Feb 10 2023

Day From Hell Alert

     The C.S.O. has another procedure scheduled for later this morning. Once again it will involve a long drive, a lot of cutting (for her) and a lot of waiting (for me), a long drive back, and then postoperative care most of which will fall on my shoulders. When we get back there will be a slew of more mundane chores for me to address, as well. So I won’t be posting voluminously. Perhaps not at all, after this.

     However, this set of revelations deserves at least a squib of commentary:

     What if I told you that Anthony Fauci knew all along that the COVID vaccine could not possibly prevent either infection with or transmission of COVID?
     Not surprised? Neither am I.
     Now, what if I told you he just published a paper in a peer-reviewed journal admitting that fact, and calling for new types of vaccines to deal with the problem?
     Now that is a bit of a surprise and exactly the opposite of what he told everybody during the push to get everybody vaccinated.
     Fauci lied, and now he is admitting it. In writing. In a peer-reviewed journal.

     The only surprise here is that The Venomous Dwarf actually admitted his deceits, in black and white, in a peer-reviewed publication. Inasmuch as some of his admissions directly contradict testimony he gave to Congress, there should be consequences. There won’t be any, of course. They’d make our Ruling Elite look bad for trusting him, and exhorting us to trust him, in the first place.

     But the content of Fauci’s admissions is entirely unsurprising. One doesn’t even need a slew of medical knowledge – I don’t have much, myself – to grasp the crux of the matter. Read the whole article and see for yourself.

     The American medical profession as a whole cajoled us into accepting The Jab, as it’s come to be known. Doctors, nurses, and assorted peripheral persons did their level best to make it sound like something only a fool would decline. They kept that spiel in force through numerous “boosters” – what’s the proper pejorative for a drug that boosts the efficacy of an ineffective vaccine? – always with the subtext that by accepting these drugs into our bodies, we would not merely be protecting ourselves; we would also be “socially responsible.” We’d be helping to put the brakes on a dangerous pandemic disease. COVID-19’s killed millions, don’t y’know. Everybody should pitch in to ensure its demise.

     But the vaccines proved to be both ineffective and dangerous. The consequences for trust in the medical profession have been dire. But that is exactly as it should be. They chose to trust CDC, NIAID, Fauci, and the vaccine makers, despite repeated self-contradictions and back-and-fills. They then exhorted us to accept their representations – their trust — as if it were a guarantee. Employers and merchants who set their policies according to those representations were complicit, and deserve no better.

     Yet another episode in the ongoing erosion of trust in what was once the highest-trust society in the history of Mankind.

     I’d feel a fool to advise anyone to trust a medical professional today. Yet in a couple of hours I must entrust my wife, dearer to me than anyone else in the world, to the tender mercies of surgeons and after-care specialists once again. As the removal of her tumor involved serious peripheral consequences, I have no choice.

     Who was it who advised us to “Live fast, die young, and leave a good-looking corpse?” His counsel is looking better and better.

     Have a nice day.

Feb 09 2023

The Deserving Poor

     American Catholics tend to vote. (Yes, we have other bad habits as well.) Unfortunately, too many vote for Democrats. Why? The tragically misunderstood “social teaching” of the Church.

     It’s widely believed among Catholics that we have a moral obligation to provide for “the poor.” Note the lack of qualification. Part of the reason for that belief is the fuzziness of pronouncements on the subject from the Vatican. Sadly, the misunderstandings thereof are frequently buttressed by lower levels of the clergy. Needless to say, government “welfare” agencies and private eleemosynary organizations, both of which are always eager for greater revenues, do nothing to correct them.

     You’d think more of us would be familiar with what Saint Paul said on the subject:

     Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us. For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you; Neither did we eat any man’s bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you: Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us. For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies. Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread. [Second Thessalonians 3:6-12]

     From a secular perspective, we have the great Herbert Spencer:

     On hailing a cab in a London street, it is surprising how frequently the door is officiously opened by one who expects to get something for his trouble. The surprise lessens after counting the many loungers about tavern-doors, or after observing the quickness with which a street-performance, or procession, draws from neighbouring slums and stable-yards a group of idlers. Seeing how numerous they are in every small area, it becomes manifest that tens of thousands of such swarm through London. “They have no work,” you say. Say rather that they either refuse work or quickly turn themselves out of it. They are simply good-for-nothings, who in one way or other live on the good-for-somethings—vagrants and sots, criminals and those on the way to crime, youths who are burdens on hard-worked parents, men who appropriate the wages of their wives, fellows who share the gains of prostitutes; and then, less visible and less numerous, there is a corresponding class of women. [The Man Versus The State]

     And from only yesterday comes a cutting column from medieval history professor Robert W. Shaffern:

     CST has been suspicious of using the state to transfer wealth from one group to another. Leo warned in Rerum Novarum that little good came from it. As practiced in modern western countries, income redistribution violated the principle of subsidiarity, which says that social ills should be addressed locally wherever and whenever possible.

     In that vein, John Paul II taught in Centesimus Annus – his encyclical simultaneously celebrating the fall of Communism and the hundredth anniversary of Rerum Novarum – that the failures of the bureaucratic welfare state stemmed from disrespect for the principle of subsidiarity, which led to “a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies.”

     In the Catholic perspective, poor relief must not only relieve material deprivations but contribute to the cultivation of virtues, which in turn bolsters human dignity among the poor themselves.

     Those with means should be generous with their blessings, of course, for those blessings are God’s gifts and ordained for human flourishing. In justice, the needs of the deserving poor must be met. At the same time, however, the state must establish conditions whereby the deserving poor can earn a dignified living, which means policies that encourage agriculture, manufacturing, commerce, finance, etc. Intergenerational dependency isn’t part of authentic Catholic social teaching or poor relief.

     The deserving poor! How refreshing to come upon that formulation for a change! For there are “poor” who are not deserving. That is, their “poverty” is of their own making. Perhaps they were profligate with their means. Perhaps they lost their incomes through poor performance, alcohol use, or worse. And perhaps they are not truly in need of anything essential to life.

     “Poverty” today is a governmentally defined condition that has nothing to do with actual need. It’s determined as a percentage of the national median income. But the American median income is rather high, even in our current troubles. It allows families to afford consumption and spending practices that go a long way beyond the necessities, often deep into indulgences that are genuinely harmful to their younger members.

