City of God, Saint Augustine

The biggest reason that I took on the immense challenge of making it through this work is "perspective".  Rome was sacked by the Visigoths in 410, Augustine began this work 3 years later in 413 and did not complete it until 426.

Rome had BEEN "civilization" for a thousand years prior, and naturally in 410, St Augustine and his peers believed they were living in "modern times", all be it a time of great change and disruption at the ending of a thousand-year reign which they had assumed would last forever.

The work is remarkably lengthy and wordy (867 rather small type pages in my copy) and decidedly NOT an "easy read". I must say though that the sheer volume and many asides and references to other scholars of the day give an insight into the intellectual life of the very elite of that day that feels important in a way that is hard to express. Perhaps the difference between walking across the US vs flying over it in a jet?

 I will include this one rather lengthy quote as an example of the style and the fact of "every age believes they are modern" ... and highly superior to those that have gone before. Note the reference to "less educated ages", but interestingly from the perspective of "only 600 years"! How much more arrogant we have become in our day -- we are nearing the 500th anniversary of the Reformation in 2017, yet it is hard to imagine someone asserting ONLY 500 years! Today, the year 2000 seems "ages ago" to many of our clickbait attention spans. 

It is most worthy of remark in Romulus, that other men who are said to have become gods lived in less educated ages, when there was a greater propensity to the fabulous, and when the uninstructed were easily persuaded to believe anything. But the age of Romulus was barely six hundred years ago, and already literature and science had dispelled the beliefs that attach to an uncultured age. And a little after he says of the same Romulus words to this effect: From this we may perceive that Homer had flourished long before Romulus, and that there was now so much learning in individuals, and so generally diffused an enlightenment, that scarcely any room was left for fable. For antiquity admitted fables, and sometimes even very clumsy ones; but this age [of Romulus] was sufficiently enlightened to reject whatever had not the air of truth. Thus, one of the most learned men, and certainly the most eloquent, M. Tullius Cicero, says that it is surprising that the divinity of Romulus was believed in, because the times were already so enlightened that they would not accept a fabulous fiction. But who believed that Romulus was a god except Rome, which was itself small and in its infancy?

The work starts with a lengthy defense of Christianity against the charge made by many in that day that failure to pray to the gods of Rome due to the conversion to Christianity was the cause of the city being sacked. It then discusses the "City of God" -- the Church, vs "The City of Man". Secular government all in MUCH detail, with references to Plato and other Greek thought which start The Church on a path of melding Greek Philosophy (especially Plato) and reason into Christian theology. This "Hellenization" of Christianity is the major historical effect of this work.

At its simplest, it is the story of the city of man -- selfish, mistaking means with ends, worshiping the temporal, attempting to glorify the profane physical human. The story of war, death, destruction and eventually eternal pain.

And of the City of God -- selfless and caring, realizing that the end is pre-ordained and guaranteed by the blood of Christ (the 2nd Adam) to be perfect. Glorifying only God. The story of Grace, Peace, Faith, Love slowly traveling in a path known only to God to perfect union, Love and bliss for all Eternity.

It is not a book that I would necessarily recommend for most -- it is CERTAINLY not "efficient", and one would be well served by skimming and focusing on key chapters -- say "books" 14, 19 and 22. If you desire a worthy challenge however, and want to be rather humbled by perspective, I do believe that you will find yourself rewarded!

The Innocence of Pontius Pilate: How the Roman trial of Jesus shaped history

The book is a marvelous introduction to some great thinkers that at least I was not aware of, and the relevance of Pilate's innocence or guilt to the separation of church and state, and much else in Western European history. 

Here is a link to a more extensive review.

One of those thinkers new to me is Hugo Grotius, whose influence in Western thought is vast. He is the instigator of "the law of the sea", and also the laws of warfare. Philosophers heavily influenced by his thought include Hobbes, Pufendorf, Thomasius, and Rosseau. His thought even influenced the post USSR world order, and some declared the 1990's as "a Grotian moment". 

My memory was restored as to the meaning of the inscription Pilate wrote above Christ on the cross. My memory had "King of the Jews". While aware of seeing "INRI" on crucifixes, I recall looking it up and forgot it long ago.  It is the acronym for Iesus Nazarenus, Rex Iudaeorum in Latin, translating to English, as “Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.” (so, I award myself half a point for "in the ballpark"). The "Titulus Crucis", Latin for “Title of the Cross,” is important because it is the statement of the official reason for why the person was crucified. Some claim that Jesus was actually an insurrectionist, and that is why he was crucified. If that was in fact the reason, it seems impossible that a Roman governor would not state that reason in the Titulus. 

Another area of knowledge that I have curiosity about but have not looked into is the idea of holy relics, so important at the time of the Reformation. It is obvious that many were forgeries created to either provide "evidence" of the life of Jesus and his crucifixion, or simply to make money.  The search for the Holy Grail relic, covered in the Indiana Jones movie is one example many are aware of, and I'd put the Shroud of Turin, as an example of a purported relic that exists, and its authenticity has been a subject of attempted scientific verification. 

Possibly, a piece of the cross with the inscription exists, and is currently displayed. Such things are naturally appealing to humans attempting to "prove/disprove" Christianity, or just basic curiosity. Like Thomas, I understand the yearning for proof, but pray that my faith will be sufficient to receive the blessing of John 20;29 "Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

On page 145, there is a reference to Augustine's "City of God against the Pagans". I read and reviewed this massive work back in 2015. To ridiculously summarize; "City", and also the primary significance of the crucifixion to Western secular history, when Jesus told Pilate "My kingdom is not of this world", the idea of there being a kingdom outside the world was radical. Kingdoms had always had a state religion, and although the Romans attempted to assimilate the religions they conquered, the Roman state and its gods were one. The emperor was THE authority and considered a god. 

"And what are these "cities"? Behind the visible screen of global history, Augustine posits (or intuits) the dim presence and cryptic influence of a divine city that is headed by Christ, and constituted by7 love of eternity, and a human city that is seduced by Christ's adversary, Devil, and constituted by a love of the saeculum or present age."

Chapter 4 introduces us to Dionysius Exiguus (who created the BC/AD system (so hated by those who detest Christianity and its foundational importance for Western civilization), and Pope Gelasius I, the first pope called "the vicar of Christ" and is a critical person in the rupture of the Roman church creating the church of Constantinople (Orthodox) in 1054.

Chapter 15 brings us to the thinking of Dante relative to Pilate and the Crucifixion. 

"Who is Jesus' judge per Dante? Pontius Pilate. -- Nothing less than the redemption of the world hangs on the fact that as Dante writes, the sufferings of Christ were inflicted by an authorized judge. To deny this, for Dante is to deny the Christian faith". 

We are also introduced to "The Great Refusal", an error attributed in Dante's Inferno to one of the souls found trapped aimlessly in the vestibule of Hell. Trapped because of the refusal to make a crucial decision he was required to make. Pilate is one of the candidates trapped in that vestibule for eternity. 

 I'll leave my review at this point. The idea of "innocence" in the sense of the book title is a legal idea ... difficult to ascertain because the earthy "authority" at the crucifixion was Roman and Jewish, with Rome being superior. Other than an academic tracing of a lot of history explaining how the Crucifixion and the judgement involved shaped both the Christian church and Western civilization, the book will interest few beyond academia. 

