfortable in discussing our unique perspectives with others is as important part of faith, family and community -- the things that make life worth living.
The left in Wokeistan HATES those that have significant disagreement with them. BLM states it plainly -- "Silence Is Violence", and voiced disagreement is even worse.
The problem is not that we disagree. We are not suffering as a nation from healthy disagreement. We are suffering from a Tsunami of Hate emanating from the Democrat Party that seeks to demonize, criminalize and extinguish dissent from the 75 million supporters of Donald Trump. It is now official Washington dogma that to question an election result – something the congressional Democrats have done in the face of every Republican presidential victory since 2000 – is now “insurrection” and “domestic terrorism,” or the incitement thereto, and needs to be prosecuted and suppressed.
The whole linked article is well worth the read.
In order for people to continue to live with each other, there must be a decent level of "cultural memory". It isn't just "Democrats" that declared W Bush and Trump to not be valid presidents -- and thus worthy of being constantly attacked and threatened with or actually impeached, it was nearly the entire MSM, the "professional class" (especially legal), and the entire "educational" (indoctrination) system.
If something can't go on forever, it won't. A house divided against itself cannot stand.
"Forms vs Platforms" is the essential theme of the book.
The military is certainly about forming, as Mona included in her review; “If you hear that someone attended Harvard,” Levin offered at an American Enterprise Institute forum, “you may conclude that he or she is smart. But if you hear that they attended the Naval Academy, you’ll probably conclude that this is a serious person.” I'd suggest "Fortitude" if you don't understand that distinction.
Sadly however, the Harvard graduate is only "smart" in a narrow, very specific set of "excellency in perfectly punching the ticket" way. They met a very specific set of criteria -- and NOT going outside of that box (lest they be "cancelled")! "Common Sense" is certainly not even related to that ticket -- the "winners" usually end up being "Excellent Sheep".
Levin has a good section on "beyond meritocracy" that describes how we got into a set of elites that are all about performance without depth, and often arrogant, isolated, and fragile.
The family is the ultimate most universal "form" as we all know (and have experienced), and is described in the book, it is terrible shape in our time. Levin doesn't really face how to beat that problem -- nor does he tell us how. He hints at it on page 202, when he talks about "devotion" ... devotion to work, devotion to our organization ("institution"). "It calls on us to pledge ourselves to an institution we belong to unabashedly".
Can this be possible without religion? Pretty much all of my study of culture gives a sad and wistful, but assumed to be impossible wish for a return to faith -- in the West, generally Christian faith. The assumption is that this is impossible "because of Darwin". Perhaps, impossible for man, bout with God, all things are possible!
Since Levin has largely written off religion -- although he does mention that there is a SMALL hopeful movement to more religious orthodoxy (Amy Coney Barrett would be an example) he largely just lists some possibilities for reform of institutions. Educational, political, civic, etc.
My view, documented in MANY blog posts is that "the institution(s)" must be very close to "God, family, community, country" in that order.
On page 194, he puts his finger on THE problem -- a conflict of worldviews. The progressive worldview assumes a human as fully formed, requiring only to be liberated from oppression to be free. Man is viewed as "basically good, noble, etc" ... Rousseau was one of the founders of this view. "Moral Believing Animals" covers the "we are all stuck in our own box" problem very we.ll.
The alternate view, best expressed by Christianity, views man as fallen, requiring redemption and the Holy Spirit to reach his potential -- grounded in a supporting family, church, community and nation. It sees man as "clay" to be moulded by these institutions, and in the process of moulding, to be part of larger institutions -- a university, a profession, a "party", service organizations, etc.
Yuval is not so specific as to use Christianity as an example of what is needed, but I see it as an excellent model -- naturally, as well documented in the book, also largely in tatters today.
So if you pull out the foundation of God, can you build on "SOME truths we hold be self evident"? I don't see how, given the fact that there are two models that are in extreme conflict. The left, with man as god, basically good, and able to build "heaven on earth" on his own, and the right, with man as fallen, requiring the help of God to move to a better, though far short of "heaven on earth" existence" in this mortal coil.
My study shows many thinkers seeing the problem of what we have wrought with the "man is god" movement in the last couple centuries. Most see us as at a crossroads, where the choices are a return to God as God, or a totalitarian state where man (the government) is god.
Biden's liberal "christianity"? Well, no, what is happening is faith in "the thing".
