More and more people, on both sides of the political divide, are waking up to reality

 

I was pleased to see this article at Quillette.  The author, Jonathan Kay, is clearly of mid-left-wing political sympathies, but he's also clearly a thinking man, who's realized that we're headed like lemmings towards a cliff from which there's no return.  I can only wish more people of good will, on both sides, could realize this, and do something about it before it's too late.  The former is happening.  The latter . . . not so much.

When you have lived long enough in a foreign country, you eventually begin to realize that the one you left behind, once accepted as utterly unique since it was all you knew, is not particularly different from anywhere else. One can call this perspective, but it is more a recognition of the essential contingency of any nation.

This is especially true when observing a country like the United States, which raises its children to believe that it is exceptional and, being exceptional, also immortal. Indeed, living in a country like Israel, which must be ever-vigilant about existential danger, I am struck by America’s extraordinary sense of invulnerability. An unthinkably bloody civil war did not break it, nor did Pearl Harbor or even 9/11. America and Americans, by and large, think they are going to live forever. Like most Americans, I grew up reflexively believing this. It was never said or taught outright, but it was a kind of cultural assumption. America was born of the virgin Liberty, and like the son of God in which it still largely believes, will always rise from the dead.

From afar, however, you eventually realize that, just as no man is immortal, nor is any nation. It is possible, of course, that it may survive for a very long time—much longer than the lifespan of any individual citizen. But even Rome fell, and while the Jews and perhaps India and China appear to prove the possibility of perpetual existence, it is in the nature of existence itself that survival is by no means inevitable.

This disillusion has been much on my mind lately, as I gaze from this great distance at the country of my birth. Because ... it looks like America is in the midst of a crack-up.

I doubt that it is necessary to present a complete list of the symptoms of this collective nervous breakdown, but there were certain inflection points that seem important in retrospect. Over the past 20 years, America threw itself into two wars, one necessary and the other wholly not. It saw the rise of an anti-war movement that asserted, quite stridently, that a relatively innocuous president was the equivalent of Hitler. It watched as its overclass, through greed and short-sighted pursuit of profits, nearly destroyed the economy. It elected a messianic leader who proved all too human and followed him with a narcissistic, bloviating, entirely unscrupulous incompetent who was indifferent to the basic conduct required to sustain a democracy. It witnessed a direct attack on one of the great institutions of that democracy, now defended by a great many who ought to know better. It fostered an opposition composed of radicals prone to censorship and street violence. It has been riven by racial divisions that appear to admit of no obvious solution. And now it must contend with the fact that approximately half the country believes that a presidential election was stolen because their mendacious leader told them so.

The results of all this are not too difficult to discern: A significant segment of the American Left and Right have both, to a great extent, given up on the republic and its institutions. Something like a low-intensity race war has broken out both on the streets and in rarified cultural and academic institutions. Half the country considers their opponents godless, pagan heathens who are—at times literally—in league with Satan. The other half considers their opponents Nazis who are seeking to rebuild and re-enforce a white-dominated racial hierarchy. Both believe, quite sincerely, that the victory of the other side will mean the triumph of evil and therefore must be prevented at (almost) any cost.

All of this has led me to contemplate a depressing but perhaps inevitable possibility: I don’t see how America gets out of this. I had hoped that the Capitol attack might finally break the fever, and that some measure of sanity might prevail. But the opposite happened, and the Right has, with some noble exceptions, doubled down, proclaiming that the mob were peaceful protesters and Ashli Babbitt is the new John Birch. The Left, meanwhile, has gone about gutting the right to free speech and destroying the lives and reputations of anyone who ventures that there are, for example, only two sexes. Neither side, then, is willing to admit the obvious, and is determined to impose an alternative truth—that is, lies—by coercive means, if necessary.

This all seems to add up to something like a sign of the end. Republics, and especially democratic republics, rest not only on the written law but also on an unwritten law: “Thou shalt submit to reality.” This brand of Enlightenment-born politics requires citizens to assent to the laws of the republic, the institutions of the republic, and the results of its regular elections, secure in the knowledge that there will always be another one. In other words, citizens are expected to conduct themselves as reasonable human beings. No one, however, appears to be reasonable anymore. One side believes that the moral imperative of equity overrides all other values and considerations, including the Bill of Rights; the other side submits to nothing but the dictates of its spiteful demagogue. This is unsustainable.

There's much more at the link.  Recommended reading.

I don't see how America gets out of this, either.  It's still possible for rational, reasonable people to find a way;  but rational, reasonable people are not in charge right now, and are not leading either wing of US politics.  It's become a tired old cliche to quote Yeats, but sadly his words are no less accurate for that:

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

What Mr. Kay fails to realize (or, at least, to acknowledge) is that the individual leaders involved - President Obama, of whom he clearly approves, or President Trump, of whom the opposite is clearly true - are not the "leaders" of their respective "sides".  The two are merely figureheads for their followers, giving a human face to a fundamental dissonance in US society.  The extremists on either side appear unwilling to regard the other as "human".  Instead, they're "things" - "Rethuglicans" or "Democraps", leftists or rightists, conservatives or progressives, enemies or friends.  There's no longer any recognition of the essential humanity and shared national heritage that should unite us.  I've written many times about that dissonance and its effect on societies.  See, for example, what I said about the Paris terror attacks in 2015, and apply that to US society today.  There's an awful lot in common.