Legally, Pilate is guilty of not doing his duty. He was the authority with the power to rule, and he merely stood by and let Jesus be crucified -- by Roman soldiers, not Jews. Since neither Pilate or the Jews believed that Jesus was the Messiah, neither can be guilty of "deicide" in a secular/legal context.

 The charge of Jewish deicide based on the Jewish crowds' statement "His blood be on us and on our children!" has sadly been used to justify a lot of antisemitism by Christians. 

As we pass from Lent to Easter, it is important to know that all of humanity are guilty in the crucifixion through our original and many subsequent sins. Those passing judgement at the crucifixion didn't know Christ was the Messiah, we do. We are without excuse. 

Ideas Have Consequences

Richard Weaver Explained Our Cultural Predicament Over 70 Years Ago | The Russell Kirk Center

I've read and reviewed this book at least three times and pulled it out for reference a few times most years. The review linked above is excellent, and while everyone left or right ought to read the fairly short book, not reading the linked review is hard to forgive. 

This book was first published in 1948 and it is scary to see how far we have tumbled down the predicted cliff toward the ultimate demise of Western Civilization since then.

Weaver points out that without first principles, there is no way to know where we went astray or why, and he is very clear and simple on the causes.

"This was a change that overtook the dominant philosophical thinking of the West in the fourteenth century, when the reality of transcendentals was first seriously challenged."

Since man moved away from the idea of transcendentals to the idea that "man as the measure of all things", the Whig theory of history quickly developed -- "the belief that the most advanced point in time represents the point of highest development".  Today this banner is carried by "progressives" -- the firm belief that a drop of hootch excreted from the still today is better than 40-year-old Scotch.

"For four centuries every man has been not only his own priest, but his own professor of ethics, and the consequence is an anarchy which threatens even that minimum consensus of value necessary to the political state." 

At least he isn't always his own bartender! Weaver links transcendentals primarily back to Plato, although the connection with religion obviously seeps through. For the common man, the doctrine of Christianity is what would be infinitely more beneficial to both the eternal soul and temporal existence here on earth than the worship of the relativist pagan state.

"The issue ultimately involved is whether there is a source of truth higher than, and independent of man; and the answer to the question is decisive for one's view of nature and the destiny of humankind.  The practical result of nominalist philosophy is to banish the reality which is perceived by the intellect and to posit as reality that which is perceived by the senses."

"The denial of everything transcending experience means inevitably -- though ways are found to hedge on this -- the denial of truth. With the denial of objective truth there is no escape from the relativism of man is the measure of all things .... The witches spoke with the habitual equivocation of oracles when they told man that by this easy choice, he might realize himself more fully, for they were actually initiating a course which cuts one off from reality. Thus began the "abomination of desolation" appearing today as a feeling of alienation from all fixed truth". 

"Nominalist" meaning denying that things that transcend the physical universe exist. ("matter" is all there is) Not simply however "god" -- since our own abstract thoughts and to some degree language stretch the old meaning of "physical".

It is a book I could go on and on quoting from, but that breaks my promise to explain what the book means to me and encourage others to read it.

Ideas set humans apart and make us what we are. When we are focused at the highest levels of our brain --- reason, abstraction, ultimate, patterns, relations, connections, etc., we are most human in the sense of unique from animals -- with an eternal soul, a soul that wants those transcendentals. It drives us to look for ultimate and eternal causes, the explanation for WHY things are as they are.

When I was in college, a favorite professor described the difference between the university and the vocational school up the hill as basically "Down here we learn WHY the computer works as it does, up the hill they learn only HOW to operate or program following a specific path, not the reason why that path may be optimal, easy, efficient or what alternatives there are to the specifics being taught".

When there are no transcendentals (ultimate reasons "why"), it is hard to defend one view from another, and we arrive at "my truth and your truth". It is all relative -- it is todays sense data that counts, because it is assumed that is all there is. The physical shared reality (although that is less certain than it once was). We may be able to do a lot of "technology", but as is also covered in the book, much of it will only do more to distract us from that which is of ultimate value.

"Ideas" is a critical book about first principles to understand the universe, our place in it, and how to reach for "the good life", as in the spiritual life that has eternal meaning (although it is not a "religious" book).

"Ideas" is a cornerstone of what I'm re-reading and attempting to weave together as my personal "Canon of Christian Conservatism" at this point in my life -- the basis of what I have come to believe about life, the universe and everything! It was previously discussed here, as well as here.

At its base "Ideas" is "God" (transcendence), Yes or No, and what is likely to happen to both you and your civilization depending on how you choose!

The linked review closes with this, and I shall as well; 

A year before he died, Weaver wrote that “[t]he past shows unvaryingly that when a people’s freedom disappears, it goes not with a bang, but in silence amid the comfort of being cared for. That is the dire peril in the present trend toward statism.” Sixty years later, the trend Weaver feared has further advanced in all Western countries. He did not live to see the progressives of the 1960s gradually infiltrate and takeover in the West’s cultural institutions and produce a cultural decay that makes the world of 1948 seem like a glorious age of conservatism. And he did not live to see the culture of abortion on demand, euthanasia, widespread acceptance of pornography, the sexualization of children, the normalization of deviance, and other maladies that afflict our contemporary world. Ideas–especially bad ones–do, indeed, have consequences.

The Age Of Reagan: The fall of the old liberal order, Steven Hayward

 https://www.amazon.com/Age-Reagan-Liberal-Order-1964-1980/dp/0307453693

I'm an unabashed Power Line blog, and especially Steven Hayward fan. Steve has written a number of books, this one, "The Age Of Reagan" covers the period from 1964 to 1980. 

Being born in '56, this covers my childhood since I entered Kindergarten in the fall of 1960 at the age of 4 (turning 5 in October). I've been behind my age cohort ever since. 

The book is 717 pages long, but Hayward is an interesting writer. While Reagan is often the focus, the book is really the tale of how LBJ and Jimmy Carter crippled both the country and the Democrat "liberal" order, thus creating the Reagan presidency and significant change in US foreign and domestic policy that consigned the USSR to "the ash heap of history", and ignited a US and world economic boom that lasted until Obama in 2008. Trump was able to create a bit of a "boomlet" from 2017-Covid, and then Biden in a "It's deja vu all over again" trip back to '70s stagflation, sinking stocks, global military peril, and "leadership" you can cry over. 

On page 52, there is discussion about how Johnson used the CIA, FBI, etc to spy on the Goldwater campaign. E Howard Hunt of the CIA would reprise the role in the '72 Nixon campaign. Then, as we see now with the Russia Hoax, Hunter Biden Laptop, etc the use of the "justice" department for political purposes is a very old strategy for the Democrat party, as in Watergate. Republicans have attempted to engage in it as well, but the Deep State is an enemy of Republicans, because no matter how ineffective they are at reigning in the Administrative State, they have tried, which makes them "dangerous to democracy",  which from the POV of Democrats and their allies in the Administrative State, is "dangerous to single party rule" (their version of "democracy") 

Nixon's 2nd term, and the election of Trump to a 2nd term were "existential threats" to the Deep/Administrative State, so all means were of attack were justified. If the ironclad hold of the Deep/Administrative State was loosened a bit, their powers might not be total anymore, and Americans might see some actual truth about what has been happening for a long time. That MUST be prevented!

on page 123, there is a great "adventures in irony" tale. Ernesto Miranda, the defendant in the famous case was stabbed to death in an Arizona bar. The police detained a solid suspect, who stating his "Miranda Rights" refused questioning and was released. The case was never solved. 

