Aussies Curious What Has Happened To Wokeistan Under Biden

 https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2021/01/the-weirdness-of-bidens-inauguration-and-more.php

This video is stolen from the Power Line blog. It is well worth watching. 

The points? 

-- Washington was a ghost town for the Biden "inauguration" except for thousands of National Guard troops ... who are still there, and will be until "March". Very little reporting in the MSM, and no "concern". Can anyone even imagine the outcry if Trump taken similar action in the face of the massive riots and marches as he took office? 

-- Biden issued more executive orders in his first week than any previous president. Even left leaning PolitiLie agrees -- although they put as good a spin on it as they weakly can. Every executive order Trump issued was "tyranny" by comparison -- although the left has now outlawed such comparisons as "WhatAboutism". 

-- Insiders in the WH are already leaking about Biden's mental health. Naturally, the MSM is not generally reporting it -- really. why should they? Anyone with eyes knows it already. 

A Time To Build, Yuval Levin

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/01/book-review-a-time-to-build-decline-congress-other-institutions-american-life/ 

The link takes you to another review of the book. 

"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. 

Do we even have that choice, or is it God's?  

The Meaning Of Equity

 https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2021/01/deep-meaning-of-equity.php

Definitely worth following the link, and for the video oriented, viewing the embedded video there. 

The very short answer is "equity" is shorthand for "equality of outcome", or even more accurately "social justice" as defined by critical race theorist Ibram X. Kendi. If you have any questions, you are a racist, and if you even want to be silent on the issue, remember, "Silence Is Violence", you MUST celebrate whatever Susan Rice tells you on the topic! 

“Equity” is not equality (i.e., equal rights). It is a substitute for equal rights. “Equity” requires the authorities to determine who gets what according to the race, the ethnicity, or other status of the beneficiaries. It is updated Marxist claptrap in which race replace class.

Ie, "Identity Politics".  

Rand Paul Stands Up

 https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2021/01/voter-fraud-nothing-to-see-here.php

A good little clip to watch in the PL link. Stephanopoulos is certain that voter fraud was not a factor in 2020. I wonder if he was as certain that Russia did not interfere with the 2016 election. 

Rand appears to have a backbone. 

Bezos, Amazon Oppose Mail-in Voting

https://beingbeliefbehavior.blogspot.com/2021/01/behold-biden-all-things-have-become-new.html

The link takes to to the Seattle Times, the only "mainstream" source I could find reporting this ... albeit in a rather "coded" way.  

The important quote is: 

Jeff Bezos — a strong Democratic supporter — and Amazon are aiming to postpone a unionization vote at one of its warehouses in Alabama, the Wall Street Journal reports. Interestingly, Amazon has requested that the National Labor Relations Board reconsider allowing mail-in voting, claiming that the mail-in voting process has “serious and systemic flaws.”

For which you have to go to "right wing" sources like this. 

One reason we are divided is because of what is NOT reported -- if you only listen to the MSM, you never hear this. You believe that "all reasonable people accept mail in voting is safe and secure". Counter claims are "without evidence". 

Certainly none of the "elite" would think it has "serious and systematic flaws"! 

One would have to be some sort of deplorable Trumpist to think that!!! 

Behold Biden, All Things Have Become New!

 https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/23/us/biden-catholic-christian.html

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!  

 

The Prince of Darkness

 https://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/books/review/Shafer-t-2.html

Naturally, the NYT review is biased, though it does give a "liberal that don't know they are liberal" view of the book. 

A better short description of the book is "The story of a conservative reporters journey from being a moderate liberal the manner of Scoop Jackson to being a moderate conservative in the manner of Ronald Reagan". 

It is a "nice", though hard hitting remembrance of the times from the 1950's to the Obamanation end of America. It gives a view of American culture and daily life from the perspective of an actual journalist that knows he is biased, and has a decent handle on his biases. 