Here we have a bit of detail in what sort of thing this faith is in:
When it was time for the homily, the Rev. Kevin F. O’Brien, the president of Santa Clara University and friend of the Biden family, compared Mr. Biden’s upcoming inaugural message to the words of Jesus.
“Your public service is animated by the same conviction,” he said, “to help and protect people and to advance justice and reconciliation, especially for those who are too often looked over and left behind.”
“This is your noble commission,” he said. “This is the divine summons for all of us.”
The actual Christian commission is found in Matt 28:
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
The article makes it clear that while there is a lot of "liberalism" in this faith, it is "Christian" in name only. Like the rest of our "culture", whatever "it" is, it is not culture, and certainly not "Christian". We live in an age of fake religion, fake culture, and fake virtue. What we have is increasingly real Fascism.
Practicing Christians that know Christ died on the cross to redeem us from eternal damnation, not to foster new social programs that attempt to make the government "God". He told his followers to feed the poor and other good deeds -- not to puff your chest because you voted to outsource your "good deeds" to the government.
There is still nothing new under the sun. "For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." Indeed ... and sadly in this world, mostly evil.
Reading the article shows just how far we have fallen from that tree.
President Biden, perhaps the most religiously observant commander in chief in half a century, speaks of how his Catholic faith grounds his life and his policies.
He may be "religious" and to some degree, even "Catholic" (to the extent that church abandons life, marriage, sexual morality, etc), but he is in no way Christian, unless he repents!
I have not taken the time to read the report yet, but I'm certain that given the people involved in developing it, and the organizations opposing it, it is worthy of attention.
A statement on what it is about:
The 1776 Commission—comprised of some of America’s most distinguished scholars and historians—has released a report presenting a definitive chronicle of the American founding, a powerful description of the effect the principles of the Declaration of Independence have had on this Nation’s history, and a dispositive rebuttal of reckless “re-education” attempts that seek to reframe American history around the idea that the United States is not an exceptional country but an evil one.
Mostly here as a link to other interesting posts on the subject line of "we oppose everything that doesn't worship us and our views (remember, under BLM, "Silence Is Violence")
The sensibility pervasive among our educated class — it is fair to call it the liberal sensibility — not only functions to obscure concrete actuality but works as a potent force for uniformity, eroding the sources of variety in order, as Minogue puts it, “to provide every man, woman, child, and dog with the conditions of a good life” as conceived by liberalism. Thus liberalism constantly endeavors to minimize or abolish conflict. Have men fought over differences in religious doctrine? How foolish: such differences are unimportant. But men have fought over honor. That too is irrational. Nations themselves seem to be an important cause of conflict. Let us then abolish them, and move toward an international world state. Racial conflict is virtually universal. Irrational again: there is no difference among races, though they differ in appearance. Conflict arises out of inequalities in wealth or nurture or education. We must extirpate differences here by abolishing aristocratic schools and so forth, and by progressive taxation.
The elite endorsement of BLM radicalism and tacit approval of street violence raise a vexing question: Why are society’s most powerful opinion-makers supporting a revolt against mainstream legal, political, and cultural institutions? Aren’t these elites themselves, in a real sense, the system? How is it that those so richly rewarded by our society have come to ally themselves with society’s angriest critics?
What are the elites searching for and at least declaring that they are finding? This from the linked taking a trip to Daniel Ortega's Nicaragua.
My fellow guests glared at me when I asked skeptical questions: What about the Sandinistas’ contempt for human and political rights? What about their attempt to turn the Catholic Church into an arm of the state? No answers came, and I began to suspect the motivations of hosts and their guests went beyond selfless concern for suffering peasants. Many had traveled to Central America on ideological pilgrimages with organizations such as Witness for Peace. As they recounted their experiences, their eyes lit up and their voices quickened, as if to say, “I once was lost but now am found.”
Leftism believes it is providing "redemption" to the liberal elite !
Sociologist Paul Hollander came to the United States after escaping from communist Hungary in 1956. Having first-hand experience with a totalitarian regime, he was baffled to encounter American intellectuals who were sympathetic to communism and endorsed its revolutionary aims. Some even championed Stalin, Castro, and Mao. Hollander saw that they were captive to an oppositional habit of mind, which led them toward a hypercritical repudiation of our nation’s institutions. Worse, this habit of mind led them to misperceive and idealize systems like the one he had fled, while overlooking or denying the virtues of their own society.