Johnson never really cared about Vietnam, and he assiduously avoided calling it a "war", to not offend China or the USSR. You can LOSE a war, but "Peacekeeping" and  Nation Building" are just nice moral actions which may kill 10's of thousands of American troops, and many times that number of "allies" and "enemies", but at least you didn't start a "war" or "lose". Afghanistan is another great example, and our panicked exit was a duplicate of our embarrassment in Vietnam. 

What he cared about was his massive spending to "finish FDR's work"  by a massive Administrative State welfare program called "The Great Society". The government engaged in "The War On Poverty". As with many leftist ideas, it's promises were grand, it's results were disaster. Both the poor and the American taxpayer lost, and continue to lose that war as well. 

On page 293,  a statistic that explains a lot of things is revealed. The total cost of the decade long moon landing project was less than three months of federal social program spending in 1969! Mondale especially hated the "waste" of money in the Apollo program, but loved the "Great Society". 

The sad joke of the Carter presidency is sadly documented. One of the items that presages where we are now was Carter's appointment of Andrew Young to be Ambassador to the UN. Young was on record saying that the destruction of Western civilization was required for the world to emerge as a "free. and brotherly society". He would ramble on about all the racist US leaders. When asked if that would include Abraham Lincoln, he responded "especially Lincoln". 

Page 572 brought back memories of some of the frigid weather of the 1970's. In '75, the NAS made an almost unanimous report that we were headed quickly for an ice age! Anyone that did not believe the science was of course beyond stupid. I was in my 2nd year of college, and given the glacial effects in N Wisconsin, Lake Superior, and the observed tens of thousands of years cycles of ice ages  ... it DID seem quite likely, and frankly still does. Just not in the next few hundred years. 

Being in college and joining IBM during the "Great Malaise" of the Carter years made me a Republican after a youth where everyone I knew was a Democrat because "Republicans were the party of the rich" ... we certainly were not rich, so the choice was obvious. Carter was the last Democrat I voted for ... I was "mugged by reality", and Reagan cemented my choice of becoming reality vs narrative based.  

The combination of the "War on Poverty" and "The War In Vietnam", was essentially a "War on the United States" which many of the left then, and still today thought to be very good idea. On page 193, 

"...what happens when the financial system is backed by a central bank promising redeem deposits in gold? If a crisis of confidence occurs, then you have run on the banks, but a run on the whole countries currency and gold reserves. This is what happened in 1968. The episode brought to an abrupt halt to the lofty promise of "growth liberalism" or "the new economics", and set the stage for rising inflation and economic instability that took 20 years to remedy." 

Carter, Obama and Biden prove that ideologues never learn. When you believe that more government and more spending are the answer to whatever seems to be the problem, that is what you do. Democrat spending is like bloodletting, a standard practice for 3000 years. It was a major tool in the medical box, and if it failed,  doctors were suspicious it was not administered soon enough or extensively enough. Democrats look at spending, especially the deficit brand, the same way. 

I loved both books because they brought back a lot of memories of my life from kindergarten to kids. If you have either and open or moderately conservative mind (or both) and are not afraid of thick books, highly recommended. If you are a confirmed leftist, this is history you want to erase so you can smugly keep on repeating it! 

 

Asimov's Guide To Shakespeare

 I couldn't find a good review of this book, and I believe I understand why ... Book 1 is 670 pages, Book 2 is 790. 

In the intro there is a reference to a fairly well known tale of a woman who read Hamlet and remarked "I don't see why people admire the play so, it is nothing but a bunch of quotations strung together". That is much less true of this book, however the lack iof general public comprehension of what they are reading is probably similar.

This book is much more history than "Shakespeare", although it does have a significant number of the more famous lines in it.  It focuses on the context of the period, what real or literary/legendary person the lines are likely referring to, and why.

Shakespeare was writing for both the common man as well as the wealthy aristocracy and royalty.  What a "commoner" needed to know about Greek, Roman, Italian, the Bible, English history, etc gives a little insight as to why even the "educated" our day, being "experts" of only their iPhones and the latest Netfix binge watch, have a hard time understanding why throwing a trillllion dollars into an "Inflation Rediuction Act" might cause some brows to raise. "Common Sense" is far from common today.

Also, if Shakespere had put in any obvious snark like I just did, he would likely be "cancelled" by literally losing his head. He was marvelously subtle with his little jabs. 

On Page 9, a helpful map of the Roman and Greek gods, with their role is presented. To cover a few of the more popular ones, in Greek we have Zeus, chief of the gods, Athena, goddess of wisdom, Ares, god of war. 

In the Roman version we have the corresponding Jupiter, Minerva, Mars ... you need to understand these references to keep up between the Roman and Greek plays. 

A very helpful page for those of us that don't have the memory of our youth, and received at best a very cursory understanding of the ancient world. Volume 1 covers the Greek, Roman, and Italian plays. The Italian plays are probably the most familar ... Love's Labor Lost, The Taming of the Shrew, The Two Gentlermen of Verona, Romeo and Juliet, The Merchant of Venice, Much Ado About Nothing,  As You Like It, Twelfth Night, All's Well That Ends Well, Othello, Measure For Measure, The Tempest. 

The book is loaded with inline cross references to where subjects are covered in the other plays, in order to better understand what is being covered ... the audience at the time of writing had a common understanding of the world they lived in, including the history, and had good memories ... uncluttered by shallow media entertainment.  

Asimov made a number of desisions as to how to present this vast environment to the modern reader, largely unaware of the world of Shakesphere. I think of it a bit as a kalidiscope of "worlds", with sometimes definite and sometimes completely fictional references to real, mythological, current, recent historical, fictional charachters invented for the story, etc. 

Asimov is in a way trying to put us into the Shakespere world  ... a BIT like todays "Marvel Universe", "Star Trek Universe", "Star Wars Universe", etc Think of a reference to "Captain Kirk" 500 years in the future. Yes, I know, that is shallow ... maybe "Winston Churchill", or maybe "Dostoevsky" would be a better example. 

The big differece is that while Shakespere is "fictional entertainment" it has much more connection to thew reality of the time. Maybe something like "The Crown" today. 

Do I recommend the book? To the common reader of today, I really can't, because they are likely to just be frustrated and lost. Certainly there are a decent number of people FAR more qualified than I to read and enjoy the work. Perhaps I'm an arrogant pessimist, I just don't think the audience to actually read it is very wide ... it does however look good on a shelf, unless it is full of tabs like mine is. 

Winston Churchill, Thoughts and Adventures

 https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2013/08/a-kind-of-dignity-and-even-nobility-winston-churchills-thoughts-and-adventures.html

The linked review is on the longlish side .... it certainly covers the book, so much so that you may as well read the book! It is a collection of articles he wrote before, during and after WWI. 

One of the reasons for picking this one out is that it gives a reasonably brief introduction to Churchill's entertaining, informative, and concise exploration of his life and history. 

An interesting quote, from page 71;

"The longer one lives, the more one realizes that everything depends upon chance, and the harder it is to believe that this omnipotent factor in human affairs arises simply from the blind interplay of events. Chance, fortune, luck, destiny, fate, providence seem to me only different ways of expressing the same thing, to wit, that a man's only contribution to his life story is continually dominated by an exterior superior power."