     Treating “poverty” thus contributes to the perpetuation of dependency, from one generation to the next. Professor Shaffern makes oblique note of that in the passage cited above.

     The relief of need should be judiciously practiced – and judiciousness in the transfer of funds from one person to another is not something for which governments are known. It should also be proximate: ideally, from adequately-provided-for Smith to deservedly needy Jones whom Smith knows personally. That way, Smith can be certain that his charity is doing good rather than harm. When this is not possible, charitable organizations – preferably locally based, locally controlled, and locally monitored – are the next best thing. Also, it should be given as non-fungible goods – food, clothing, shelter, fuel – rather than as cash. Cash can be misused; indeed, many “poor” are so because they don’t handle cash at all well.

     Yet today, the greater part of charity is neither judicious nor at all proximate. It’s determined and awarded by enormous bureaucracies – private and public – is almost always given in cash, and is not monitored for its effects. Such bureaucracies compound the damage by absorbing an ever-increasing percentage of their funding in “overhead:” bureaucrats’ salaries and perquisites and other internal costs. Is it any mystery why “the poor” never grow fewer in number? Is it at all baffling that they propagate their “poverty” from generation to generation?

     The crimes of governments are many. This one – the perpetuation of “poverty,” however defined – is among the worst of them, though it fires no shots and manacles no innocent.

     In her first great novel The Left Hand of Darkness, the late Ursula Le Guin had her Gethenian character Therem Harth rem ir Estraven say that “A man who doesn’t detest a bad government is a fool. And if there were such a thing as a good government on earth, it would be a great joy to serve it.” What a pity it is that “good government” has been so starkly revealed as a contradiction in terms!

Feb 09 2023

This Is Mind-Boggling

     How are American Catholics under attack? Let me count the ways:

     The FBI’s Richmond Division would like to protect Virginians from the threat of “white supremacy,” which it believes has found a home within Catholics who prefer the Latin Mass. An intelligence analyst within the Richmond Field Office of the FBI released in a new finished intelligence product dated January 23, 2023, on Racially or Ethnically Motivated Violent Extremists (RMVE) and their interests in “Radical-Traditionalist Catholics” or RTCs. The document assesses with “high confidence” the FBI can mitigate the threat of Radical-Traditionalist Catholics by recruiting sources within the Catholic Church.

     The acronym, new to many in the Domestic Counterterrorism field, comes with a footnote by the writer explaining RTCs are “typically characterized by the rejection of the Second Vatican Council.” The writer makes an unsubstantiated leap that a preference for the Catholic Mass in Latin instead of the vernacular and a number of more traditional views on other world religions can amount to an “adherence to anti-Semitic, anti-immigrant, anti-LGBTQ and white supremacist ideology.” This writer draws the important distinction between “traditional Catholics,” who simply prefer the Traditional Latin Mass and pre-Vatican II teachings, and RTCs, who espouse “more extremist ideological beliefs and violent rhetoric.”

     This can only be at the behest of the radical pro-abortion forces in the Democrat Party. With the FBI now operating as a secret political police force, we’re edging ever more deeply into Stalinism.

Feb 08 2023

First Thought Of The Day

     In Eric Drexler’s seminal Engines of Creation, the first book for laymen about the promise and perils of nanotechnology, he writes:

     States have needed people as workers because human labor has been the necessary foundation of power. What is more, genocide has been expensive and troublesome to organize and execute. Yet, in this century totalitarian states have slaughtered their citizens by the millions. Advanced technology will make workers unnecessary and genocide easy. History suggests that totalitarian states may then eliminate people wholesale. There is some consolation in this. It seems likely that a state willing and able to enslave us biologically would instead simply kill us.

     Now have a look at these two captures, courtesy of Western Rifle Shooters:

     Scared yet?

Feb 07 2023

Pebbles

     Greg Lake, originally of King Crimson and later of Emerson, Lake, & Palmer, was a multi-talent of the first water. Along with his instrumental and vocal skills, he was an occasionally irritating, occasionally brilliant lyricist. The following, from EL&P’s magnificent first album, captures my mood too perfectly for me not to post it.

Just take a pebble and cast it to the sea,
Then watch the ripples that unfold into me
My face spills so gently into your eyes
Disturbing the waters of our lives

Shreds of our memories are lying on your grass
Wounded words of laughter are graveyards of the past
Photographs are grey and torn, scattered in your fields
Letters of your memories are not real

Wear sadness on your shoulders like a worn-out overcoat
In pockets creased and tattered hang the rags of your hopes
The daybreak is your midnight, the colours have all died
Disturbing the waters of our lives,
Of our lives, of our lives, lives, lives, lives
Of our lives

     Rest in peace, Greg.

Feb 07 2023

Smart Tactics

     Clever tacticians know it: Strike the enemy at his weakest point. Believe it or not, that – not tanks, aerial warfare, or poison gas – was the biggest innovation that came out of World War I. Before that, nation armies would hurl themselves at one another’s strength, each hoping to destroy the another and win the war with a single overwhelming victory. But what if the enemy has no weak points? What then?

     Then you create one.

     I’d like my Gentle Readers to think about that for a moment. There are hidden subtleties in the notion. For one thing, it involves deception: the use of your forces and communication capabilities to lure your enemy into unbalancing his men, materiel, and maneuvers. For another, it can require that you accept a (hopefully) temporary imbalance among your forces, praying all the while that your enemy won’t notice it. Warfare between evenly matched contestants is like that. It’s true both at the chessboard and over a map of the world.

     Weak points come in many varieties. Some arise from nature itself. For example, in Europe both the Belgian plain and the Fulda gap are notable invasion routes, sculpted that way by the forces that shaped the continent. There isn’t much one can do about them except to build fortifications…and as the French discovered in 1940, even that can’t do everything.

     Another celebrated weak point is the salient: the protrusion of your lines in a fashion that creates attackable flanks. Attempts to exploit this tactical factor were a recurring feature of ground warfare on the Western Front of both World Wars. Field commanders learned to avoid creating salients the hard way. They also learned that presenting the opponent with an illusory salient – one that’s more apparent than real – can be a temptation he cannot resist.

     In today’s rapid, three-dimensional warfare, the continuity and security of supply to one’s forces is a critical consideration. Historically, logistical factors have tended to favor the defender. That might not be true any longer in open warfare.