I did not like and still do not like President Trump's arrogant, abrasive style, and did not and do not support him because of it.  I did so because his policies to put America first and restore the balance between Wall Street and Main Street were and are, to me, so self-evidently correct.  Others will, of course, disagree with that perspective, as is their right.  That's the beauty of freedom;  one is free to choose.  I disagree profoundly with those who hold that President Obama's policies were right;  but I grant that if he won a free, fair, democratic election and proceeded to implement those policies, he had the same right to do so as President Trump had to do the same when he won election.

Sadly, neither side is willing to extend such tolerance to the other any longer.  We are no longer the "United" States, whether we like it or not.  Instead, we no longer trust each other, and we no longer trust the organs and institutions that run our country.  That way lies dissolution.  As economist Herbert Stein said, "If something cannot go on forever, it will stop".  That seems to be happening right now to our country in its present form.

Charles Lipson sums it up.

Sometimes, stories that appear unrelated share common foundations and have cumulative effects, far more serious than any one does individually. Highlighting these common features tells us something profound about our society and its troubles.

. . .

The problem we face, beyond the specifics about crime, COVID, duplicity, and social division, is a palpable breakdown in public order at the same time the public has lost confidence in our government officials and the institutions they lead. The two meta-problems—the breakdown of order and erosion of public confidence—are deeply intertwined because we count on our leaders and institutions to give us reliable information, provide a stable environment (so each of us can go about our lives), and abide by the same rules we all do. Those are foundational elements of a peaceful, liberal, democratic society. Their attrition imperils that society and its governance.

. . .

The danger and dishonesty come after decades of eroding trust in public officials and the institutions they lead. Polls in the early 1960s showed over 70% of the public believed public officials were telling the truth. Those numbers have declined steadily to less than 20%. Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon got that ball rolling downhill, but it hasn’t stopped. The mistrust goes beyond public officials to include news media, social media, universities, corporations, unions, churches, and even civic organizations such as the Boy Scouts.

The public put aside those doubts, at least temporarily, when the COVID pandemic struck in February and March 2020. Almost everyone was willing to follow mask mandates and business closures. They were willing to let small children skip in-person learning and use their computers. But after more than a year of self-confinement and school closures, the public’s patience has run out.

So has the public’s confidence that health officials know what they are doing and are telling us the truth.

. . .

The public’s growing mistrust of senior officials, elected and appointed, overlaps with widespread doubts that those officials must follow the same rules as the rest of us. This common standard, and public confidence in it, is foundational to our constitutional democracy. Politicians, billionaires, and celebrities may be able to hire the best lawyers, but they are not supposed to be above the law itself.

. . .

The key point here is that these problems—and they are serious—occur amid a long-term decline of trust in all our institutions, public and private. That problem goes well beyond the FBI’s bias, the hypocrisy by Muriel Bowser or Gavin Newsom, or the public mistrust in Anthony Fauci’s pronouncements and the CDC’s guidance. It goes beyond Trump’s dangerous game in questioning the election, and beyond surging crime and illegal immigration. Serious as those problems are, an even larger problem encompasses them: threats to our country’s stability are cumulating when the public no longer has confidence in the institutions meant to cope with them.

Again, more at the link.

That's the problem, right there.  We no longer have faith in each other as fellow citizens.  We no longer have faith in our society and its institutions.  We have lost faith, not just in our common, shared humanity, but in the various and sundry faiths that helped us look beyond the obvious, to perceive the natural in terms of eternal truths and the supernatural.

President Adams pointed out, more than two centuries ago:

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

I think he was absolutely right - and we are no longer either a moral or religious people.  Thus, our Constitution is proving inadequate to bind us together.  Sadly, there is nothing else to do so . . . and thus, as Yeats put it, "things fall apart;  the center cannot hold".

I see no way out of this dilemma except separation;  the breakup of our Union into two or more separate polities.  If anyone thinks that's going to be an easy or peaceful process, there's a bridge in Brooklyn, NYC I'd like to sell you.  Cash only, please, and in small bills.

Peter

Boys and their supersonic toys

 

The fighter pilots of the French Navy clearly have as much fun as those of the US Navy, to judge by the videos they produce.  Here's their most recent offering.

Boys and their toys, indeed!

Peter

It looks like Portland police now protect and serve only themselves and their political masters . . . but not the public

 

Joe Dolio, writing at Tactical Wisdom, highlights a dilemma that occurred in Portland last weekend, but confronts police officers everywhere.

In Portland this Saturday, a prayer group held an event at a park and were immediately attacked by ANTIFA. ANTIFA pepper sprayed people without provocation, they stole several speakers and damaged them, and stole speaker stands. This actually constitutes armed robbery. The police did nothing.