I know that "superior power", and the more I read Churchill, I believe he does as well ... my guess is that he realized that if he was open about his faith, he would be less effective as a world leader, but of course I really have no idea. 

One of the key articles covered in the book is "Fifty Years Hence", Which I believe is completely included from the web here..

I quote the last paragraph:

After all, this material progress, in itself so splendid, does not meet any of the real needs of the human race. I read a book the other day which traced the history of mankind from the birth of the solar system to its extinction. There were fifteen or sixteen races of men which in succession rose and fell over periods measured by tens of millions of years. In the end a race of beings was evolved which had mastered nature. A state was created whose citizens lived as long as they chose, enjoyed pleasures and sympathies incomparably wider than our own, navigated the interplanetary spaces, could recall the panorama of the past and foresee the future. But what was the good of all that to them? What did they know more than we know about the answers to the simple questions which man has asked since the earliest dawn of reason—’Why are we here? What is the purpose of life? Whither are we going?’ No material progress, even though it takes shapes we cannot now conceive, or however it may expand the faculties of man, can bring comfort to his soul. It is this fact, more wonderful than any that Science can reveal, which gives the best hope that all will be well. Projects undreamed-of by past generations will absorb our immediate descendants; forces terrific and devastating will be in their hands; comforts, activities, amenities, pleasures will crowd upon them, but their hearts will ache, their lives will be barren, if they have not a vision above material things. And with the hopes and powers will come dangers out of all proportion to the growth of man’s intellect, to the strength of his character or to the efficacy of his institutions. Once more the choice is offered between Blessing and Cursing. Never was the answer that will be given harder to foretell.

From the temptation and original sin to eat of the forbidden fruit, man has always been plagued  by an unquiet soul. He was created to live forever,  and deep down he realizes it, though he fears it, and often denies it. He is faced with the eternal choiced of "blessing and cursing" -- and without submitting (something he is often too proud to do) to the Grace of God, these are choices beyond his ability. 

For me, the big message of the book, shown by Churchill's many scrapes with death, and from this perspective of the then future, we know MANY more, hs is one of the representatives of "is there a divine purpose and plan"? The whole Bible screams YES! One barely needs to scratch the surface of reading history to see the countless examples of "what are the odds of that happening (or not happening)?"

Incalculable ... but for the atheist, all is random chance and coincidence. The cosmic roulette table of chance is their object of worship. If they ponder the science/probability of what they believe, the only valid conclusion is that they do not in fact exist.  

I've read a lot about Churchill, and a decent amount of his own writings. I could spend the rest of my life focused only on studying Churchill, even if my life is a long one! 

Among the many jewels in this book, I was struck by the chapter on Moses. Churchill is often claimed to be "close to an atheist" by historians, and he was  certainly not a "practicing" Christian. However God doesn't really say much about how one "practices" Christianity. He does talk of fulfilling the Law, which is not possible without the Holy Spirit. Luke 26-27 explains how to follow the Law: 

26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?

27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.

We all know John 3:16 ...

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

It doesn't say much about church at all. 

For ME, church is critical, since belief is not easy for me, I need a lot of help. The only unforgivable sin is unbelief. One of my frequent prayers is Mark 9:24  ... “I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief!” 

On page 214; "We believe that the most scientific view, the most up to date and rationalistic conception, will find its fullest satisfaction in in taking the Bible story literally, and in identifying one of the greatest human beings, with the most decisive leap forward ever discernable in the human story." 

He is referring to Moses, the "law giver", who is just the earthly voice of God. Christ is THE greatest fully human and fully God being who defines eternity  ... through Him, all things were made. 

A worthy read. 

All The Tea In China

 https://www.nyjournalofbooks.com/book-review/all-tea-china-how-england-stole-worlds-favorite-drink-and-changed-history-sarah-rose

The linked review covers the basics. 

My biggest insight acquired from the book was how the English enjoyment of tea in which the water is boiled, killing microorganisms, and being a mild stimulant, may have been a significant  factor in England being more innovative and economically successful than nations whose favorite drink for enjoyment and killing the nasty little beasties was wine or beer, which are mild depressants.

One may be a bit more alert after a cup of tea vs a beer! 

I find term "stole" to be a bit moralistic. "Industrial espionage", or mere natural "oh, I see this thing, I wonder how they do that" with various levels if copying, espionage, etc are as old as the first spears, knives, bows, etc. 

Attempted copies at various levels are a constant in technology ... consider this shot of the US Space Shuttle vs the Russian Buran. Notice any similarity? 

While the Chinese may have come out on the short end on tea, they are decidedly the experts in technology acquisition (industrial espionage) today!

Was the theft of the secrets of tea "the greatest theft of intellectual property in history" ?  Perhaps, but Ih would think that the theft of the secrets to create an H-bomb by the USSR, or the technical transfer of rocketry knowledge through the immigration / immigration by Germans like Wernher Von Braun allowed the US to reach 

The book has at least for a bit made me revisit tea -- realizing (correctly) that it was black tea that I would prefer. Let the testing begin 

In The Fullness of Time, Paul L Maier

 The subtitle is "A Historian Looks at Christmas, Easter and the Early Church". 

Looked around the internet for a review I could steal, but none to be found. 

My copy is autographed by the author as he came to our Church in Rochester and spoke. He is intelligent, witty, and fun to listen to and interact with. As a hobby, he acquires and uses heavy equipment including a cat, a crane!, a payloader and who knows what else. Apparently he has a large pond for which the crane is very handy. 

If you like video: 

Maier is able to weave the Bible, ancient historians, and archeology into a narrative that is very informative and also spiritually uplifting. He gives us a glimpse of into what life was like when Christ's ministry was in progress, and some of the personalities involved. The model reconstructions and pictures of the modern sites make one consider a trip to the Holy Land. 

Highly recommended for believers and non-believers alike. 

Anton, Modern Machiavelli

 https://americanmind.org/salvo/the-art-of-spiritual-war/?fbclid=IwAR0412Bi_iXQ9zKBraOeWiTg23-vCzlRloalwLCyx9S9Amj8D2UecGeIWOI#null

The link is to an excellent, though maybe a little esoteric article by Michael Anton, the esteemed author of the "Flight 93 Election". 

Machiavelli has a poor reputation in Christian circles for obvious reasons, however, just because you don't agree with a lot of a person's thinking is no reason to trash all of it.  

Machiavelli faced a challenge so startlingly similar to ours that it almost seems as if history does repeat itself. To put it as succinctly possible, he sought to liberate philosophy and politics—theory and practice—from a stultifying tradition and corrupt institutions.

The following quote can be thought of as somewhat equivalent to the idea that Christians may need to use "unsavory tools" (like violence)  to protect their families, the weak, and the eternal souls of billions.  This is also dangerous, but possibly necessary. One of my mottos -- "safety first when lighting fires with gasoline"!

They had to admit in other words that in an important respect the good has to take its bearings by the practice of bad cities or that the bad impose their law on the good.