     As for covert warfare, conducted against an enemy who’s unaware that he’s under attack, we might be seeing it in use today…against us.

***

     Freedom is under attack today. In truth, it always has been, for there are always men who desire power over others, and they never relent. Freedom elsewhere than in the United States has been extinguished. Nowhere on earth other than here is there a place where governments are under proper restraint, where private citizens can do as they like with what is rightfully theirs, and where the agents of the State are bound to respect the inherent and inalienable rights of the individual.

     Here in America, freedom has been under siege for a century and more. The Constitutional constraints we were told we could trust have eroded near to the point of uselessness. Men are imprisoned and kept that way without being charged. Their property is taken from them under flimsy, objectively indefensible pretexts. Some are killed outright and without cause, as witness Roseanne Boyland and Ashli Babbitt.

     Yet such open assaults on the rights of men can be pointed out, used to raise a hue and cry, and directly fought. That’s why they haven’t yet become so commonplace as to be usual. But they’re multiplying. They occur with increasing frequency, and not always by the direct action of government thugs.

     Our would-be tyrants are not satisfied with the brutalities enumerated above. They want our total subjugation. They want the state of existence a great writer described thus:

     “Oh hell, are you going to let that dame talk you into letting the richest country on earth slip through your fingers?” said Cuffy Meigs., leaping to his feet. “It’s a fine time to give up a whole continent—and in exchange for what? For a dinky little state that’s milked dry, anyway! I say ditch Minnesota, but hold onto your transcontinental dragnet. With trouble and riots everywhere, you won’t be able to keep people in line unless you have transportation—troop transportation—unless you hold your soldiers within a few days’ journey of any point on the continent. This is no time to retrench. Don’t get yellow, listening to all that talk. You’ve got the country in your pocket. Just keep it there.”
     “In the long run—“ Mouch started uncertainly,
     “In the long run, we’ll all be dead,” snapped Cuffy Meigs. He was pacing restlessly. “Retrenching, hell! There’s plenty of pickings left in California and Oregon and all those places. What I’ve been thinking is, we ought to think of expanding—the way things are, there’s nobody to stop us, it’s there for the taking—Mexico and Canada, maybe—it ought to be a cinch.”
     Then she saw the answer; she saw the secret premise behind their words. With all of their noisy devotion to the age of science, their hysterically technological jargon, their cyclotrons, their sound rays, these men were moved forward, not by the image of an industrial skyline, but by the vision of that form of existence the industrialists had swept away—the vision of a fat, unhygienic rajah of India, with vacant eyes staring in indolent stupor out of stagnant layers of flesh, with nothing to do but run precious gems through his fingers and, once in a while, stick a knife into the body of a starved, toil-dazed creature, as a claim to a few grains of the creature’s rice, then claim it from hundreds of millions of such creatures and thus let the rice gather into gems.

     [You know perfectly well where it’s from.]

     Ayn Rand’s focus was philosophical. She wrote of the ascent of a gospel of envy over the creed of the Declaration of Independence. Given her focus, her premise and the consequences she described are quite plausible. However, Americans remain largely immune to envy. We’re sympathetic to the plight of those who have not, but the great majority of us reject the calls for “social justice” from those who demand what’s plainly unjust. Indeed, a reaction against such tactics has been swelling, and might be near to a critical mass.

     So our would-be tyrants are falling back on a reserve tactic.

     We’ve frequently heard it said that they’re playing “the long game,” and it is true. Since 1900 at the very latest, they’ve been using a development many will not credit in their campaign. Quite recently it’s become overt, as has their exploitation of their preparatory work over the century past.

     The tyrants knew from early on that one of freedom’s stoutest defenses is the diffusion of resources it makes possible. For decades there was no choke point in our supply lines. No one commodity, product, or service was available from a controllable handful of suppliers. Freedom and the technologies of transport free men developed made us capable of reaching over continental distances for what we want…and more important, for what we need.

     To subjugate us, that had to be changed. Note the passive voice, for free men who want to remain free would not knowingly or willingly change it. But others saw the possibility early on. They pushed it as hard as they dared.

***

     The counter-tactic to diffusion is centralization. Centralization of production. Centralization of supply. Centralization of transport. Centralization, most visibly these past decades, of regulation and control.

     Have you been reading, these past couple of years, about the unprecedented rash of disasters afflicting food-processing plants? I have. Has it occurred to you to research the actual number of places where food is processed and packaged for transportation to the retail outlets where the great majority of us purchase it? There aren’t all that many. A couple of them are huge: large enough to control the greater part of our source of some food commodity we consume in quantity. By the way, are you aware that the USDA wants you to register your backyard garden? I wonder why.

     Just about everyone is aware of what’s been happening to our supplies of oil, natural gas, and gasoline. I suppose it will surprise no one to “learn” that those things are important to keeping our homes warm, our electrical appliances running, and our cars capable of moving us about. Gasoline is being squeezed to unaffordability by many of the working class. Heating oil and natural gas are becoming dear enough that homeowners are lowering their thermostats and shivering. Quite a number are doing so in the dark, to keep their electrical bills from bankrupting them.

     The steady inroads that foreign suppliers have made on our supply of regular prescription drugs should be news to no one. As regards the most common prescription medications, domestic suppliers are largely out of the game. A great many of them, especially the more affordable generic versions, are made solely in Red China. Have you had any difficulty getting the ones you need? Have you noticed a recent increase in the price?

     As is commonly known, centralization is a characteristic of the city. Centralized transport, centralized water supply, centralized waste disposal. Getting around by car is difficult owing to clogged streets – often streets originally laid out for horse and buggy traffic. As for water and waste, when people are gathered closely together, the municipalization and centralization of those products and services follows naturally. And of course, the higher cost of doing any sort of business in a city will naturally reduce the number of sources of products provided by “mature industries,” such as food.

     Add to this that about half the working population of these United States work for one of the Fortune 1000 – and the percentage rises yearly.

     Beginning to get the point, Gentle Reader?

***

     A substantial number of Americans have undertaken to stockpile important goods while they remain available. The colloquial term for this is “prepping.” The authorities have told their less future-oriented neighbors to suspect them of ill motives…especially the ones building or adding to their personal arsenals. As for that eccentric fellow down the street who’s exhorted them not to trust the continuing negotiability of the American dollar, well, he can’t be up to anything good, now can he? I mean, undermining our trust in the full faith and credit of the greenback! What can he be thinking?