The group left the park and were pursued throughout the downtown area by ANTIFA. There is video of one group walking down the street, and ANTIFA runs up & pepper sprays them without provocation, RIGHT NEXT TO A POLICE CAR. The prayer group fought back, then ran over to the police car to report the crime. The police never got out of their car.

When I posted about this, someone said “You don’t know what the city told them”. Correction: I don’t CARE what the city told them. That’s right. Because they swore an Oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. That Constitution guarantees EVERYONE equal protection under the law. It also guarantees the Freedom to Exercise Religion. Inaction is not fulfilling that Oath.

. . .

Officers: Fulfill your Oath of Office or find another job. Make your choice. Neutrality isn’t a choice in this issue.

There's more at the link.  The entire article is well worth reading, and I highly recommend it.

(You might want to note the tweets from an Antifa member, as reported here.  The organization is clearly not interested in dialog or discussion of any kind - but then, extremists seldom are.)

Mr. Dolio highlights an issue that's going to come to the forefront in the weeks and months to come.  The USA is now (illegitimately) in the grip of forces that aren't interested in fairness, even-handedness or ethical norms.  They want it their way, and they want it now, and any resistance will be treated as selfishness at best, insurrection at worst.  Wherever they control law enforcement agencies, be it national, regional or local, they'll try to make those agencies into their lapdogs and enforcers.  The individual members of those agencies will have to make a choice:  will they allow themselves to be treated like that, or will they stand up for what is right?

The Portland police have clearly made their choice - at least, the ones who remain employed there.  The others, those who will stand up for what is right, have apparently already left, because they were conspicuous by their absence last weekend.

As fellow blogger Divemedic points out:

As I have said on the “Danger Zones” list, the entire Interstate 5 corridor from the Canadian border south to Eugene, Oregon can best be described as an area of active, low intensity combat and Portland itself is behind enemy lines and is considered enemy territory.

The biggest reason that such things are happening there is that the police have chosen to side with the left wing insurgents. They simply stand there and watch as these sorts of events unfold. There is a lesson there for those of you who think that the police in your area will risk losing their pensions in order to take a stand.

Again, more at the link.

Friends, before you trust the police to keep you safe and secure, make sure they actually will.  If they won't, it's all on you - so be prepared to take care of yourself if necessary.  Just be careful how you do it.  Last year, I wrote two articles outlining the danger involved.

Self-defense under a justice system

that's no longer on your side

No, I wasn't being alarmist -

rather, I wasn't alarmist enough

Nothing's changed - in fact, it's gotten worse since then.  Consider those Portland cops who refused to defend the innocent last weekend.  If the innocent had tried to defend themselves, would those same cops have allowed them to do so - or arrested them?

I think we all know the answer.

I'm very glad I'm not a cop in Portland at present.  I don't know how I could live with my own conscience if I was.

Peter

After 2020, you expected an honest election???

 

We've said many times that after all the shenanigans of the November 2020 elections, there won't be another free and fair election under Democratic Party rule.  They'll make sure "the fix is in", and the result will be preordained.  This week has seen several developments that confirm it.

First, from California, ballot security is now a myth and a memory.

According to screenshots posted to Twitter, one from the California Secretary of State’s website and one from the Orange County Registrar of Voters, all California voters (not just those with disabilities or serving overseas in the military) can request a “Remote Access Vote by Mail” ballot for the California recall election, a ballot which is printed at home and then mailed or hand-delivered to the county elections official.

. . .

Throughout June there was increasing chatter that an earlier recall election date would favor Newsom, since his poll numbers were still good and it seemed that California would come roaring back after the indoor mask mandate was lifted June 15. But a few years ago California legislators had changed the recall laws to put more roadblocks to an election day in place, hoping to save Democrat Sen. Josh Newman from recall. Those roadblocks were now a problem, so on June 23, the bill was amended again.

The June 23 amendment – entered the exact same day the Secretary of State certified the recall petition, meaning it had enough valid signatures to qualify for the ballot – allowed the Lt. Governor to set an earlier election date, mandated that every (alleged) registered voter receive a vote by mail ballot, set times for in-person voting centers, and expanded access to the Remote Access Vote By Mail Program to every (alleged) registered voter.

Because, apparently, having a ballot mailed to them and access to vote in person still isn’t quite enough access for these people.

Oh, and of course, these provisions are set to expire on January 1, 2022. Until the legislature inevitably decides they’re necessary for the future.

. . .

At this time we have not seen any official procedures for how RAVBM ballots received are secured or if they’re checked against other vote-by-mail ballots received or in-person ballots to ensure that the voter has only voted one time. One can imagine legions of union workers dutifully printing these ballots, with the union bosses keeping boxes of them at the ready to be delivered to LA County, San Francisco, or Oakland at 3 am if it looks like Gavin might actually lose this thing.

There's more at the link.

