Anyone that keeps some tabs on what is happening in phyiics knows that questions like "what is reality"? "When is reality"? "What is an event"?, etc appear to be far less certain than we thought.
I'm pretty much a "Many Worlds" guy ... if you see something happening, it DID happen FOR YOU, and it was and is always happening for YOU ... and as this article talks of, that can be true for some number of observers that share that "time/event slice" ...
We have found a new paradox in quantum mechanics – one of our two most fundamental scientific theories, together with Einstein's theory of relativity – that throws doubt on some common-sense ideas about physical reality.
Take a look at these three statements:
1. When someone observes an event happening, it really happened.
2. It is possible to make free choices, or at least, statistically random choices.
3. A choice made in one place can't instantly affect a distant event. (Physicists call this "locality".)
These are all intuitive ideas, and widely believed even by physicists. But our research, published in Nature Physics, shows they cannot all be true – or quantum mechanics itself must break down at some level.
This is the strongest result yet in a long series of discoveries in quantum mechanics that have upended our ideas about reality. To understand why it's so important, let's look at this history.
I read about it ... I'm not saying I understand it!!
A book that many will see as "Defending Trump". when in fact it is defending the Presidency and Rule of Law (with law being the Constitution).
Our Founders thought the three branches of government would each hold jealousy of their power as a higher consideration than than party loyalty -- especially in the case of the SCOTUS (since they have neither the power of the purse nor the bullet). It would have been hard for a John Marshall to hold petty party division /ideology over "free contraceptives" to be even in the same universe honoring the Constitution, as RGB and her ilk do today.
In today's essentially one party system, where the media, elite, universities, and entire Administrative State are Democrat, the pre-Trump situation was simple. if the President is a D, he is a king, he is an R, he is barely a weak Prime Minister.
Yoo covers the reason that the impeachment farce was totally a farce if anyone cared about the Constitution anymore, p56.
"An intelligence officer cannot file a whistle-blower complaint against Trump, because Trump is not a member of the intelligence community, and his phone calls with foreign leaders do not qualify as intelligence ops."
Under the Constitution, the President is THE organ of foreign policy for the US government-- the State Department, CIA, NSA, etc REPORT TO HIM ... not vice versa.
Trump’s presidency may signal a similar seismic shift in government, one that extends far beyond his own personal political interests or his low polling. Today’s federal government can trace its lineage directly to the New Deal. Large, expert federal bureaucracies exercising broad powers delegated by Congress continue to govern an economy and society that have evolved far from the world of the 1930s–1960s. Even as America races into a post-industrial society, where information has become the foundation of the most valuable goods and services, it continues to govern itself with forms suited for continent-spanning GMs and IBMs and their matching labor unions. A more spartan government, controlled by a Constitution of limited powers, may well prove more nimble and effective in the new 21st-century world than the government of the New Deal. Even while he recalls America to the society of the past, Trump may have shaken up the political system enough to allow it to adapt to the new economy of social media, networks, and AI. Presidential power provides the critical leverage to spark such significant government change, and it may be Trump’s most unlikely legacy to have preserved the constitutional authorities of his office that make such reform possible.
Yoo is WAY more optimistic than me here. Likely less than 20% of Americans today have the attention span to read through this blog post -- let alone the book!
Sadly, to return to being a Constitutional Republic, over 50% of the voting public will need that level of comprehension at a MINIMUM!
Back in the days of "Uncle Walter", "the truth" was whatever he said it was. "And that's the way it is".
That started to sound sketchy to me about the time that Jimmuh Carter started telling us that the world was flat out of oil.
My "trust in media" dial hit empty when Gungda Dan Rather was exposed as a total fraud and Democrat partisan tool by Power Line in the linked.
It turns out that "Uncle Walter" was not nearly as trustworthy as we thought he was, however the fact that a "big majority" of the country believed him helped unite the country in the same way as most people being practicing Christians with values like "God, family, community, work ethic, etc" being shared by like 80% of the population, was much less dividing than "you have to follow your own truth".