     Rates of violent crime and crimes against property are rising from coast to coast. The looting of significant retailers has become especially blatant. The police have been acting rather casual about it all, not to say lackadaisical. They’ve been discouraged from acting by their political masters; too many of the criminals are black, Hispanic or children of the Establishment. Under the circumstances you might expect that the police would welcome a rise in citizen armament for self-protection, wouldn’t you? As the more gently reared have been taught to say, that turns out not to be the case, especially in the heavily populated coastal districts.

     Taxes are rising too. Every dollar the State takes from you is one less you have with which to supply yourself and your family with your needs. And let’s not discuss inflation, a wholly political phenomenon, at this hour. I haven’t the stomach for it.

     At least we can all rest assured that our kids are learning about gender mutability and the inherent racism of all whites in their daily classes.

***

     I had a very bad day yesterday, Gentle Reader. My beloved wife of 32 years had to have a cancerous tumor removed from inside her nose. I had to drive her a long distance at 4 AM, in the deep darkness, to the one and only place within our reach where the procedure could be performed. To add insult to cancerous injury, it’s left her disfigured, bleeding profusely, and dependent upon an incredibly powerful drug to dampen the pain.

     If you were awaiting an explanation for the substance of the above – never mind the tone – you have it now.

***

     If I may quote the Howard Beale character from Network, I don’t have to tell you things are bad. I probably don’t have to tell you they’re getting worse, and at quite a clip. But do I have to tell you what to do about it all?

     Well, maybe. Even the smartest of would-be tyrants can be defeated by an aroused and determined people. But I did so seven years ago:

     We must build up the molecules of safety, security, and social harmony: families and the communities they constitute.

     Do you trust your spouse? I hope so. But many married persons don’t. There are a host of reasons, these days. Don’t give him any of them.

     Children are inherently trusting until they realize that they’ve been deceived or betrayed. Accordingly, conserve your child’s trust in you: never lie to him, and never lead him to believe that he will (or might) get something he wants when there’s even a minuscule possibility that he won’t. The first phrase to be excised from your vocabulary is “We’ll see.” To you, that means “The possibility exists.” To him, it means “Yes, I’ll give it to you if you’ll just wait a moment.” Don’t bother to dispute the semantics; children are naturally inclined to hear what they want to hear. (Aren’t you?)

     What about your neighbors? Do you trust them? Would you be willing to leave your neighbor free access to your home while you’re on vacation in a distant place? Time was, that was normal; people left spare keys with neighbors as a matter of course. What about today? Are you willing to let your neighbors know that you’re in violation of some unjust law – say, a law that offers them a bounty for snitching on you? And when you think “my neighbors,” how far from your front door does the phrase reach?

     These are the areas where we can do useful work – work that promises a positive return.

     If you failed to listen then, will you hear me now?

     I hope so. For all our sakes.

     Have a nice day.

Feb 06 2023

Don’t Expect More Today

     The C.S.O. is “having a procedure,” as they say, so I’ll be away from the keyboard for a while, and probably too pooped to post for the remainder of the day. Have a good one.

Feb 06 2023

Had Enough Yet?

     I have:

     Josh Alexander, 16, is not allowed to attend school for the rest of the year after saying he would continue to express his belief that God created only two genders. The school told him his presence would be “detrimental to the physical and mental well-being” of transgender students, Alexander told The Epoch Times.

     He told St. Joseph’s Catholic High School in Renfrew, Ontario, he would not intentionally engage or start conflicts with transgender students, but he would continue to express his belief. He and his lawyer are bringing this matter to an Ontario human rights tribunal, calling it religious discrimination.

     “Offence is obviously defined by the offended. I expressed my religious beliefs in class and it spiraled out of control,” Alexander said. “Not everybody’s going to like that. That doesn’t make me a bully. It doesn’t mean I’m harassing anybody. They express their beliefs and I express mine. Mine obviously don’t fit the narrative.”

     He hasn’t attended school since November, when he was first suspended. He had organized a protest against transgender students using the girls’ washrooms. Alexander said he launched the demonstration after two girls at his school confided in him that they were uncomfortable sharing bathrooms with biological males.

     He had also said in class discussions that there are only two, immutable genders.

     A Catholic school, Gentle Reader. A Catholic school. Yes, it happened in Canada, not the U.S., but where will it happen next?

     Where is Cardinal Collins? Where is the Holy See?

     Excuse me while I froth at the mouth and convulse for a while. Oh wait: there’s this too:

     Prostitutes are now soliciting johns next to a St. Anthony’s K-8 Catholic grade school in Oakland all hours of the day after Governor Newsom signed a law ending loitering arrests for prostitution.

     Last summer the Democrat governor signed a state law that prevents police from arresting sex workers loitering for prostitution.

     So now the prostitutes are walking around scantily clad and in some even naked next to children and the police can’t make any arrests thanks to Gavin Newsom.

     Would the Vatican please put California under Interdict? It’s high time.

Feb 06 2023

Some Pictures Are Worth More Than 1000 Words

Like this one:

‘Nuff said.

Feb 05 2023

The Brazenness Has Not Yet Peaked

     This is typical of the race-hustlers: Wherever they’ve gained, they push for more:

     American systems of legal administration enact violence against minority populations. Examining and re-considering these structures, such as the criminal justice system (CJS), is a crucial part of anti-racist action….

     Princeton’s Honor Code, tasked with holding students accountable and honest in academic settings, mirrors the criminal justice system in its rules and effects. It is harmful to the entirety of the Princeton community: the fear it instills in students fosters an environment of academic hostility. But it is often most damaging for first-generation low-income (FLI) students — students who also often belong to racial minorities.

     If you have a strong stomach and are capable of laughing at outrageous lunacy, feel free to read it all. Otherwise, be content with this summary:

  • Princeton’s Honor Code forbids cheating on examinations, essays, term papers, and laboratory reports. It specifies a procedure for investigating whether a violation has occurred, for a hearing on the matter, and for optional consultations with the dean of students.
  • If a student is found to have committed a violation, he will face one of the following penalties:
    1. a reprimand,
    2. disciplinary probation,
    3. a suspension,
    4. a suspension with conditions,
    5. permanent expulsion.
  • The student may appeal to the dean for reconsideration.

     That’s all. The Honor Code does not cover any of the various penal offenses covered by the criminal code. It is concerned with academic honesty only, and all its penalties are academic in nature.