If, after all that legislative and electoral jiggery-pokery, Gov. Newsom doesn't win the recall election, it can only be because he and the Democratic Party don't want to win it.  Their preparations for cheating are so in-your-face as to be laughable . . . and they don't care that we know it and can see it.

Next, it emerges that the Federal Electoral Assistance Commission (EAC) has quietly (and allegedly improperly) changed long-held standards for vote counting machines.

Key elements of the first federal technology standards for voting equipment in 15 years should be scrapped because language that would have banned the devices from connecting to the internet was dropped after private meetings held with manufacturers, according to a federal lawsuit filed Tuesday.

The lawsuit against the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., claims those meetings should have been open and that changes to the draft standards should have been shared with the commission’s advisory and standards boards. The lawsuit seeks to have those changes set aside.

The standards, approved in February, did not include draft language that would have banned wireless technology from voting equipment under federal certification guidelines. Voting security experts say the machines will be vulnerable to hacking without such a ban.

While the commission’s certification guidelines are voluntary, multiple states use them to set mandatory requirements for voting equipment.

Again, more at the link.

If you're surprised that a Federal agency would change so important a standard, consider the structure of that agency, and its staffing.  Bold, underlined text is my emphasis.

A deeper look into the certification process used for the machines, however, reveals that the main certification agency in the United States, the federal Election Assistance Commission (EAC), maintains an unexpectedly small staff, and one of its chief employees is a former executive of Dominion Voting Systems.

Furthermore it appears the bulk—if not all—of the testing of the election equipment is conducted by only two companies, Pro V&V and SLI Compliance.

Electronic voting systems have become increasingly incorporated into the election process, raising concerns over their security, reliability, and accuracy in the process. Lightly-staffed federal agencies who appear to maintain overly close ties to the companies they are supposed to be monitoring raises additional questions about the thoroughness and integrity of the verification process.

More at the link, and well worth reading further.  Note that Dominion's machines and software are at the heart of allegations of electoral fraud in November 2020, and Pro V&V certified the Georgia election results that have now been called into question by ongoing investigations in Fulton County there.

Finally, we learn that human post-election intervention in Georgia rendered many officially invalid ballots usable - despite regulations that should have prevented them from ever being counted.  Those conflicting measures are still in place, and will affect any election held there unless and until they're removed or amended.

Scores of ... ballots ... had checks manually removed next to Trump's name as well as many other candidates up and down the ticket — Libertarians, Democrats and write-ins alike — and the votes awarded instead to other candidates.

Welcome to the arcane process known as adjudication, where human judgment is substituted for machine scanning in cases where voters incorrectly filled out a paper ballot. Election officials and official observers have dealt with it for years, with everyday citizens mostly oblivious to the process.

But in 2020, adjudication played a much larger role in states like Georgia, which allowed hundreds of thousands of additional citizens to vote absentee for the first time during the COVID-19 pandemic.

. . .

The adjudication ballots alone are not enough to change a Georgia election in which Biden and Trump were separated by less than 13,000 votes. However, they reveal an imperfect system vulnerable to chaos, subjectivity, or political dirty tricks, especially in a county like Fulton where state officials documented widespread irregularities and misconduct and now want to take over election counting.

. . .

[The review] also raised another troubling question, at least in Georgia, where election regulations create two conflicting imperatives. One regulation, which is quoted on each absentee ballot, emphatically declares that a paper ballot should be deemed "spoiled" and uncountable if a voter makes any mistakes or unauthorized marks ... Just the News reviewed hundreds of ballots that met the "spoiled" definition — ballots that voters had in some way altered, defaced, or corrected — that were still allowed to count after adjudication. The reason? Another Georgia regulation gives election officials broad discretion to try to determine the intent of a confused voter, and actually encourages them to find a way to make flawed ballots count.

More at the link.

Put all those reports together.  Now, would anyone care to explain to me, and to the American electorate, how we can possibly expect a free, fair and honest election in future, unless and until all such measures are overturned and legal accountability is restored to the voting process?

My recipe for electoral honesty and accountability is simple.

• One paper ballot per voter;
• To be completed on the day of the election by the voter in person, with no proxies or "assistants" or any other intervention allowed except at the voter's request, at the polling station, to an electoral official;
• No advance ballots whatsoever without provable good reason (ill health, travel, military assignment, etc.), and unless they're cast by the voter in question, in the presence of an electoral official, at an officially approved site.  No "ballot harvesting" or like-it-or-not "assistance" at nursing homes, etc.  If assistance is needed, see the point immediately above.
• No electronic voting, vote tabulation, or "adjudication".  It's all done by hand, with observers from any and all parties allowed to monitor proceedings freely and without restriction, and the results cross-checked against the ballots whenever necessary.  If the numbers of votes are so great that it's not possible to count them all in a timely manner, then let the counting function be divided across multiple centers, so that the numbers are manageable without outside "assistance".
• All ballots and other documentation are to be retained for a suitable period in case further checks are needed.
• Any and all electoral officials are to sign their awareness and acceptance of laws that impose severe consequences upon them for any and all electoral fraud, mismanagement or error that they commit and/or for which they are responsible.  They'll have no excuse for getting up to shenanigans.