... and you shall know them by what they oppose. Opposition to "America" (really Western culture) has been transformed into virtue in the minds of the left.
Humans have an innate desire to seek redemption, to seek the sacred:
As if to vindicate Trilling and Hollander, amid the destruction, a new, quasi-religious source of meaning has sprung up. In a city where many churches remain closed in response to COVID-19, activists have barricaded a several-block area and erected a shrine to George Floyd. In describing the site, which has drawn pilgrims from around the nation, a local official unwittingly articulated the impulse at the heart of the adversary culture: “We have an obligation to keep sacred what is sacred.”
From this low point, it appears the "Adversary Culture" has "won" by devious means. What would you expect from a culture that reveres Stalin, Mao, Castro, Ortega, etc ?
My kitties have declared that I need to post this warning that the moose is NOT an "intelligent person", but a moose of little brain. Honesty is the best policy!
As a Confessional Christian, I was struck by this statement on page 7; "In religious belief and observance, it is not the large differences that count, but the small ones. The nearer someone is to me in his religious convictions, the greater my revulsion to the 'errors' which divide us".
At one level I agree -- at least for more conservative evangelical churches, splits over "issues" like "what conservative Christian university you support", and even more minor, like "you allow women to dress too stylishly" are common. I suspect the Amish have a lot of discussions about proper piety.
In this secular age, however, where Christians are a clear minority in the West, I find this to be "less true". I very much appreciate a monthly table talk at a local pub which usually is half Catholic and half Missouri Synod Lutheran. Both believe in the same creeds, and both agree on what are now considered by the secular culture to be "social" as opposed to "religious" differences -- abortion, gay "marriage", transgender, etc. Very civil and useful talks, however we still do not share the communion table. I see that as appropriate, however we are on the same side of the barricades in today's culture wars. As this book makes clear, culture is CRITICAL!
OTOH, it would be a more difficult (however maybe more valuable) if the discussion included a Baptist (or other "fundamentalist"), and an ELCA Lutheran (or other "mainline") Christian faith. The confessional churches generally agree on the social issues, and on the inerrancy of scripture, although they disagree on the specifics of the sacraments, and of course, the pope. The "mainline" faiths generally agree on the creeds to some degree, sometimes marginally on the "real presence" in the sacraments (though usually they practice "open communion"), where the confessional churches do not. Some of the more strict "fundamentalists" weight "be ye separate" as a more important admonition than "love even your enemies", which would seem to ban "shunning". Those who have left the particular "fundamentalist" faith usually fall far short of being "enemies". (there are certainly verses that can be taken to support "shunning") ... a topic not for this post.
It's complicated. In 1974, a personal "young love" relationship I had was broken up firmly by her Catholic dad. She was a good daughter that honored her father, so "that was that". Today, the mainline Christian faiths, and even many (most?) of the confessionals would take an "evangelical and catholic" union as "what a relief"! The "mainliners" might be slightly stressed by a gay or some sort of transgender union, but it would be highly unlikely they would not accept it -- significantly because there would be no question that the children would not respect the parents wishes, and would very likely shun them -- "Honor your father and mother" is very nearly a thing of the past.
From the mainline position, marrying a "conservative", or (Horror!) a Trump supporter, could lead to estrangement -- with a very high probability of estrangement if the parents were on the "confessional/conservative" side. In the modern world, "politics" and the secular humanist faith trumps all, especially family. That is one of the points of the book. Being woke is "morality", all others are deplorable, including your family. The secular IS the culture.
On page 32, we find; "Rational activity involves both ends and means. In a technological age we acquire increasing grasp of the means to our goals, and a decreasing grasp of the reasons we should pursue them". Amen.
"The mystery deepens In a consumer society, when all channels of social life are directed to consumption" ... [of things, of entertainment, of signalled "virtue", etc.]
The book assumes that religious belief is impossible for most of the general population in the Darwinist "Secular Age" -- at least for the intelligent/educated. Since I fail the intelligence test, my religious faith proves my stupidity from a secular view. The book asserts that "higher culture" is a possible replacement for religion, and that a continuation of culture demands a replacement, even if it is just living "as if" your life has eternal meaning. Scruton practices the Anglican faith -- this article goes into some depth on his fairly complex faith. I'm a lot less judgemental than the article -- my personal experience and faith include at least significant periods of doubt and practicing "as if" faith is a "solid rock", even in the dark nights of doubt and or despair. Sometimes it doesn't "feel" that way -- which is why practicing my faith in daily devotion and regular communion is critical. Even if it involves risk, as in the age of Covid.