     Many black and Hispanic students are admitted to colleges and universities under lower standards than those applied to whites. Yes, even at Ivy League Princeton. Now it seems that asking them to submit their own work, rather than someone else’s, is prejudicial. Could there be any stronger argument that black and Hispanic students can’t meet the standards imposed upon whites and Asians? Could Emily Santos’s demand that they not be held accountable for academic dishonesty be interpreted as anything but a demand that all such standards be erased?

     “Social justice” has already ruined primary and secondary education. That’s why the majority of white-collar employers require a college degree from an applicant – in some cases regardless of the demands of the position applied for. Were “higher education to go in that direction, can anyone imagine what would follow?

     Yet people call me a racist for saying that a single standard must apply to all. I’m sure those folks think well of themselves. But the damage they’re doing to the “minorities” whose causes they champion goes beyond my power to catch in a net of words.

     “You can ignore reality, but you can’t escape the consequences of ignoring reality.” – Ayn Rand

     Or as I prefer to put it, God is not mocked.

     Have a nice day.

Feb 05 2023

Differences Small And Large

     You may have seen this before. It’s a brief clip from Cate Blanchett’s movie Tar:

     If you dislike videos, here’s the transcript, as best I can render it from the error-prone YouTube attempt:

Max: You play really well, but nowadays white male CIS composers…just not my thing
Lydia Tar: Don’t be so eager to be offended. The narcissism of small differences leads to the most boring conformity
Max: I guess Edgard Varese is okay…I mean like Arcana anyway.
Lydia Tar: Oh well then you must be aware that Varese once famously stated that jazz was a Negro product exploited by the Jews. Didn’t stop Jerry Goldsmith from ripping him off for his Planet of the Apes score. It’s kind of a perfect insult don’t you think?
     But you see, the problem with enrolling yourself as an ultrasonic epistemic dissident is that if Bach’s talent can be reduced to his gender, birth country, religion, sexuality and so on, then so can yours. Now someday Max, when you go out into the world and you guests conduct for a major or minor orchestra, you may notice that the players have more than light bulbs and music on their stands. They will also have been handed rating sheets, the purpose of which is to rate you. Now what kind of criteria would you hope that they would use to do this? Your score reading and stick technique, or something else?
     All right everyone: using Max’s criteria let’s consider Max’s thing in this case. Now can we agree on two pieces of observation? One that Anna was born in Iceland, and two that she is in a Waldorf teacher kind of way a super-hot young woman? Show of hands….All right now let’s turn our gaze back to the piano bench up there and see if we can square how any of those things possibly relate to the person we see seated before us….Where are you going?
Max: You’re a fucking bitch.
Lydia Tar: And you are a robot. I mean unfortunately, the architect of your soul appears to be social media. If you want to dance the masque, you must service the composer! You’ve got to sublimate yourself, your ego, and yes: your identity. You must in fact stand in front of the public and God, and obliterate yourself.

     It’s the finest evisceration of “woke” political posturing I can imagine. That Hollywood allowed it to be made is a kind of miracle. The core of the thing is Lydia Tar’s first statement:


The narcissism of small differences
Leads to the most boring conformity.

     It doesn’t matter whether you consider the differences involved large or small. They’re actually quite significant in determining one’s beliefs, preferences, intentions, and conduct. What matters is the Left’s one and only aim: conformity. Your conformity with the Left’s prescriptions and proscriptions. And no matter how they may mutate – and you may be sure they will, and more rapidly than you might expect – you will be required to keep in step, to chant the obligatory slogans, and to cheer and boo for the right people and on cue.

     Most of the creed, however many and tortuous the vermiculations it experiences, will consist of shameless contradictions of what is objectively, verifiably true. For as has been said, those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities…and atrocities will be among the Left’s marching orders. Don’t ask at whom the atrocities will be aimed, or why; just do as you’re told.

     Indeed, the smallest imaginable differences will be artificially inflated to weather-balloon size. Gradations of hair color will be deemed catastrophic. Differences in vocabulary will be made into justifications for pogroms. For the important thing, the essential thing, Comrade, is to keep the revolution going! Fervor must be maintained. Fidelity to the Party must become the sole criterion of importance – and to certify it, every one of the faithful will be required to recite the whole of the Creed: word for word, regularly, before an approved doctrinal monitor. That monitor will have the power to condemn you for any slightest degree of deviation.

     They who have called Leftism a religion aren’t quite correct. No religion fit for human consumption demands that its adherents believe that which is demonstrably untrue.

***

     These days, 1984 is probably the most frequently cited and quoted of all fictions. If George Orwell / Eric Blair were alive, he’d probably demand residuals. All the same, its relevance is unquestionable. It sometimes looks as if the Left has aimed at reifying the Party’s absolute rule over all things… which, in Orwell’s novel, extended even to the thoughts of its subjects.

     It’s been proposed by several that the Left will “eat its own” sooner or later. Indeed, there are signs of that already. I’ve seen it before, in a collegiate setting. The purveyors of doctrine cannot allow anyone to dissent from any aspect thereof. It could call the whole edifice into question, and where would we be then? Tolerating freethinkers? Allowing dissidents to go their own way?

     That might be the most promising opening for a counterattack from the Right. For among the faithful are surely persons who talk the talk without fully accepting it. The possibilities for fomenting internal strife are appealing, if not too savory ethically.

     Trouble is, the strategists of the Left know it too. Their quest for political hegemony has the enforcement of “politically correct” doctrine as one of its principal aims. It’s part of why they excoriate any well-known person – especially among the culturally prominent – who differs with them. (Consider J. K. Rowling as an example.) Granted that they don’t have a Ministry of Love yet…but the century is young.

     Don’t imagine there’s anything deep hidden in this piece. It’s just what I’ve been thinking about this morning. Besides, as I’ve said on other occasions, I charge my Gentle Readers what my opinions are worth.

     Have a nice day.

Feb 05 2023

A Stunning Advance In Translation Technology

     With the rapid ascent of “artificial intelligence” software have come considerable strides in an area that’s long interested me: software that can easily and usefully translate among languages. And yes: AI is definitely required to do the job properly. The reason is the idiosyncratic nature of human communication. We rely on idioms and cultural conventions to convey meaning far more often than most of us are aware.