This kind of thing doesn’t happen randomly. Rather, it is an expression of deeply-held ideological conviction. There are a number of ways to describe the epic disaster of socialism, but perhaps the most basic is that socialism turns the state into an all-powerful god. In order to do that, all competing–i.e., arguably real–Gods must be extinguished. That is what we are seeing from today’s Democratic Party.
The linked scares me more than anything else I've seen this year, because if that happens in a location I'm in, I'm not raising my hand and I'm not just sitting there -- most likely, I'm just leaving through as many people as I need to -- but I don't really know.
Ever since 5th grade when I walked out of a phys-ed class because the "teacher" forced 5th graders to stand with arms outstretched until some started to cry, with the "instructor" screaming in my face, I've known some things "flip a switch" that seems to make me very calm and extremely resolved.
As a nation, those of us that don't think actual fascism, as opposed to fake "Trump fascism" are going to have to quit sitting down.
Today, at various restaurants in Washington, D.C, BLM protesters demanded that diners eating outdoors raise their fists in support. Most diners did — this is Washington — but a few did not. Those who did not were berated.
The linked gives yet another case where statistics are tools used to "make a case" that happens to be a false case. Most of the purveyors of the mythology of those stats likely know what they are doing and simply see the myth as "better" -- for their narrative, for their power, maybe even because it MIGHT "save one life".
Mostly I don't bother to cross post to FB these days, because it only adds to the power of FB, and as the meme says, in today's world of virtuous herd following, it only irritates. However, I prefer that both my friends and enemies are not completely certain of what I will do, because in this new life of seizures, neither am I.
The GOOD (and bad) news is that we are all "Karens" meaning sheep. As sheep, we all have an innate desire to follow SOMETHING or someone, and given that nature, we WILL follow. Bob Dylan did a great song on it, one of my favorites. I am a sheep of Christ's pasture. As a sheep with seizures, I get the blessing of much more regular reminders of how fragile my existence is, and how little power earthly measures have over my quality of life. I'm thankful that with the help of God, medicine can reduce my pain and confusion for at least a time. I never appreciated how wonderful it is to remember my name until I could not.
The fact of our sheephood, weakness, lack of intelligence, sin, -- much like the fact of death, is not one of our favorite pieces of our reality. We are creatures of habit, both good and bad, and we are exceptional RATIONALIZERS while only fleetingly rational if we use lots of math, physics, deep difficult and honest theology, prayer, and most of all, GRACE. Denial is another of our "strengths".
Statistics are marketing, not science, and Social "Scientists" have a ton of justified physics envy -- they are at best "soft scientists", and often just marketers of positions they "feel" to be "right. Soft Scientists didn't WANT to have to admit that fat was a lot better than carbs, and they resisted admitting their error even at the cost of millions of lives. From Communism to fascism to abortion to damaging religious belief causing millions more to commit suicide, we are all in a nice guilty crowd.
"Believe the Science" is proof of epistemological incompetence -- See Feynman. Our culture has abandoned education to the level that we no longer know our limitations -- but they are still there.
Those that seek control will work hard to increase fear. You will get sick! You will be hated! You will die! Painfully even, and we will laugh at you because you refused to do exactly what we told you to do! Ultimately we will likely murder in mass as we have before, (and currently with abortion) and we will feel absolutely certain that we MUST do it again! Often the only "moral" thing for the "majority" to do is to kill or send those who refuse to bow to the grave or gulag.
Perhaps men like Dan Crenshaw will be able to return us to at least enough "Fortitude" to comprehend it's advantage over fear and the followers who seek to make fear a virtue.
I continue to pray for our return to accepting our dependence on God.
As I cover in my review of "American Ulysses" Rushmore ought to have Washington, Lincoln and Grant displayed ... with Grant being higher priority than Lincoln. Without Grant, Lincoln loses to McClellan in '64, and Lincoln is the greatest butcher, failed president, destroyer of lives and treasure in American history.
Instead, Grant wins the Civil War and makes a tremendous effort to gain freedom for the blacks. He ultimately fails to completely break Jim Crow (he sure wounds the KKK!), but the Democrat party of Slavery, Jim Crow and the family destroying Welfare State live on still today. Black families were more intact under slavery and Jim Crow than they are under today's welfare state). Fewer than 1 in 3 blacks grow up in a two parent family today -- in Slavery and Jim Crow it was 60 to 70% !