However, I suspect it'll be a cold day in hell before the Deep State or the Democratic Party allows such measures.  They've got too much to lose.

Peter

Oh, the memories!

 

I was mentally transported back to my childhood when I came across this picture on Gab the other day.  (Clickit to biggit.)

My late father had the identical radio in his study in Cape Town, South Africa, during my formative years.  Many's the evening I'd go in there to find him smoking his pipe, the aromatic blend of American and Turkish tobacco slowly turning the white paintwork of the door frame and the white plastic of the radio buttons to brown as he puffed contentedly.  He'd turn on the radio, and we'd wait patiently for the valves inside to warm up and reach operating temperature;  then he'd tune the radio to the short-wave BBC signal, and we'd listen through the crackling of the static and the howl of competing signals to a calm, patrician voice from London reading the news.

Closing my eyes, I'm transported back to those moments as if it were yesterday.  I can smell Dad's tobacco in my nostrils and feel it catch at the back of my throat, that's how real it is.

Dang, some memories sneak up out of nowhere and ambush you, don't they?

Peter

The first "Mark of the Beast" - and there will be more

 

By now I'm sure most of my readers are aware of the decree that all US active duty military personnel must be vaccinated against COVID-19 - no if's, but's or maybe's about it.  Effectively, it's be vaccinated, or be discharged (probably under an "other than honorable" classification, with likely negative effects on veteran's benefits).

I think this is extremely unwise, given the proven ineffectiveness of the vaccine at preventing new or reinfections, albeit at a reduced level of severity.  Nevertheless, the government does have the legal right to impose health requirements for the public good, as determined in Jacobson v. Massachusetts in 1905 and subsequent case law.  Whether it's wise or beneficial to do so is, of course, not within the court's purview.

However, by imposing this requirement, the government is effectively making it a political litmus test for its military personnel.  Obey - and you get to stay in uniform.  Refuse - and you're fired, probably with at least some negative consequences for the rest of your life.  It's a pretty good way for the government to ensure that those potentially not supportive of its policies are driven from the ranks, leaving the military as a whole that much more politically reliable and trustworthy (from their perspective, of course).  One might even suspect that they might feel more free to use that military against their political opponents, or against the people, to enforce conformity to their decrees.

Private companies appear to be following suit in their own operations, requiring that their staff be vaccinated as a condition of continued employment, or refusing to provide services - including access to shops, etc. - to customers who aren't vaccinated.  In that sense, vaccination has already been compared to the Biblical "Mark" or "Number of the Beast", in Revelation 13:16-17:

It also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads, so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of its name.

Those who aren't Christians, of course, won't worry about that:  but I find the similarities between forced vaccination (particularly a known-to-be-ineffective, as yet not-officially-approved vaccine) and enforced conformity to be more than a little troubling from a spiritual perspective.

The thing to remember is that this is only the first litmus test imposed by the State.  It's limited in scope and effect (although to those forced to decide, it's not very limited at all!).  However, what if more follow?

• What if you can't get Social Security or welfare benefits, or access entitlement programs, if you're not vaccinated?
• What if your worker compensation benefits are linked to your immunization status?
• What if your right to travel, by some or any means, is linked to that status?
• What if you aren't allowed to renew your driver's license or vehicle registration unless you're vaccinated, making even driving illegal?

There are many possibilities where the State can apply more and more rigorous pressure to force compliance with its decrees.  It's not yet done so . . . but that doesn't mean it won't.  Our present (illegitimate) administration and its progressive-left-wing allies are determined to rule, whether we like it or not.  Their demands are not based on medical science or health considerations at all - we know this, because they've been caught lying so often and so consistently, and the pseudo-"science" involved has so often been confounded and exposed by later developments.

No, it's all about CONTROL.  They know that the only way they can stay in power is by controlling any and all opposition:  and a health "crisis", manufactured or otherwise, provides a perfect cover for forcing people to conform to their will - or else.

Also, remember that COVID-19 is only one pretext to strengthen their control.  There will be more.

• What if we have another 9/11?
• What if a massive cyber-attack takes down essential US infrastructure?
• What if supply chain disruption means that supplies of essential materials become scarce, so that the government takes over their distribution - and, in doing so, ensures that those who obey its edicts get them first, or more of them than others?  Rationing is one of the most effective means of social control available.
• What if global economic conditions lead to massive recession and depression that throws millions more Americans out of work, forcing them to rely on a government "safety net" to survive?  What conditions might be applied to qualifying for that "safety net"?

There are any number of possible scenarios, and I have no doubt many of them are actively under consideration by the powers that be as I write these words.  They may not even need such a pretext.  They are bound and determined to make us conform to their "Great Reset", whether we want to or not.  They know, with all the fervor and fanaticism of a religious zealot, that they're right and we're wrong:  and they therefore feel completely justified in forcing us to conform, or else.