     What I didn’t know until quite recently is that the translators have advanced so greatly that they can now handle Dog! Now, thanks to the geniuses at Uranus Corp®, you really can understand what your pooch is trying to tell you. However, it requires that you aim your computer’s camera at Fido, as much of Dog is expressed with facial expressions and body language.

     Here’s an automated translation of a recent emission from my dog Sophie, a 13 year old German Shepherd mix:

WHAT I SAW AND HEARD:
     [Sophie holds tail high, does partial forward squat, and offers a wide grin] Woof! Ur, Ur! [concludes with protracted purr-like hum]

WHAT SHE MEANT:
     “I’ve been waiting for hours for you to take me outside and throw the BLEEP!ing ball for me to chase, and all you do is sit there at the BLEEP!ing computer and argue with morons on the BLEEP!ing Internet.”

     Of course, Uranus doesn’t guarantee that you’ll like the result.

At Uranus,
Things Come Out Just A Little Differently.
[Uranus Corp. Motto]

Feb 04 2023

Can Freedom Be Individualized?

     “Professor, I can’t understand you. I don’t insist that you call it ‘government’—I just want you to state what rules you think are necessary to insure equal freedom for all.”
     “Dear lady, I’ll happily accept your rules.”
     “But you don’t seem to want any rules!”
     “True. But I will accept any rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.”

     [Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress]

     It’s a classic statement about moral responsibility…and something else as well. Among us are many who seek to make rules. Usually they’re rules for other people to obey. From the same source:

     Must be a yearning deep in human heart to stop other people from doing as they please. Rules, laws—always for other fellow. A murky part of us, something we had before we came down out of trees, and failed to shuck when we stood up. Because not one of those people said: “Please pass this so that I won’t be able to do something I know I should stop.” Nyet, tovarishchee, was always something they hated to see neighbors doing. Stop them “for their own good”—not because speaker claimed to be harmed by it.

     It’s pervasive among us. There’s probably no hope of eradicating it. Our sole conceivably realizable hope is for fleeing it: beating feet to escape its reach. But even then, except for him who flees alone, there’s likely to be someone nearby who’ll want to make rules…if not now, then in the near future.

     What’s a lonely freedom seeker to do?

***

     The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion. – Albert Camus

     Camus’ sentiment was echoed some years later, with lots more detailed recommendations, by Harry Browne. I’ve often wondered whether their language was simply too direct for me, because I failed to understand what they were driving at. What could their conception of “personal liberty” mean in a world steadily surrendering to totalitarianism? What good would it be, now or in the future?

     It’s a tough nut to crack. The typical freedom advocate is interested in political freedom: the limitation or abolition of the authoritarian State. He doesn’t think in personal terms. But as matters stand, the odds are stacked massively against him.

     How likely is it that an ultra-reductionist, completely individual approach along the Camus / Browne lines would work – i.e., would yield results that would satisfy the individual freedom-seeker – where the political approach has not?

     That’s the question before us today.

***

     I encountered this video at NC Renegades:

     Moving, poetic, inspiring…yet the question remains unanswered: Is it possible to be “personally free” in a land ruled by an authoritarian State? Where that State can take whatever it wants from you, while compelling, forbidding, and regulating all of human conduct and enterprise? Wouldn’t it require a radical reconceptualization of freedom itself?

     The nut remains uncracked, especially for those surrounded and dominated by would-be rule-makers. Something a dear departed friend said to me long ago strikes me as relevant. He, like me, was an applied mathematician. As “we spoke the same language,” I was able to grasp his meaning at once:

Within a suitably defined region, any group ready, willing, and able to impose its will upon the individuals within that region is a State de facto.

     It’s a bit like the Implicit Function Theorem. If you’re not alone, there’s a State near you, even if it’s not doing much at the moment. Indeed, you might be a member. This is redolent of Lao-Tse’s lament that the only liberty one can achieve inheres in solitude and quietism: to want nothing and to accept everything. To him, all other aspirations were futile.

     How, then, to “liberate” oneself in a fashion that doesn’t require the acceptance of rule by others?

***

     I don’t have an answer that satisfies me. I have to designate this a question for further contemplation. But stay: What if our quest is badly aimed? What if the goal we should seek lies elsewhere than in the rejection of coercively imposed authority?

     Herbert Spencer’s blockbuster 1850 tract Social Statics came with a subtitle: The conditions essential to human happiness specified, and the first of them developed. The subtitle was more revealing than the title, for a reason that has eluded men for centuries. Indeed, Aristotle told us the reason, yet the majority of men have failed to grasp it:

Happiness is that we seek as an end in itself, and for no other reason.

     In Spencer’s conception, we seek freedom as a route toward greater happiness. Spencer was aware that happiness is our ultimate temporal goal. He believed that men cannot be enduringly happy unless they’re free. In mathematical terms, freedom is a necessary precondition for happiness.

     Whether Spencer was right or wrong about this, freedom is demonstrably not sufficient.

     There have been free societies in which there were many unhappy people. They wanted or needed something more…or something else. Indeed, some of them could not become happy without imposing their wills on those around them: i.e., become the local State. That poses a problem insoluble in political terms.

     We all want to be happy. By Aristotle’s definition, that’s tautologically true. But happiness is no more guaranteed to a man than a particular job, or spouse, or lifespan. Some want to be free; others want to be rulers. (A few want to be slaves; they advertise in various urban publications.) Whether freedom is necessary for the happiness of the great majority is uncertain. Given the trends of the century behind us, there are arguments both ways.

     None of this will satisfy the man who wants above all other things to be free from coercion. And who knows? Even if utterly free he might remain miserable to the end of his days. I could name a few such. Would that mean that he doesn’t really know what he wants?

     Food for thought.

Feb 04 2023

Cognitive Dissonance Chronicles

     The use of deliberate contradiction and confusion to paralyze the populace is a classic tactic of totalitarian regimes. It’s also used by aspiring tyrants:

     The recent controversy over gas stoves is a classic example of how the left works.
     They put the idea out there that they wanted to get rid of gas stoves. The liberal media ran with it immediately. We suddenly had articles in major newspapers claiming that gas stoves cause asthma and are bad for your health and the environment.
     When the public pushed back on this idea, suddenly the idea of banning gas stoves was a conspiracy theory. Suddenly, you were crazy for even thinking that anyone was going after gas stoves.
     Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer of New York is now mocking Republicans for this, and the liberal media is playing right along. Look at this:

     There’s just this one little problem:

     In the memo dated Oct. 25, 2022, Richard Trumka Jr. — whom President Biden appointed to serve on the five-person Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) — wrote to a fellow commissioner that there was sufficient evidence for the agency to move forward with a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) to ban gas stoves in the near future. Trumka’s memo was titled, “NPR Proposing Ban on Gas Stoves (Indoor Air Quality).”
     “The need for gas stove regulation has reached a boiling point,” the CPSC commissioner wrote in the October memo. “CPSC has the responsibility to ban consumer products that emit hazardous substances, particularly, when those emissions harm children, under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act.”