A quote directly applicable to our times; 

Our institutions are rotten. For those needing details on how, I lay it out in chapter 3 of The Stakes. For two fresher examples see, first, the way the government colluded with hedge funds to crush small online investors trying to block an all-too-typical financial sector wealth-extraction power play; second, look at Anthony Fauci’s transparently false denials of having funded COVID research in China, and the media’s (and government’s) shameless attempts to cover it all up. There is really not one institution left in America that is not corrupt in both senses: borderline incompetent, but also venal, self-serving and lawless.

Here is my review of "The Stakes".

As a conservative technologist this really hits home: 

The classics were for almost all practical purposes what now are called conservatives. In contradistinction to many present-day conservatives however, they knew that one cannot be distrustful of political or social change without being distrustful of technological change.

 The discussion of "sophistry" vs "propaganda" is illuminated in "The Ethics of Rhetoric". Basically, sophistry is "fake news", and "propaganda" is more like "long term marketing speech", normally linked with institutions once trusted, and for the uninformed, still trusted.  

Whereas sophistry is the art of persuading a particular democratic assembly on a given issue on a specific day, propaganda aims to shape public opinion broadly and, if not permanently, for as long as humanly possible. Strauss is saying that the classics’ reluctance to innovate—their dispositional conservatism—made them vulnerable to conquest via this new weapon. The conquest happened. Christianity waged a spiritual war against the classical world which the latter proved unable to resist

Machiavelli played the very long game ... which Christians likely need to play today, but with a completely different foundation. 

He proposes to do this via a popular-philosophic alliance in which the people are convinced by a new type of propaganda, disseminated by Machiavelli’s successors, to allow the philosophers to rule (indirectly) in exchange for philosophy providing what the people most want: material plenty and a modicum of security (P 25). Fat and happy, they will forget God, or at least bestow their gratitude on others. (Though there’s a lot more to it than just this.)

So philosophy begat science/technology which caused the masses to forget God and worship science.  Like most best laid plans of man, it is doubtful that Niccolo thought that philosophy, and even the concept of metaphysical truth, would be buried under the "stuff" and entertainment heaped on man in unbelieveale (at Machiavelli's time) plenty. 

A worthy read. 

Life Of The Party: Biography of Pamela Churchill Harriman

 https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/affairs-of-state-aplenty-for-the-century-s-greatest-courtesan-1.118098

As her 2nd husband said of her, she was "the greatest courtesan of the 20th century ".

This forced me to look up "courtesan", which in modern terms is simply "whore to wealthy men ". The Wikipedia definition is enlightening ... for ages, when marriage was more for political than emotional purposes, a courtesan was a member of "the court" of a monarch, somewhat a trusted confidant and purveyor of inside gossip, and usually "eye candy" as well. 

As daughter in law of Winston Churchill, wife if Randolph Churchill, close friend of Lord Beaverbrook (wealthy newspaperman, head of aircraft production for England during the war), and mistress of Averell Harriman (US envoy for filling war material to England during the war), Pamela was a critical conduit of information, between key power players. 

After the war, she became the "world expert on rich mens ceilings", and at the end of that career married Averell Harriman, became a major Democrat fundraiser, and was appointed Ambassador to France by Bill Clinton ... no irony there! She died February 1998. 

The link gives more detail, and the book gives more detail on her "mother in absentia" role to her son Winston Churchill the younger. 

She trod (or "laid") a rather longer path to power than more current women who used their relationships to men of power for power ... Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris being current examples. 

The book gives a lot of insight into how the 1% amorally  lives, and how many actual "women of power" got their power. I would not generally recommend it, however for Churchill aficionados, it does give another perspective. 

I also "enjoyed" page 6 in the introduction; "Joseph Biden, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee that gabble of out of touch men that  botched the hearings of SCOTUS nominee Clarence Thomas". 

Biden has been "out of touch" for his whole career, and now in his waning years, he is out of touch with reality itself. An amoral nation gets the "leaders" it deserves.

The Splendid And The Vile, Eric Larson

 Here is NPRs review of the book. 

If you haven't read lot of Churchill books, this is a good one to cover especially the early war years. Larson is very readable, and tends to approach things from somewhat of a "woman's perspective".  Romances, affairs and unrequited loves are documented -- not the typical fare of such books. He also tends to go more into the relationships between the players -- in some ways it reads more like a novel than a historical book. 

As in any decently written Churchill book, it makes it clear that Winston was the indispensible, very unique, and somewhat eccentric man. 

Bully Pulpit, Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, and the Golden Age of Journalism

https://www.spectator.com.au/2013/12/the-bully-pulpit-by-doris-kearns-goodwin-review/ 

The link will give you an idea of what is covered in the book ... often with much more detail of the political nuts and bolts, how the wives impacted their husbands (pretty natural for many women, it goes back to Eve) and most of all, the worship of "progressivism". 

The assumption is "progressivism is good" of course. We are "progressing", but towards what exactly? In many ways, we have never moved from the age of the "Bully Pulpit", except the press has become even more biased, and of course we have a lot more technology than was present then. 

While the book really never mentions the vast influx of immigrants (legal then), but only the result - exploitation, low wages, slums, crime, unionization, etc. Why did they come and stay? Obviously because the conditions they found here were much better than the conditions they had in Europe, in which opportunity was very limited,  and in some cases (Irish) so bad that starvation was an issue. 

As is always the case when there is a massive influx of poor, there was exploitation by business and moderately wealthy, through low wages, poor living conditions, and the exploitation of their vulnerability by political machines. 

Today, we have massive illegal immigration, and the results are the same -- low wages, poor living conditions, and limited opportunity (they are illegal after all). However, business and the moderately wealthy (remember "Nannygate" in the Clinton years). Why do they come? Because as bad as we see conditions for them here, they are way better than where they come from. 

Today, press bias is even more celebrated than it was then. However at the turn of the centruy, the bias was declared, as it is often denied today. Income disparity today is greater than it was then, and the Davos elite, Google, Amazon, WalMart and the massive Deep State keep the "deplorables" in relatively hopeless conditions -- albeit with more entertainment in their increasingly isolated masked homes. Back then at least they mostly had church, family, and ethnic unity/traditions. Today, isolation and increasing government dependence make their lives more meaningless, often with the result being lonely addiction and suicide. 

On page 445, Teddy is quoted as saying "...to see the nation divided into two parties, one containing the bulk of the property owners and conservative people, the other the bulk of the wageworkers and the less prosperous people generally; each party insisting upon demanding much that was wrong, and each party sullen and angered by real and fancied grievances". 

We have "progressed" so far in 100 years! 

In 1906, power and fame had not fully corrupted Teddy and he still had some grasp of reality: 

"I must represent not the excited opinion of the West but the real interests of the whole people". Those interests would be ill served he curtly rejoined by turning the operation of the railroads over to government employees for "he knew better than anyone else could how inefficient and undependable they were". 

One might think that Amtrak would  have finally proven that point, but in 100 years, half the country still thinks more government, and even socialism is a "bully idea". 

I much enjoyed learning a lot more about Taft. The saddest part of the book is how Teddy's lust for power and narcissism destroyed their friendship, although somewhat like Jefferson and Adams, they did reconcile before death. 

As always,  unforeseen events affect history. On April 10, 1912, Major Archie Butt, a friend and go-between between Teddy and Taft was killed when the Titanic sank. He was a great support to Taft, and his loss during the incredibly rancorous election of 1912 added to Taft's pain. 