Higher culture is classic art, classic, music, sculpture, architecture, etc ... read the book for more. I'm REALLY stupid (though attempting to study) in those areas. I'm bourgois to the core. Scruton has been one of my guides on that path ... though I'm a poor student.
The old Western "common culture", ("bourgeois") is a special object of hatred to the "post modern / woke". As we find on page 129, "Those who propose alternatives [to the bourgeois society], however never study them. They are led by hatred of the present to a blind faith in the benefits that will come from destroying it." A statement I could not agree with more.
To me, it seems like after seeing the USSR, Nazi Germany, North Korea, Communist China, Venezuela, etc -- in my mind, temporal examples of hell, the left says "yes, let's give that a try"! In a modern version of Milton, "I'm happy to live in hell as long as those damned bourgeois are punished"!
In the conclusion; "We have knowledge of the facts, knowledge of the means, but no knowledge of the end." I would add that the "facts" known by the left are purely materialistic. They are devoid of what makes us different from automata, ... any idea of "beauty, love, the soul, etc" is at best an inconvenience.
As a Covid "survivor" (for my wife and I it was the mild side of the flu), I observe something that I find interesting. Especially when I inform people that have been taking Covid especially seriously that we have "been there, done that", the response I commonly get is "I really hope that you don't suffer any of the long term effects that can come with Covid".
Yes, we were not that worried about Covid, due at least mostly to both of us having survived serious life challenges in the past few years (spinal cord injury causing initial neck down paralysis, brain infection requiring brain surgery, resulting in a period of not being able to recall my name). The biggest thing those challenges showed us is that we are NOT in charge. Our next breath (if it happens) is a gift from God if he so chooses. Gratefulness for Grace is our response -- we have been blessed to better realize how dependent we are on God.
When we recovered from our challenges, the near universal response when others were informed were along the lines of "wow, you must be really happy to have come out of that like you did".
I can't recall a single instance of "I hope you don't suffer any future bad effects because of what you went through", although I'm nearly certain that was pretty much a universal sentiment. Unstated because it was obvious -- like I hope the sun comes up tomorrow.
When a cancer survivor informs me that they have been cancer free for five years, so they have "made it", I have ZERO desire to say "well, I hope that is the case, but it CAN return, and of course there MAY be many negative long term effects from having survived cancer even if it doesn't return".
Why would it even cross my mind to say something like that, and why does it cross the minds of so many of those seeing Covid as a "defining issue"?
I have no pat answer, just some thoughts:
If you have mostly bought into the Covid narrative, any sort of real world counterexample is a threat to your accepted narrative, and that is bigger than common civility. The apparent fact of a real world "survivor" who experienced it as "mild flu" is just not acceptable in that world view. It MUST be challenged to maintain your virtue.
You have invested a lot in "being with it" on Covid ... lots of isolation, lots of masking, maybe even some mask shaming of others and some mask virtue signalling. You are smart, superior, and confident! Those who cast doubt on your virtue are to be pitied -- and it is your responsibility to inform them that they are NEVER to be free of worry about Covid. (well at least until the "science" shows that the vaccine is "100% effective").
As with everything in our divided "all is political" world, it is imperative to show that you are on the "right (left) side". ALL depends on that distinction. There are some so crazy on the "Covid denier" (well, they really don't deny there is a virus, but you know what I mean) side that they go to church, apparently literally wanting to kill others! One must take all measures you can to insure that there is no confusion as to which side you are on -- you are a Pharisee! JUST under the law of wokeness. You are thankful to science and wokeness that you are in no way in sympathy with those who have left the true way of Covid wokeness! They will be judged eventually -- even if it takes years. The after effects of allowing Covid to contaminate them will show the error of their ways! Perhaps they will be consigned to eternal damnation?