     The repeated use of this tactic is often sufficient to induce a policy of distrust by everyone in everything. Not that we aren’t pretty close to that already, mind you. But the Democrats may have made an error in using the Dishonorable Charles Schumer for this mission. New Yorkers, at least, know better than to believe what comes out of his mouth. The rest of the country should take notice.

     Winston sank his arms to his sides and slowly refilled his lungs with air. His mind slid away into the labyrinthine world of doublethink. To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself. That was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word ’doublethink’ involved the use of doublethink. [1984]

     Our telescreen is not on your wall, Comrade. It’s in your hand. Now thank us for raising the chocolate ration to twenty grams.

Feb 03 2023

China’s Ambitions to Take Over the World?

Not gonna happen.

You remember that Belt & Road Initiative? The outreach to underdeveloped, but resource-rich countries, that had China promising to build infrastructure in return for money and control of their resources?

A lot of people – me included – were very concerned about that effort. If it succeeded, wide swaths of Africa and South America were going to fall to Communism.

It seemed to be a tidal wave of change that was unstoppable.

So much for the Tidal Wave. The Ecuadorian projects is the one referenced in the WSJ article, but it is just:

one of many Chinese-financed projects around the world plagued with construction flaws.

Ace goes on to comment:

OG Moron Tmi3rd notes that there is “a Chinese phrase called “cha bu duo”, or “good enough”. There’s a tolerance for slop in China that, although intended to be pragmatic, has pervaded their culture in a destructive way. I think that’s what you’re seeing here. “ Such a thing is not unknown, Arab countries struggle with the same kind of thing – Inshallah. The building will stay up if Allah wills it may not be the most efficient approach to engineering. All those huge projects you see built by oil money across the middle east are at the very least designed by western firms, and usually built by them too.

There is further information at Ace of Spades, including information about the current state of the Three Gorges Dam, and what failure of the dam would mean to China.

Basically, collapse of their civilization, and massive loss of lives.

If I were in charge of a business outsourcing to China, I’d be working overtime to see that I had other options set up for production. Then, I’d start moving it to that new place, ASAP.

There is a HUGE market in medication production for any country that wants to provide some assistance in setting up factories manufacturing the basic materials that are the base for nearly all drugs. If a state wanted to take on the project, it would likely pay them back 10-fold or more. The only thing that would be essential is to KEEP CHINA OUT OF THAT PROJECT. Make all employees – from the top to the bottom – undergo extensive and ongoing security investigations.

Feb 03 2023

Moral Principles And What Follows Their Dismissal

     Fulton Sheen said it better than I ever could:

     I’ve known people who would argue endlessly that there are no moral absolutes: i.e., that there are no natural rights to life, liberty, or honestly acquired property. Not all of them were stupid. Neither were all of them criminally inclined. They simply couldn’t cope with the idea that there are laws that enforce themselves, much as do the laws of physics. There was one gentleman – and I assure you, he would never have harmed a fly – who thought the following was a refutation of the notion:

     “If someone steals your car stereo, and it doesn’t come back to you all by itself, then there are no natural rights.”

     Yet the patterns that run through the history of Man speak eloquently to the existence of those natural rights. Those rights are “no respecter of persons.” Neither do they discriminate among the races, nor among the ethnicities, nor between the two and only two sexes. When they go unacknowledged, chaos and carnage follow.

     The piece just below this is a case in point. Today there is a racially privileged group to which the requirements of the law are not uniformly applied. That group is now the principal source of violence and predation in these United States. The graphic below tells the tale. Another observation – that the “whitest” states are the ones with the lowest crime rates per capita — amplifies its voice.

     The “race versus culture” arguments will go on for a long time to come. Either side might be right. It’s possible that both sides are partially right and partially wrong. While we can argue until our tongues drop off, in the end it doesn’t matter. Above all else stands the differential application of the law, as if the black race were exempted from respecting the natural rights of Man.

     The swelling chaos and violence this has brought upon America’s cities is guaranteed to persist and worsen unless and until that exemption is retracted. Indeed, it might persist even beyond that; habits of mind, heart, and soul inculcated in a race over several generations could prove resistant to correction. But unless the law is once again uniformly applied to all persons regardless of race, sex, ethnicity, creed, or what have you, the guarantee will stand.

Feb 03 2023

An Eye-Opening Graphic

     I stole this from Ragin’ Dave at Peace or Freedom:

     Says a lot, doesn’t it? But there’s a larger tale to tell, and tell it I shall.

     Have you ever heard the term “Saturday-night special?” I’d bet most of our Gentle Readers have. It’s a derogatory phrase that refers to inexpensive handguns. It’s usually combined with the proposition that whatever the law thinks of other firearms, those cheap guns should be banned.

     So far, not really news to most Gentle Readers. But what’s probably news is the origin of the phrase. It’s closely tied to another phrase: this one no longer in general circulation because what it refers to doesn’t happen anymore: Niggertown Saturday night. That…event was once a feature of Jim Crow states. Lowlife whites would arm themselves, journey to where blacks lived nearby, and terrorize the neighborhood. Happily, that practice has died out.

     The phrase “Saturday-night special” referred to the weapons the local blacks would acquire, to be wielded in their defense on such a Saturday night. Those inexpensive handguns, affordable by even the poorest blacks, were a large part of the motivation for some of the earliest gun control statutes. They leveled the playing field, such that those who sought to terrorize them had to expect return fire. The lowlifes didn’t like that. Neither did the political powers of their day, who were willing to overlook a little Saturday-night fun, but not the death or maiming of their youngsters.