There are good many parallels between Teddy and Trump -- both upper class, willful, often nasty, extremely popular with the "masses", and quite shallow and unrealistic about what they could accomplish against "the system". 

Kearns Goodwin is a leftist "progressive" ideologue and the book is absolutely written from that perspective. What is left out (massive immigration at the time being a major example), and near total blindness to the downsides of mob rule, need to be considered if one chooses to dive in. It is overly long for what it covers, but decently written, and gives a good one sided view of the turbulent turn of the 19th to 20th century time.

The 1776 Commission Report

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2021/01/1776-commission-reports.php 

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.

Chuck Yeager Passes

https://www.npr.org/2020/12/07/341894780/pilot-chuck-yeager-dies-at-97-had-the-right-stuff-and-then-some?ft=nprml&f=1001

The passing of a great man and pilot after a long life well lived. I loved his autobiography that I read and owned in paperback and I sincerely hope did not get "pruned" in our move from Rochester. 

Leonardo Da Vinci, Walter Isaacson

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/dec/16/leonardo-da-vinci-the-biography-walter-isaacson-review

I generally like Isaacson's, biographies ... I've read enough of them; Einstein, Franklin, Jobs, "The Innovators" (my least favorite). The linked is a good summary of the book. 

I was struck by the "pseudo Christian morality" the elites "adhered to" in Leonardo's time. Pretty much all the rich and powerful men, including Popes and the rest of the Catholic hierarchy, had a mistress or two, and probably a similar number of illegitimate children. Much like Egypt, Greece, Rome, and England at the peak of its power, wealth and power were the coin of the realm - plebeian mores were for the plebes!

I suppose we ought take the fact that immorality is more egalitarian in our time? -- "everybody's" doing it. Based on the priests abuse of children, the Catholic church seems to be proof that "power corrupts" has not been repealed by "progress". 

It was also striking how devoted Isaacson is to the idea that if you are intelligent, you can't possibly have Christian faith. On page 512 we see: "In his will, Leonardo commended his soul to our Lord Almighty God, and to the glorious Virgin Mary" ... Which Isaacson immediate dismisses as a "literary flourish"', even though the page also says that Leonardo specified that his funeral should include three high masses and three low masses". 

Leonardo is clearly a mythic hero figure for Isaacson, and it is just too much to consider that with all his "heresy" -- he would be in good company with Luther on that! Any disagreement with Catholic dogma was heresy. 

On 487, "This is the heart of Leonardo's philosophy: the replication of the patterns of nature, from the cosmic to the human". 

One of themes of the book is that Leonardo had an insatiable and eclectic curiosity, and was just completely fascinated with eddies in water, curls in human hair, birds, anatomy, and  documenting his observations in notebooks (but not publishing). 

The book seems like an excellent introduction to art appreciation, and least for me ... who is sadly lacking in that area. It made me want to see the Mona Lisa more. More than I needed to know about sfumato and squaring the circle.  

We Live In Teddy Kennedy's America

 https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/09/reflections-on-the-devolution-2.php

The linked makes the case that the "Borking of America" on July 1 1987 was a critical point in the devolution of America into a broken leftist "Wokeistan". I agree it was a key point, however I maintain that Chappaquiddick,  was the extreme turning point -- metaphysically linked with the Moon Landing. 

God is not subtle -- hubris and the fall are eternally linked, and to any with even the most minimal of faith, the truth remains obvious. 

As Bronner suggested, Senator Kennedy’s unconstrained opposition to Bork’s appointment has indeed had profound effects in the practice of “judicial politics.” As Steve put it in The Age of Reagan, “the subsequent public campaign of the activist Left was stunning in its breadth, depth, and dishonesty.” We saw it recur preeminently in the confirmation proceedings following the nomination of Justice Thomas, but not just there. It has become something of a template for liberal attacks on mainstream conservatives beyond the realm of judicial politics.

The tone set by Kennedy in connection with the Bork nomination lives on among Senate Democrats. We live in Edward Kennedy’s America not only in the consequential legislation that he sponsored and saw through the Senate, but also in the afterlife of the vulgar political sham on which Senator Kennedy relied to spark the defeat of Judge Bork’s confirmation.

"Ted Kennedy" is a great answer to "how was America destroyed". 

Roe v Wade (January 22, 1973) cemented the fact that whatever the nation was, it was no longer a "Constitutional Republic" under which Roe would have required the recall of any supporting judge, since it was in no way Constitutional. The idea of "rights" found found nowhere in the Constitution, but only in a  paranormal "penumbra", having more basis in witchcraft than law. Finding a "right" for women to vote, rather than going to all the trouble of the 19th Amendment was the Constitutional way to CREATE a new right -- which everyone understood in 1920. Voting is never really a matter of life and death -- abortion is. 

Teddy was the warlock that reified the witchcraft of conjuring "rights" out of the spirit world with no consideration of such mundane things as Constitutional Amendments. 

In Teddy Kennedy's "america", babies die by the tens of millions, "protected classes" riot and burn cities, "schools" indoctrinate children on hatred of parents, God, tradition, and patriotism, and even the basic truths of man and womanhood are denied. 

To a significant degree, America died with Mary Jo Kopechne on July 29, 1969.

James Burnham and the Struggle For the World

 https://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?id=66

The linked review is quite long and I believe accurate ... Burnham was a fearless, generally non-ideological intellectual genius. His life and thought presents a window into the largely leftist intellectual elite conflict of "control vs chaos" -- veers from being a Trotskyist, to a CIA employee, to a McCarthy sympathiser, to a prophet of "The Managerial Revolution", to an editor of the National Review with close ties to William F. Buckley. 

While he seemed to value not "settling" on any specific world view MUCH more than I, I do much respect his willingness to attempt to always have an open mind. In some cases, it seemed that his mind may have been so open that the brains fell out, his intelligence made his "above the fray of ideology / religion to be believable.  My perspective is that since his fear of being pinned down to a specific worldview became a fetish that was in fact much aligned with a worldview -- that the world is inevitably headed toward a specific ideology that is bureaucratic, "managed", and is quite close to Fascism. (Fascism is NOT "Nazism" -- it is bureaucratically managed collaboration between massive government and increasingly large corporations, with the "common man" increasingly disposed of (physically or metaphysically).   

I think he is essentially correct at a high level, though wrong on the specifics -- he thinks that Capitalism will be replaced by this "Managerial State". I believe what we see is that Capitalism remains as the "engine" that produces the wealth that supports the increasingly centralised worldwide bureaucratic state (Davos World). Trump and Brexit are either the last gasps of actual competition and freedom, or harbingers indicating that Capitalism and the Proletariat are much more elemental to humanity than Marx or Burnham believed. I pray for the latter. 

From the linked review on the Burnham path from Trotsky to "management". I am reminded of one of the things that tech people used to say about the last and supposedly greatest management "Flavor of the Day" idea to "improve"  -- "Management for management's sake". Hey, they needed to feel that they were doing SOMETHING! 

Kelly writes, “It is tempting to write off Burnham’s Trotskyist phase as wasted time, a six-year detour into the sterile world of left-wing sects. But this judgment would be wrong” because “the involvement prepared him for what would be his real career” (pp. 87–88). In 1940, Burnham’s first major work appeared and sold well. Called The Managerial Revolution, it showed the influence of Machajski, Rizzi, Berle, Means, Veblen, Thurman Arnold, and Lawrence Dennis, as well as of Trotskyism (pp. 95–96). Burnham argued that bureaucratic management was the wave of the future, even if it took such forms as fascism, communism, and the New Deal, depending on circumstances. Only a cold, empirical, social-scientific approach could tell us where we were headed.