We **DO** have control! If we follow the mandated measures to avoid the contamination of Covid we WILL remain pure! We have faith in true science! We believe! The unbelievers are trying to tempt us to doubt -- they may not have actually had it. They may be lying, or perhaps their tests were done at an inferior "Red State" facility -- their "experience" is invalid! Our ideas are so good, they need to be mandatory! A mandatory world lockdown would have saved is all!
Certainly, nearly none of the "I hope you don't suffer in the long run" people have any of the thoughts from my bullets above consciously. They just have "a need" to attempt to get the "denier" to remain afraid at some level. "It is only right".
We ALL "know not what we do" in this vale of tears. That is why some of us crazies see weekly Holy Preaching and Holy Communion to be far more important than our next breath in this mortal coil.
Dalrymple tends to be wordy and a bit pedantic ... tendencies I have reason to sympathize with. He also seems to find and comment on writings that defy the "standard view", something I REALLY like.
Unlike less reflective observers, Custine asked why the Russian officials should have behaved with such a manner, keenly aware that men inhabit a mental and not just a physical world and that their conduct is determined by their thoughts about the world as they have experienced it. He surmised that these border officials had been deprived of all true discretion and were deeply fearful themselves of the power to which they were subordinate. Custine described them as "automata inconvenienced with a soul": a description true, perhaps, of all bureaucrats fearful for their jobs but truest of all where power is both arbitrary and completely centralized...
As a Christian observing a bureaucratized totalitarian culture, I find that description quite accurate -- although now, rather than just the bureaucrats, it is the entire masked masses. It is even more apparent as a China Virus "survivor" ( I've "survived" a lot of colds and flu in my 64 years as well - many more nasty than the much hyped China Virus), I realize that there is no escape from the derision of the automata. When you have no soul, your "virtue cup" needs to be very frequently recharged with expressions of compliance. The less "common sense" involved, the better!
Custine grasped that the propensity to deceive and to be (or to pretend to be) deceived lay at the heart of Russia's evident malaise. The maintenance of despotism depended upon this universal vocation for untruth, because without the fiction that the despotism was necessary, that it conduced to the happiness and well-being of all, and that any alternative would be disastrous, the subject population would cease to be controllable.
It really takes very few willing to stand up tyranny -- masks, gay celebration, transgender celebration, and increasingly, pedophilia celebration (like your Christmas ornaments, Epstein didn't hang himself). The problem is that humans have a built in urge to "fit in". Being Christian was once sufficient reason to be lion food, and Christianity grew. Then it became dominant, and actually following Christ became reason to be burned at the stake (an "advancement" from lion chow). Dominance breeds cruelty. The non-compliant must be punished "for their own good!" If the punishment is not creating compliance, then more severe punishment is required "for the good of all".
Thankfully, sometime around gas chambers, Gulags, trenches full of bodies, etc, the God given natural resistance tends to kick in and kill the totalitarian leviathan. Unfortunately, as in the case of disease, it can take quite a bit of time, and the body count can be high.
Sadly, mass media and technology in general allow despotism to prevail even in the face of significant resistance. In the 2020 US "election", 70 million people desired an end to the bureaucratic charade. No matter -- at least hundreds of thousands of manufactured "votes" allowed the tyranny to deepen. It very much appears that the tide of totalitarianism in Wokeistan will not be reversed by mere democracy -- it will require "other means".
For the whole elaborate charade of despotism to work, for the pretense that the despotism is both indispensable and conducive to the welfare of all, everyone must appear to believe in it—including the despot himself.
The bureaucratic / media complex was able to invalidate the votes of 70 million -- as of so far, the 70 million seem to believe that a continuation of what they voted against is not worth the "immune system cost" of killing the despotic infection.
Often, when infection is allowed to fester, the cost of destroying it becomes even greater. The Lord will prevalent is inevitable, however the wages of sin can be very costly.
The Democrat/MSM complex is highly skilled in "spin" ... from the subtle to the very obvious.
Again, I can’t talk too much about the details of the case even though others may have violated their oath I’m not going to violate mine, but the Axios story made it absolutely clear that no information was ever shared, except, Jim, the people who did share classified information were the people who leaked this story. And to do that against a critic of the president, they may think that they’re going to silence me. They are not going to silence me but what they are going to do is they are going to make others think twice when they are asked to sit down and provide defensive information about people like this.
The Democrat/MSM complex is a lesson in mendacity. If this came out against a Republican, the "Whistleblower" would be a courageous saint"!