The best institution to "cancel" would be the Democrat Party --- the Jackass ought to be far more disparaged than "whiteness".
My biggest takeaway from this book is that media malfeasance, self serving politicians, corruption, and the creation of narratives that have little foundation in fact is nothing new!
ALWAYS read at least a couple views of the life of a great man -- they are never one dimensional!
As a longtime reader of NR, Burnham is familiar to me, but not well known. As a man whose mind was flexible enough to be a one time Trotskyist turned NR conservative, the book had to be ordered!
What is conservatism in America today? It’s hundreds of millions of dollars a year spent fiddling while Rome burns. It’s ideas with little to no consequence. It’s getting trampled all over by History, but while yelling Stop!
And yet conservatism, in its dotage, cannot shake the nagging suspicion that it no longer speaks to the country it loves, in particular to those who have no living memory of the Cold War. This dawning realization could be amplified through probing questions: is America today more conservative than it was when the conservative movement began 70 or so years ago? Is conservatism itself as conservative as it was then? On the off chance that the conservative agenda were to be implemented, would it fundamentally transform the United States of America and lead to conservative hegemony (or would it simply save us money and buy us time)?
Across the board, the answer is a resounding no. Conservatism must therefore overhaul itself. If it refuses, then it should be left to die with the passage of time. A new Right, in any case, is already overtaking it.
This new right, which of yet has no name, is anchored in the realization that the conservative project in America today is fundamentally a counterrevolutionary one. We lost. They won. Painful as it is to admit, we no longer feel at home in our own country. In this progressive theocracy in which all must worship at the altar of Wokeness, conservatism, if one can still even call it that, is more about overthrowing than conserving. Burke’s edifying exhortation—“Spartam nactus es; hanc exorna” [Sparta is Yours: Adorn It, and the more general, You Were Born With Talents: Develop Them. Author: Euripides].
—must be altered to suit the times: Sparta was your inheritance, now reclaim her.
The "New Right" needs a name, some intellectual coherency, and some faces to represent it.
Perhaps "Creedalism" would be a reasonable new name ? Webster defines creedealism as "undue insistence upon traditional statements of belief".
Who gets to define "undue"? I suppose "there are two genders" would be and example of "undue insistence on traditional statements of belief".
In the dogma of "progressivism" are there any "traditional statements" that can be invoked without the approbation "undue"?
As the linked makes clear, "conservative" is a very imprecise term today.
I liked the linked review. As that reviewer pointed out. Dreher's "Benedict Option" covers much of the same ground from a more philosophical vs theological angle.
A couple good quotes:
Here is a quick and generally reliable rule to follow. If people have always said it, it is probably true; it is the distilled wisdom of the ages. If people have not always said it, but everybody is saying it now, it is probably a lie; it is the concentrated madness of the moment.
We are servile for mass entertainment, when we could be free with our hearts and ourselves for the worship of God, which truly builds up a human community, rather than just herding people in an aggregate of many thousands who do not know one another, and whose only common bond is that they prefer a certain style of uniform.
I found this to be the most accurate and pithy quote I've seen on "higher education". For a longer version of this sad truth, see "Excellent Sheep".
You sink yourself in debt to discover that your sons and daughters have been severed from their faith, their morals, and their reason. Whorehouses and mental wards would be much cheaper. They might well be healthier, too.
On manhood he says the following, while I believe it is wise for Christians especially to read this book, "Fortitude" is more generally reachable, and even for Christians, it may be important to read to establish enough fortitude to make it through Esolen.
But the boy must be made into a man; nor is it true that, once he has established himself as a man, he need never worry about it again. Manhood is risky. It must be publicly affirmed, and you can lose that affirmation by cowardice or effeminacy.
I could go on forever, however the book must be read by Christians who care -- summaries are not enough. We need to separate ourselves from the many entertainments and distractions that Satan has heaped upon us. As age advances, I increasingly believe that the Amish have it much more right than I had previously imagined!
Christians must repudiate the whole sexual revolution. All of it. No keepsakes, no exceptions. Remember Lot’s wife.