This quote from the linked is a valid summary of the book -- though, as always, the map (summary) is NEVER the territory! 

Burnham’s books do have interesting and important insights—especially The Managerial Revolution, Congress and the American Tradition, and Suicide of the West—but the Cold Warrior Burnham constantly undermined the conservative Burnham (if conservative is the right word). He embraced empire, constant frontier wars, managerialist determinism, and the warfare state, while complaining occasionally about Caesarism, the decline of Congress and other intermediate institutions, the growth of federal bureaucracy, and the loss of traditional liberties. This circle could not be squared. Burnham seldom considered that anything other than big impersonal historical forces might be causing the things he bewailed, that actual human agents might be driving some of the seeming inexorabilities. As a result, his rather willful disregard of economic theory and his battles against “doctrinaires” such as Frank Meyer look like symptoms of a larger failure of vision.

Wokeness, Critical Theory

https://andrewsullivan.substack.com/p/the-roots-of-wokeness

Well worth just skipping my excerpts and just reading the relatively short article that describes a key foundation of why I continue to assert we need to "man the barricades" or "Western Civilization" is just "history" ... and really not even that, because such things as supposed "actual history" will be destroyed ... just like pulling down statues.

What the book helps the layperson to understand is the evolution of postmodern thought since the 1960s until it became the doctrine of Social Justice today. Beginning as a critique of all grand theories of meaning—from Christianity to Marxism—postmodernism is a project to subvert the intellectual foundations of western culture. The entire concept of reason—whether the Enlightenment version or even the ancient Socratic understanding—is a myth designed to serve the interests of those in power, and therefore deserves to be undermined and “problematized” whenever possible. Postmodern theory does so mischievously and irreverently—even as it leaves nothing in reason’s place. The idea of objective truth—even if it is viewed as always somewhat beyond our reach—is abandoned. All we have are narratives, stories, whose meaning is entirely provisional, and can in turn be subverted or problematized.

Notice how today it is ALL about "the narrative"!

Just as this theory denies the individual, it also denies the universal. There are no universal truths, no objective reality, just narratives that are expressed in discourses and language that reflect one group’s power over another. There is no distinction between objective truth and subjective experience, because the former is an illusion created by the latter. So instead of an argument, you merely have an identity showdown, in which the more oppressed always wins, because that subverts the hierarchy. These discourses of power, moreover, never end; there is no progress as such, no incremental inclusion of more and more identities into a pluralist, liberal unified project; there is the permanent reality of the oppressors and the oppressed. And all that we can do is constantly expose and eternally resist these power-structures on behalf of the oppressed.

Why don't we just talk this over? 

There is no such thing as persuasion in this paradigm, because persuasion assumes an equal relationship between two people based on reason. And there is no reason and no equality. There is only power. This is the point of telling students, for example, to “check their privilege” before opening their mouths on campus. You have to measure the power dynamic between you and the other person first of all; you do this by quickly noting your interlocutor’s place in the system of oppression, and your own, before any dialogue can occur. And if your interlocutor is lower down in the matrix of identity, your job is to defer and to listen. That’s partly why diversity at the New York Times, say, has nothing to do with a diversity of ideas. Within critical theory, the very concept of a “diversity of ideas” is a function of oppression. What matters is a diversity of identities that can all express the same idea: that liberalism is a con-job. Which is why almost every NYT op-ed now and almost every left-leaning magazine reads exactly alike.

The book he references is on my rather extensive "books to read" list!

I sadly scratched this scab back in 2017 ... it is a painful one! 

Corona, Swine, Time

Before you get turned off by the fact I look at history, take a look at current WHO actual tracking for perspective.

Having lived through the Swine Flu panic of the 1970's, I'm thankful to it for for being a heavy contributor to my skepticism of the "brilliance" of government, media, and "experts" in general.

More than 500 people are thought to have developed Guillain-Barre syndrome after receiving the vaccine; 25 died. No one completely understands the causes of Guillain-Barre, but the condition can develop after a bout with infection or following surgery or vaccination. The federal government paid millions in damages to people or their families.

However, the pandemic, which some experts estimated at the time could infect 50 million to 60 million Americans, never unfolded. Only about 200 cases of swine flu and one death were ultimately reported in the U.S., the CDC said.

So government screws up, vaccine kills 25, flu kills 1 ... and we won't even talk about economic cost. Oh, and some of us don't actually believe everything the government tells us -- making us "deniers",

Most of our media and government minders are "progressive" ... history is bunk, best forgotten, and we are MUCH smarter now! So no reason to bring up the past mistakes. (unless it is McCarthyism, Watergate, or a few other select cases, but I digress )

Naturally, this one COULD be different -- that is how predicting the future ALWAYS is. As for me, I remain a student of history -- which after all is all that science is based on -- the assumption that the next time an experiment that has produced "X" results in the past is done, it will with produce "X" results again! Induction, the Thanksgiving turkey problem  -- "humans are benevolent creatures that care for turkeys, "proven" anew each day of its life until Thanksgiving."

We all live by faith the question is "In what?"

Fast forward to H1N1 in 2009.

Working with admittedly sparse data, a research team led by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has estimated the global death toll from the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic at more than 284,000, about 15 times the number of laboratory-confirmed cases.

The team estimated that 80% of those who died were younger than 65, which is in accord with previous observations that the pandemic H1N1 burden fell heavily on younger people, unlike the pattern for seasonal flu.

CDC estimates there were 60 million h1n1 cases ... the REPORTED cases will always be far less, because thankfully, the vast majority of people that get the flu just get it, deal with it, and life goes on. The GOOD NEWS of Corona is that the vast majority of people who get Corona will not know they had it.

Stranger still is the fact that testing for H1N1 in the US was stopped in July of 2009 because "it had already been declared an epidemic"!

Here in the present day, AS OF TODAY we have 168k confirmed cases and 6600 deaths due to Corona.

Unlike H1N1 the evidence so far is strong that Corona kills the old vs the young.

Overall, China CDC found, 2.3% of confirmed cases died. But the fatality rate was 14.8% in people 80 or older, likely reflecting the presence of other diseases, a weaker immune system, or simply worse overall health. By contrast, the fatality rate was 1.3% in 50-somethings, 0.4% in 40-somethings, and 0.2% in people 10 to 39.

Add into this, people with compromised immune systems, smokers, and those living in areas with heavy air pollution are more at risk.

At the end of January, lots of media was complaining that Trump was overreacting to Corona ... not so much now. I believe that we can be very certain the media will remain anti-Trump, so at least something is certain!

We also know we are in an insane tribal time ... a council woman in Denver suggests it is a is a good idea to spread Corona to Trump supporters. It isn't hard to find people hoping that Corona "ends Trump". I'm not a huge media follower ... I think we all know that we are tribally divided and that fact affects how we see global happenings. For ALL of us ... me included.