I've quoted C. S. Lewis on this subject before, and it's worth doing so again, particularly in the light of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.

Prescient words, that look to be coming true in our own times.  The State does, indeed, appear to classify those who disagree with its motivations and actions in the same light as "infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals".

There is going to be no peaceful way out of this.  The irresistible forces of socialism and statism and oligarchy are running headlong into the forces of freedom and individuality and self-determination.  Only one side can survive such a confrontation.  The upshot, of course, is that every single American is going to have to choose a side.  There won't be a "middle ground" in which to meet, or a fence on which to sit.  There are already all too many Americans who would rather fight each other than talk to each other, and behave like civilized human beings.

The situation is made worse by the reality that those who stole power last November are using the fruits of that crime to impose their will upon us.  They have no legitimacy;  therefore, they're going to seize a sort of pseudo-legitimacy, even if it's a false front, by forcing us to kowtow to it - and to them.

Every day, the sparks are getting closer and closer to the tinder.  When it ignites . . . it's not going to be pretty.  Batten down your hatches and brace yourselves, friends.

Peter

Memes that made me laugh 70

 

More from the weird, wild, wonderful Web over the past week.  Click any image for a larger view.

More next week.

Peter

Sunday morning music

 

Today we'll visit an Irish folk group, The Wailin' Banshees.  They're relatively new, releasing their debut song and video, "Step It Up Mary" in 2017.  I know very little about them apart from that:  they list a Web site, but it won't open for me due to a DNS error, and I'm not on Facebook so I can't look them up there.  (I understand there's a page on Facebook with their name, but the photograph from it on a Google search showed many more people than are in the Irish group, so I'm not sure it's the same outfit.)

Interestingly, the group appears to design and record their own music videos, rather than leave that to professionals.  I've liked those I've seen.

I've run into their music a couple of times now, and enjoyed it:  so here are a few selections for your listening pleasure. Let's start with their debut piece, "Step It Up Mary".

Here's their cover of Steve Earle's "Copperhead Road".  It's the first cover of it I've heard that's as good as the original, IMHO.

Here's a live performance of their version of The Waterboys' "Fisherman's Blues".

Here's their rendition of the classic Irish song "The Curragh of Kildare".  I've found that sometimes the video won't play when embedded:  if that happens here, click this link to listen to it on YouTube.

Here's a Yuletide song from the group, "A Tale for Christmas", which its YouTube blurb says is "paying tribute to both 'Fairytale of New York' and the annual shenanigans of Christmas Day".  Again, if it won't play while embedded, listen to it here.

Finally, here's another original composition, "Parting Glass".

Pleasant listening indeed.  I hope we hear much more from this group.

Peter

Saturday Snippet: It's a hard life, being a prophet

 

I've long enjoyed Jewish humor for its self-deprecating light-heartedness, and its sometimes surprisingly deep insights into the heart and soul of people in general.  There are many classics of the genre out there, and some have become very popular in the general community.

David M. Bader is a Jewish author who's definitely made the crossover to widespread non-sectarian acceptance.  From his first book, "How To Be An Extremely Reform Jew" in 1994, his humor and witticisms have been widely quoted and admired (so much so that much of it is now spread across the Internet without attribution to him as the author).  I've enjoyed several of his books, which include (in roughly chronological order):

• Haikus for Jews: For You, a Little Wisdom
• Zen Judaism:  For You, a Little Enlightenment
• Haiku U: From Aristotle to Zola, 100 Great Books in 17 Syllables

Today's snippet will be from two of his books.  I'll start with his most recent work, "The Book of Murray: The Life, Teachings, and Kvetching of the Lost Prophet".

Introduction

In the modern world, the lives and teachings of biblical prophets often seem remote and dim in our consciousness. And of all these narratives, The Book of Murray may well be the dimmest. This little-known work, a relatively recent addition to the religious canon, has baffled biblical scholars since its discovery. Still, it is assigned reading at some universities and seminaries, possibly because it is very difficult to get anyone to read it voluntarily.

The saga of how The Book of Murray first came to light begins in the land of Israel in ancient times. It resumes centuries later in Boca Raton, Florida, on the 14th hole of the golf course at Kibbitzing Pines Country Club. There, on either his third or fifteenth attempt to chip out of a sand trap (accounts vary), retired hosiery importer Leo Plotnick struck something hard and hollow.

When he investigated, he was surprised to discover a buried earthenware vessel. Inside it were scrolls of parchment, untouched and unread for thousands of years, filled with sacred writings painstakingly inscribed with a primitive stylus, all covered with some sort of mold that was murder on his sinuses. Among these scrolls, now known as the Boca Scrolls, was one bearing the title The Book of Murray.

Experts who examined The Book of Murray immediately questioned its authenticity. How had scrolls purporting to be from biblical times made their way to Florida? Why were they so different in both tone and appearance from other ancient scrolls? Most importantly, why was there no mention of anyone named Murray in other biblical texts? The result was a schism among biblical scholars so great that a number of them called for the manuscript to be taken back to the golf course and reburied in an even deeper hole.