It covers more detail than necessary (understandable given his "involvement") on the "Plame Affair" ... Joe Wilson went to Niger because his wife, CIA employee Valerie Plame,  recommended him. Wilson brought back a non-committal report on Saddam attempting to get yellowcake (for nuclear purposes). Richard Armitage told Novack about it -- which he reported, including his wife's name -- wich was listed in "Who's Who In America" as Wilson's wife (so not a "secret"). 

The media, the Democrats and the Deep State (but I repeat myself) used this to claim that the "leaker" was Dick Cheney, possibly directed by Bush to "get back" at Wilson for his "report" that Saddam did not deal with Niger. 

Like much of our Fake News today, it was a totally a manufactured "scandal" -- a likely case is that it was manufactured by the CIA and blown out of all proportion by the media and the Democrats, but given what we know now about the media/deep state/Democrat effective singularity, it matters not. With the advantage of hindsight, we can see it was all fake. Like the Russia hoax. The message is "Republicans are EVIL" ... and when the hoax is outed, the media ceases reporting on it and never says "our bad" ... and then it is on to "Ukraine" or something else. 

I thought it read well, because I enjoyed his writing style and his chronicling of the massive drinking, smoking and general "hard" lifestyles of the late 50's and 60's.  

He matter of factly covers the vote fraud that "elected" Kennedy, and he used his being a registered Democrat and sneaky journalist skills to personally observe the massive voter fraud in Daley's Chicago. You know, the thing that never happens and you have to be a racist crazy to claim it does! 

If you are interested in an insider's view of American politics of the 50's to Obama, this is a good book. If you are a liberal, you will like the NYTs review which will naturally put a left spin on it.  

Cancelling Orwell

 https://www.vox.com/culture/22233197/orwellian-definition-george-orwell-1984-politics-english-language-josh-hawley-donald-trump-jr

Sometimes the rantings of the left are simply funny -- although tragically "funny" as Biden is inaugurated. 

It’s possible Donald Trump’s greatest talent is driving people to buy copies of 1984.

When Trump took office in 2017, sales of George Orwell’s dystopian classic went up by 9,500 percent. And in the wake of January’s Capitol riot, as Senator Josh Hawley decried his book cancellation as “Orwellian” and Donald Trump Jr. responded to his father’s ban from Twitter with the lament that “We are living Orwell’s 1984,” 1984 once again flew up Amazon’s bestseller list, briefly sitting at No. 1.

Last time 1984 returned to the bestseller list, it was because terrified liberals feared the Trump administration would drive us straight into the dystopian horrors of 1984, in which Big Brother is always watching, forcing his subjects to believe that 2 + 2 = 5 if he says it does. This time, it appears to be because outraged conservatives fear that private corporations have begun to censor public speech. But either way, it’s Orwell’s time to shine again.

And so “Orwellian” has become the word of the moment. In fact, it has become the kind of lazy, hackneyed, cliché word of the moment that Orwell himself despised.

So when Trump took office, the sales of 1984 went upf 9,500 percent. As Biden takes office, the sales briefly sat at #1. THEREFORE, it is now time to declare mentions of Orwell's 1984 "as the kind of lazy, hackneyed, cliché word of the moment that Orwell himself despised."

Naturally, when Trump was elected, references to the book were entirely valid! The "truth" is whatever MSM says it is -- and if you say "what about", well, the left has discredited any invocations of "hypocrisy" directed at them via the new term "Whataboutism" -- though of course use of such accusations against the right are still valid. 

I'm quite certain that VOX was totally fine with "sexual preference" went from being fine in the AM until Amy Coney Barrett used it, to offensive in the PM!

Are there ANY words that are not merely whatever the left says they are? 

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.

Transgressive / Adversary Culture

 https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2021/01/descent-of-the-adversary-culture.php

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")

This is from a post by NR on "succession of American academic culture":

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.

A question that I've often attempted to answer from First Things:  

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.”

Today the nation that used to be America inaugurates a man who gained power by his own admission using "The greatest voter fraud organization in history". 

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 ?