Based on what I see, these are my thoughts:

• It seems likely that the reaction in the US erring on the side of unreasonable caution as it did in the 1970's Swine Flu -- hopefully with less negative affect.
• In hindsight, it appears that there was an under-reaction to H1N1  ... 280K deaths skewed to the young vs the old seems more frightening ... yet, it wasn't, and the deaths may be higher since testing was stopped in the US. 
• It is pretty clear that Corona is not well understood, so perhaps that is the reason for what appears to be an overabundance of caution -- "fear of the unknown".  (did we not have that in 2009?) 
• OTOH, the evidence we DO have ... hitting mostly the elderly, many cases so mild they are not reported, etc would "normally" lead to an indication that things like the NCAA tournament would not need to be cancelled. Advising elderly to stay home and watch on TV would seem to be sufficient caution in "normal times". 

My firm bias is that like most issues in our time, the response to Corona has become tribal -- if you are of the "Progressive Tribe", you MUST believe in what the "general global authority" says, so you do. To doubt that authority is to doubt your secular faith in science and progress.

I fervently pray that God will provide us with another golden opportunity to shift our faith and become "Post Secular". 

Here's hoping we will look back on Corona as the point where the tide of unreason and wishful thinking turned. (yes, I know that is unlikely -- hope is good)

However, even if Corona  "fizzles", the "powers that be" will have their ready explanations for why they were still right. In the early '80s when crazy "Ronnie Raygun" made the claim that we would consign the USSR to "the ash heap of history", the MSM and the intelligentsia called him a dangerous madman. When the USSR fell, those powers gave Gorbachev all the credit.

In any case, I fervently pray we LEARN ... as we didn't from the 70's, 80's and many other cases were our "expert powers that be" plainly showed their feet of clay.

Fear of God remains our only hope to maintain a bit of humility, which is required for learning! 

Capitalism, Government, Harvesting The Young

Are You Ready To Consider That Capitalism Is The Real Problem?:

In February, college sophomore Trevor Hill stood up during a televised town hall meeting in New York and posed a simple question to Nancy Pelosi, the leader of the Democrats in the House of Representatives. He cited a study by Harvard University showing that 51% of Americans between the ages of 18 and 29 no longer support the system of capitalism, and asked whether the Democrats could embrace this fast-changing reality and stake out a clearer contrast to right-wing economics.

I can only guess that Trevor and even the author of the column do the breathing thing, and I further assume that their feet were on the ground .... however it seems questionable if their "heads are there to move them around" -- although I'm sure he is smarter than a college freshman.

Assuming this, they are also subject to the effects of markets -- and government, which they conveniently fail to talk about. The US economy was definitely "mixed". The BOistan economy is about as "capitalist" as a casino in Vegas. It is rigged to allow DC which our founders would have thought would be full of "servants" to be the wealthiest area in the country to win, just like "the house" in Vegas. It can't be otherwise -- if you don't MAKE, you have to TAKE -- in Vegas from your gambling patrons, in the case of government from the citizens and future citizens.

There are a set of things in the universe that "just are" -- they aren't "good or bad", they ARE! Accepting the reality of what IS can be hugely helpful, both personally and societally -- it is like having basic clue on reality. (a REALLY high bar for 18-29 year olds!)

Therefore, "Government" is IN the market system as well, as everything/everyone is, and obviously has to be. The government takes resources from some parts of the economy, takes a portion for themselves,  and gives to others to protect and expand their interests through buying/selling goods, votes, benefits, taxes, just as all of us do. The big difference between government and the rest of the market is that it never produces anything -- it only moves resources around. It is a bit like the financial sector, but with no profit motive, and FAR fewer controls. (

The government MAKES the rules, and decides where, when, and on whom they will be enforced -- very rarely will the government itself, or any of it's favored friends -- Democrats, media, unions, higher education ... but I'm just repeating myself.

Before BOistan, there was a nation called the United States. That nation had a magical thing called LIMITED government. There were checks and balances as well as Constitutional restrictions  (that nation actually followed a written constitution) on how powerful the government could become.

These restrictions were modelled after markets. When there is a huge need for a product, the price goes up and more providers start to provide that product causing the price to go down until there is a "balance" where price provides a constant indicator to the market as to how much to provide. If there were really big needs, the government could get things like "2/3 majorities" or "Constitutional Amendments", but otherwise it had to live with it's limits.

Government got rid of the limits, so it is now like the Mob entering a market. The market is  STILL "a market", it is just "black / corrupt / criminal" -- like the market for drugs in prison. Let's take healthcare as an example -- first The Mob (government) decides who can play in the market through licensing, regulation, fees, taxes, etc. Then they execute "pay-offs" -- certain groups, say unions, elderly people, the poor, doctors, etc are "paid off" ... provided "protection", or "deals", with at least the tacit assumption that they will support the Mob (government / Democrats). Some are provided lucrative deals -- like the doctors and the lawyers. Since most of the politicians are also lawyers , it helps to think of lawyers as highly paid hit men. Usually they just financially destroy you -- but if they have to, prision, and even the death penalty is in their power.

Sometimes other "protection rackets" rise up -- to provide "insurance" for a price. In the medical crime area we call it "insurance" (wink, wink). There is usually an uneasy peace with the various insurance providers -- the Mob (gov) would like to have ALL the action, but given proper kick-backs, cover, etc, they see it as beneficial for the "insurers" to have a piece of the action.

Mobs (gov) tend to be greedy. Where individuals formerly went to a doctor who dealt with their problem one on one with minimal mob/gov oversight, good doctors that provided good service at a good price were successful, and bad doctors found other employment.

As gov/mob increasingly entered the picture, certifications, costs of entering the profession, limits on how many doctors there could be, regulations, taxes, fees, records, kickbacks, requirements for increasingly expensive "insurance" (mobs breed mobs), etc grew without bound -- more and more players desire a piece of the action, and since the gov/mob is getting pay-offs from all of them, they encourage that generally non-productive (for us, VERY productive for them) "growth".

"The Real Problem" always comes down to human nature -- we tend to fall into believing that "someone else will solve our problems" -- and the "someone else" in this mortal coil always becomes corrupt and creates greater problems than what they were supposedly solving. Eventually economic collapse, violence, poverty, hopelessness, etc result because the "Real Problem" is **US**!!!!!

If that wasn't bad enough, look at the people who the article is listening to -- Americans 18-29! The eternal fount of a lot of things -- wisdom definitely not being one of them!!

You will always see the "mob/government" trying to increase the set of people who support them, which will always mean things like surveying younger people, lowering voting ages and reducing any sort of restriction on voting (citizenship, ID, etc), because while there is indeed a "sucker born every day", as the suckers age, some of them learn by experience and become aware adults -- no matter how much the gov/mob works to prevent that, however, the encouragement to dependence becomes ever stronger.

FICA, Medicare, Welfare, low income housing, etc, etc all seek to make a greater and greater percentage of people dependent on the government, and both intentionally and unintentionally weakening family, church and local community. 

As we saw in the USSR, are starting to see in China (Hong Kong riots, Corona), North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela,  etc, the "dream" (nightmare) of socialism rises until if fails massively and people are reduced to living by the raw "survival of the fittest" -- and then the natural mechanism of ACTUAL Capitalism (not corrupt crony capitalism) arises, wealth /' culture / religion result, and the cycle begins again.

Since most people find history boring, we get to repeat it with war, starvation, corruption, etc at various levels of horror -- the "fruits" of our fallen nature.