The historical significance of The Book of Murray began to emerge only when carbon dating showed that the scrolls were indeed quite old. Soon after, stains on the parchment—confirmed to contain trace amounts of brisket—were removed to reveal the complete text. For years, scholars had been puzzling over the stark contrasts between modern Judaism and the world of the Israelites of the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings. Leviticus might contain guidance on keeping kosher, but where was the scriptural support for pocketing a dinner roll from a buffet “for later”? In The Book of Murray, scholars finally found answers. Here was the missing link that showed that today’s Jews and their ancestors had more in common than previously seemed imaginable.

And yet, The Book of Murray continues to raise as many questions as it answers. Who was Murray? Will his teachings add significantly to our understanding of important religious principles? And why was his book buried where it was?

Prophetic words spoken in one age are not always entirely intelligible in another. This is especially the case when, as with The Book of Murray, they were not entirely intelligible the first time around. For all its difficulties, though, The Book of Murray offers a unique perspective on the distant past that explains much about the present. Three thousand years after it was written, Murray’s age-old yet oddly contemporary wisdom still teaches us much about ourselves.

The prophets of ancient Israel—men such as Amos, Isaiah, and Jeremiah—while divinely inspired, were deeply involved in the world around them. So too was Murray. The pages that follow remind us that these men of God were very much students of the human condition. They also remind us that some of them were better students than others.

David M. Bader
August 2010

Chapter 1

The Birth of the Prophet

And it came to pass that the descendants of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob went into Canaan, for they sought water and pasture for their flocks. And it was a place of peaceable hills and valleys, with rains that came in due season, low crime, low taxes, and a goodly public school system. Verily, it was a land flowing with milk and honey.

And they were called the Tribe of Levi (Relaxed Fit) and these were their generations: Jedidiah begat Zedidiah, and Zedidiah begat Zebediah, and Zebediah begat Obadiah, and Obadiah begat Irving. And Irving took unto him a wife, Francine, and they were called the Silvermans. But they were without child and begat no one.

And the Silvermans prayed and beseeched the Lord to open Francine’s womb, yet her womb remained closed. And they made burnt offerings of rams and heifers and loaves of barley to the Lord, but it availed them not. And they offered coffee rings and bagels and white-fish salad to the Lord, yet she did not conceive. And they tried everything, even sex, but still she was barren of child. And they wept.

Then Francine went up to Mount Sinai to seek counsel from the Lord. And she went up also to a specialist at Cedars Sinai for a second opinion. And she promised the Lord that, if he would give her a child, she would give the child up in service unto the Temple for all the days of his life, though not all the evenings. And the Lord heard her prayers and answered them.

So it came to pass that she bore a son. And they called him “Murray,” meaning “he whose parents have planned his life without consulting him.” And they were sad no more.

Chapter 2

The Early Years

And when the child was weaned, his mother brought him to the Temple with three bullocks, one ephah of flour, and a box of Pampers. For though he was weaned, he was not yet toilet trained. And she said unto the High Priest of the Hebrews, “Here is the child I promised the Lord. He shall abide with thee and serve the Lord for all the days of his life, though not all the evenings.”

And the High Priest of the Hebrews said, “Um, thanks but no thanks. Really. We’re fine here.”

And Murray went back home and remained there.

And when Murray was older, his mother returned him to the Temple once more that he might abide there and serve the Lord. And the child did remain to minister unto the Lord before the High Priest of the Hebrews to the best of his ability, which was not great. For on parents’ day, the High Priest did upbraid his mother with harsh words, saying, “Thy son speaketh barely a word of Hebrew.”

And she said unto him, “Is that such a big deal?”

And the High Priest of the Hebrews answered, “At this point in history, it’s our only language.”

And Murray’s mother was ashamed and she did weep and wail and rend her garments. And she insisted unto the High Priest that Murray was very gifted and that he just tested poorly.

Yet despite his mother’s prayers for him, Murray continued to worship below his grade level until it was quietly suggested that he pursue a less demanding vocation, such as goat herding or advertising. For though he was promised to the Lord, he was a washout.

So Murray departed from the House of the Lord and went forth into the house of his parents, specifically the finished basement, where he dwelt rent-free.

And he found work among the crops in the fields, planting in the planting season and harvesting in the harvest season.

For to every thing there is a season: a time to sow, a time to reap, and a time in between to work as a bartender.

And Murray also did odd jobs in the orchards and vineyards. And though his pay was meager, Murray was content, because he was a humble person and because it was all off the books.

Next, here are some samples from "Zen Judaism:  For You, a Little Enlightenment".

If you wish to know The Way, don't ask for directions.  Argue.

Be here now.  Be someplace else later.  Is that so complicated?

To find the Buddha, look within.  Deep inside you are ten thousand flowers.  Each flower blossoms ten thousand times.  Each blossom has ten thousand petals.  You might want to see a specialist.