Imagine living in a country where supposed "law enforcement" organizations spy on political opponents and then attempt to prosecute them.
That is the "country" (lawless territory" that "live" (masked and locked down) in.
VDH is always good -- he has predicted this for a long time, as have I. Neither he nor I predicted it would be a largely fake "pandemic" (not the virus, but the response to the virus) that lit the fuse, but so it was.
Well worth your time, my favorite paragraph:
In other words, as is the case in former Third World countries, America’s criminal justice system became warped. Now there was good and bad looting, permissible and outlawed arson, correct and incorrect resisting of arrest, and quarantine-violating mass rallying and mass rallying that is exempt from lockdowns. Carving out a swath of autonomy for rioters and looters in downtown Seattle proved legal; had a row of restaurants and bars done the same to be allowed to serve the people, they would have been fined, closed, and likely jailed.
For the left, "They may be criminals, but they are OUR criminals"!
As I continue my reading of Anna Karenina, the issue of "trust" looms large. Prince Stepan "Stiva" Arkadyevich Oblonsky is the classic middle aged husband, tired of his wife, having an affair with a younger woman. Once the affair is discovered, the wife's (Princess Darya "Dolly" Alexandrovna Oblonskaya) trust in the marriage is gone, but in the interest of the children, and her being convinced by others that "this is just how it is", the damaged marriage goes on.
This is the outcome the Democrats are hoping the nation is willing to accept. Much like Hillary with Bill, even after years of known affairs, "other considerations" (power) demand the lie be continued. The 1960 election was handled this way ... the fraud was accepted as "the way things have to be". For Republicans, the acceptance of cheating is a mix of a desire for stability, greed for their investments, and of course wishful thinking that "maybe it isn't as bad as we know it is ... we still have a country". Accepting Original Sin, and the hope of God's intervention, makes us slow to anger.
There is always a certain amount of fraud in human systems, as I blogged on in 2008 on the Madoff scandal in finance. Galbraith called this "the Bezzle":
So, we have a crash, and when we have a crash, what John Kenneth Galbraith called "the Bezzle" comes out. Guys like Madoff (or Enron for that matter) and a whole bunch of others do GREAT as long as everything goes up. If things go down, the loss of the "shady billions" makes the bad situation worse much as it made the good situation SEEM better on the way up. The money Madoff "had" was double counted -- he claimed to have it, and all his investors thought they had it as well. Really, like the value of over inflated homes and stocks, it only existed as long as the confidence was there. That is why they call a lot of swindles "confidence games".
Now, the confidence is fast being unwound from the worldwide financial and business systems, and we have an incoming president that is a complete blank slate -- Bzero. Fed funds rate at zero, short term treasuries at zero -- how many zeros are we going to go for here?
In the world financial system, we "covered the Bezzle" with massive debt and largely hidden iflation, but that is a story for another day.
Like the ongoing marital affair, or the Ponzi scheme, people "want to believe in what looks good to them". Even when it becomes obvious, even to themselves, they are afraid of what will happen if it "comes out", and they wishfully hope that will be "never". In "Anna", Alexei Alexandrovich Karenin, Anna's husband is a great literary example of this -- ignoring the obvious, and then working hard to keep it from being known.
Some of us lost confidence, or rather had complete confidence as Tolstoy did, that a core feature of humanity is wishful thinking coupled with our fallen mendacity, meaning we are always "flirting with disaster" on scales large and small. In this case, the future of our nation.
So now we know.
Republicans have been the witting and unwitting partners in the sham of American "elections" certainly since 1960, but really since long before -- Boss Tweed, Mayor Daley, and countless others. The faithless Democrats have maintained that "election fraud never happens" and fight any attempts to insure that it didn't/doesn’t happen tooth and nail. In fact they continue to create new anenues for mail in “voting” to encourage it. The Bezzle is a core of their operation. Nobody really knows what will happen if/when the Beale comes out of the election system, but Democrats certainly fear what will happen, as they know it is there, and they know it is big.
It desperately needs to be faced, even if that means a national divorce, war, a massive international crisis, or whatever "bad unknown". Like death, it is reality, and reality always wins.