     Well, as the graphic above indicates, the times have changed, and we’ve changed with them. But that’s not an argument for gun control of any variety. The states that have the most permissive gun laws have the least amount of violent crime per capita. Rather, it suggests that the investigation, prosecution, and overall deterrence of violent crime is still racially biased. It’s just that the vector of that bias has reversed direction – and now that firearms are available to persons of all races, the cohort with the greater inclination toward aggression and lawlessness dominates the statistics.

     Food for thought.

Feb 03 2023

When A Man Shows You Who He Is

     …believe him:

     Hakeem Jeffries is the Minority Leader for the Democrat Party caucus in the House of Representatives. I have no doubt that his statement expresses the sentiments of his caucus. Do we really need a more in-your-face statement of the Democrats’ intentions for this nation?

Feb 02 2023

The New Standard For Guilt

     Amendment V: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

     Quite a number of years ago, there was a doctor named Sam. Though his reputation was spotless, he was accused of murdering his wife. There was no evidence to that effect, other than his discovery of her corpse. However, the newspapers in his district of residence were determined to make him stand trial for the crime. It became a widely celebrated case of “trial by newspaper:” the use of private media to pre-convict an innocent man. (The case also helped to catapult F. Lee Bailey to stardom as the preeminent defense attorney in the United States.)

     The political Establishment was watching. While Sam Sheppard’s conviction for murder was overturned on appeal and he was acquitted at his retrial, the value of the media in establishing a public conviction of the guilt of an accused man was plain. The federal government has used it more than once. But then, when Washington wants to get you, it is going to get you, and be damned to niceties like individual rights.

     Divemedic has a related article today:

     …Sheriffs are posting people’s names and pictures on television to tell the world that those people are criminals, even when they aren’t.

     Don’t get me wrong, I am not against being tough on crime, but there is a process for that. We don’t allow police in this country to punish lawbreakers. There is a process for that, and it doesn’t include destroying people’s lives because you are trying to garner a few votes.

     We may not want the police – or the media – to exercise the power to punish, but these days they do it quite a lot. However, I have another infamy in mind at the moment. It’s interrelated with one of our contemporary fears. It goes by the name of domestic terrorism.

     Consider our attitude toward terrorists. What do they deserve from us? The most common opinion is a quick death, though some would opt for torture beforehand. Now consider: how often do we hear public officials refer to persons they dislike as “domestic terrorists?” That includes persons who, however the public may view them, have not (yet) been convicted of any crime. If that isn’t an attempt to pre-convict the accused through the manipulation of public opinion, what would you call it?

     The most egregious case, of course, involves the gaggle of January 6 protestors. The great majority of them did nothing more heinous than walk into the Capitol Building. Yet Joe Biden and the Democrats’ media handmaidens swiftly labeled them “insurrectionists” and “domestic terrorists.” And the great majority of those so labeled have been involuntarily imprisoned for two years, their access to counsel impeded if granted at all, and a speedy trial most certainly denied, under that label.

     It was a blatant attempt by a politician to punish his political adversaries through the power of the media. And it worked horrifyingly well: well enough that the “COVIDian evangelists” were unhesitating in applying the same technique to their adversaries.

     Anyone who dared to dissent from the lockdowns, reject the masking and “social distancing” decrees, or refuse the highly experimental (and ultimately both ineffective and dangerous) mRNA-based vaccines was swiftly and unapologetically labeled a “domestic terrorist.” Well, why not? Winning the battle for public opinion was what mattered, not truth or justice. The Harry Reid stratagem had already proved its efficacy, despite being an obvious lie. Mitt Romney didn’t get elected, did he?

     If any Gentle Reader needs further evidence for my claim that America as founded is only a memory, please tell me what would satisfy you.

     America the High-Trust Society is no longer. I’ve ranted about it before. I doubt that there are many who would argue the point with me. But it’s important to understand the tactics that have caused our demise. While I doubt we’ll see a restoration of the old Republic while I live, I profoundly hope that future generations will study the methods used to destroy it and learn to counter them. This one is of no use to men of good will, only to power-lusting villains.

Feb 02 2023

What Was The Left’s Old Mantra?

     Oh yes, here it is:

Always Advance As If Under Threat Of Attack

     Two articles bring this to mind:

     The former weak mea culpa pleads for forgiveness. “We thought we were doing the right thing. Hey, anybody can be wrong. Scientists make mistakes too. Besides, there are other problems to be solved!” It’s not the first such plea. Why, you’d think the “public health” community had been threatened with a reduction of funding!

     But mistakes were not the gravamen of our anger. We were incensed at the “scientific community’s” arrogance, its posture as a clergy that cannot be wrong, and its invocation of totalitarian methods to impose its will upon the populace. Note that the article concludes with a statement of its mission: “Restoring trust in public health.” The very core of our fury – that there is no such thing as “public health:” — is completely omitted.

     As for the second article…forgive me, Gentle Reader. Upon discovering it I started laughing hysterically. It took me quite a while to come to a halt. The Left’s absolute and unwavering commitment to its belief in its moral superiority is most blatant in the article’s closing:

     The unvaccinated should by any moral measuring stick have done more to warn about the potential risks — to help us make informed decisions about our health. And they must now ask us for our forgiveness.
     And, hand to heart, we may just give it to them.
     Because we are good people. We took those injections because it was the right thing to do — until it wasn’t.

     It’s stuff like that that makes me wonder if IQfy.com is a parody site.

***

     There isn’t a great deal more to say about the specific subject of COVID-19 and the highly experimental, essentially untested mRNA vaccines. It’s unlikely that any heads will roll over it. Too many of the most culpable belong to our society’s political Establishment. Besides, there are celebrities involved. We can’t cast the titans of the film world into the outer darkness, now can we? Who’d make the next dozen sequels to Avatar?

     Yet there is an upside. Everything has one, even if one must squint hard to see it. The upside in this case is the destruction of trust in “public health authorities.” Indeed, we owe them a great deal more than distrust, for it was at their urging, with the Venomous Dwarf leading the charge, that totalitarian lockdowns and fascistic penalties were wrought upon us for daring to dissent from the The One, Holy, and Indisputable COVIDian Narrative.

     The evangelists of COVIDianism may admit their “errors,” but they will never concede the truly execrable nature of their imposture. That would require that they cease to pose as “authorities.” What would become of their self-image then? As for their Big Pharma collaborators, who raked in billions for the deadly vaccines that have brought us the Epidemic of Died Suddenly: their turn will come.

Load more