What struck me — and I think a lot of people — about actress Ellen Page’s announcement that she was now a man named Elliot was the po-faced self-seriousness with which the media accepted the lunacy. She’s a man, but she’s queer, but she’s with a woman, because she’s a lesbian, only she’s a man lesbian. Right-ho! Let’s get to work changing the credits on her old films because this is leftism, after all, and history itself has to be erased and rewritten to reflect the current nonsense.
Got that? A gay woman, married to a woman has decided she is a man.
It reminds me of 1982's "Victor Victoria" ... a woman pretending to be a man pretending to be a woman.
The decline and fall of the Roman Empire was really rather sane compared to our demise.
Douthat does a more intellectual expose on our "Decadent Society" in his book, but Ellen/Elliot pretty much covers it ... if not. see pics below. The left is the "male" Pennsylvania health secretary, the right is Ellen/Elliott.
Thinking this is not serious? Increasingly. the trans folk are pushing to make "misgendering" a hate crime. How is that for serious? Consider that at least one site believes there are 33 genders.
So if the two above commit a crime, the left goes in with the girls and the right goes in with the guys. Hope "he" is tougher than "he" looks.
Ah, the "woke" ... they are so intelligent that they can't figure out what bathroom to use.
The linked article is about mask shaming and its use to deny freedom of association. Trust me, at least in on strange mind, there is a relationship.
The picture indicates to me that it is hard for a "normal male" (evil in these "woke" times) not to notice pretty women confident in their femininity. Are conservative women in general are more attractive? Kristi Noem comes to mind, but a glance at the winning Republican congresswomen this cycle seems to indicate something of a general rule.
Yes, I know there are many physically attractive leftist women, however it seems that often their physical attractiveness is overshadowed by their screeching demands for fealty to their political beliefs, which are in direct opposition to their exploiting their physical beauty while declaring at least male appreciation of such to be sexist. The fake is inherently unattractive when exposed.
I'm finally reading Anna Karenina. I read a lot, but very little fiction, and even less romance. Psychology, culture, and especially the interplay between our physical and spiritual nature, are however of significant interest, and in those areas, Anna just kept showing up as a "must read" - it is easy to see why.
A paragraph that struck me is:
Vronsky heard with pleasure this light-hearted prattle of a pretty woman, agreed with her, gave her half-joking counsel, and altogether dropped at once into the tone habitual to him in talking to such women. In his Petersburg world all people were divided into utterly opposed classes. One, the lower class, vulgar, stupid, and, above all, ridiculous people, who believe that one husband ought to live with the one wife whom he has lawfully married; that a girl should be innocent, a woman modest, and a man manly, self-controlled, and strong; that one ought to bring up one's children, earn one's bread, and pay one's debts; and various similar absurdities. This was the class of old-fashioned and ridiculous people. But there was another class of people, the real people. To this class they all belonged, and in it the great thing was to be elegant, generous, plucky, gay, to abandon oneself without a blush to every passion, and to laugh at everything else.
It appears that there is something like "human nature" that demands a class structure, and generally the pride/arrogance of the upper class.There can be the occasional just and moral king, but that is the exception. There are similarities to the classes in Anna to the classes today. The lower class maps to at least the upper class imagination of the "deplorables". The upper class is much like today's "woke elite". The biggest difference is that the upper class in 1878 Russia was not yet using the power of government to overtly oppress the lower class by removing their devotion to religion, morality, family and community, as the soon to come Communist party would quickly do.
As I'm fond of saying as a computer scientist devoted to binary, "there are two classes, those who divide the world into two classes, and those who don't".
In a more or less free and "natural" society people "sort" by a complex set of factors, some "good", some "bad" ... we won't go into that complexity here. The point is that it really isn't binary, there is lot more complexity than "two".
As a culture shifts toward totalitarianism, it becomes more and more binary and the binary categories become more and more mandatory -- as in the ideas that are declared to be "good" -- eg wearing/not wearing a mask, celebrating various sexual preferences, genders, etc, or not celebrating such, fealty to "The Party" (Democrat, globalist, woke, etc), or "deplorable", etc.
The list goes on and becomes both more and more oppressive and foundational. Everything becomes political, and everything is mandatory -- thus in the mind of the oppressors, "good".
A young single female police officer gets 10 years for 10 ten stitches to a suspect because she "released her police dog early". The "incident" was 5 years previous, the FBI went after her after a WaPo article, and railroaded a conviction and ridiculously long sentence.
Read it and weep. It is a testament to human courage that we have any police at all!