Let go of pride, ego and opinions.  Admit your errors and forgive those of others.  Relinquishment will lead to calm and healing in your relationships.  If that doesn't work, try small-claims court.

The enlightened monk attains permanent liberation - Nirvana.  The unenlightened returns again and again to the wheel of suffering.  Infinite deaths, infinite rebirths, infinite circumcisions.

If there is no self, whose arthritis is this?

Enlightenment is a sudden, wordless understanding.  Stop telling everyone already.

Breathe in.  Breathe out.  Breathe in.  Breathe out.  Forget this and attaining Enlightenment will be the least of your problems.

Do not kvetch.  Be a kvetch.  Become one with your whining.

If you meet the Buddha on the path, show him the photos of the grandchildren.

Drink tea and nourish life.  With the first sip, joy.  With the second, satisfaction.  With the third, Danish.

What use is profit?  Can accumulating money day after day in a trade or business truly bring satisfaction?  Of course not.  For that, one must go shopping.

To practice Zen and the art of Jewish motorcycle maintenance, do the following:  get rid of the motorcycle.  What were you thinking?

From his high vantage point, the Buddha was able to perceive with complete clarity not just the past and the present but also the future.  Practicing Zen, you, too, can begin to anticipate what others, with less elevated perspectives, cannot.  Then you can say, "I told you so."

One inch of meditation, one inch a Buddha.  Inch by inch, through constant meditation, you can reach his six-foot height.  Then meditate a little longer to get the waistline.

Enter into your inner self and behold the eye of the soul.  Gaze upon your original face before you were even born.  Shocked?  Remember, this was before the nose job.

Zen is not easy.  It takes effort to attain nothingness.  And then what do you have?  Bupkes.

Gentle, self-deprecatory humor.  Both books are classics of their kind.

Peter

"The Kung Flu insanity down under"

 

That's the title of a post by Miguel over at Gun Free Zone.  Money quote:

Lockdowns are not science anymore but a tool of absolute control. If you have done the same thing 5 times already and [it] did not work, what in Hera’s name makes you think this time will work? The answer is: They know it won’t work for whatever they sold you it was needed but it is working charmingly for their purposes.

Go read the whole thing.  I couldn't agree more.

Peter

Follow-up on those scope power ring levers

 

A couple of days ago I wrote about the use of a "Coaster", an item of fishing gear, to make an ad-hoc throw lever for a telescopic sight's power ring.  A lot of readers seem to be looking into that, with much success.

However, Tom G. wrote to describe an issue with his extended-eye-relief scope, complete with pictures.

Hi Peter,

I was excited when I saw your blog post about using the Coasters as a scope dial ring handle.  I had seen it before but hadn't kept the link.  I ordered a set and tried to put them on my rifle.  This is a cautionary tale that it won't work for everybody.

My rifle is a Ruger GSR "scout" with a forward-mounted Burris optic.  It has very little clearance between the power ring and the rail.

I painstakingly trimmed down a bunch of the ribs with nippers, then took the whole thing (just the coaster!) to the belt sander and reduced it some more ("trimmed).  The picture "divots" shows that I could not reduce it enough, it still bound up.  The picture "clearance" shows how little room there is.  So now I'm back to square one.  Either I bubba the rail or find another solution.  

But the second one will work on another scope!  

Keep up the writing!

Tom

(Feel free to use this on your blog if you want)

Thanks for writing, Tom, and for sharing your experience with us.

The obvious answer, of course, is to use a slightly higher set of scope rings, to allow greater clearance between the power ring and the rail.  Of course, this may not work for everybody;  it will mean adjusting one's sighting technique to allow for the changed height, which may be less comfortable than before.  I guess there are trade-offs everywhere.  Still, if you want a really low-mounted scope, then I guess that won't allow enough clearance for the Coaster to be usable as a throw lever.  YMMV.

One possible solution, that would be less comfortable than a full-size Coaster but should still be usable, would be to use a regular cable tie instead.  They're thinner than the Coaster.  The "nub" where the ends come together would still offer at least some purchase to turn the power ring more easily.

Peter

The deliberate destruction of the rule of law

 

A lot of people don't seem to understand the real implications of the CDC's issuing a new moratorium to prevent eviction of tenants for non-payment of rent.

First, this was specifically stated by the Supreme Court to be beyond the CDC's powers.  Effectively, the CDC raised a disdainful finger to SCOTUS and said, "To hell with you, and with the constitution, and with the law.  We're going to do as we see fit, and damn anybody who objects."

Second, this was done with the full backing of the Biden administration and the liberal, progressive wing of US politics.  They did so quite deliberately, because it offers them a new lever to derail America as we know it.  They assumed - apparently correctly - that most people would simply shrug and accept the move as necessary, whether or not it was legal, to help people who would otherwise find themselves on the street.  They promoted feelings over fact, necessity over law, and expediency over principle.  If they get away with it in this instance, they've reasoned, they can do so again in future - and over far more serious issues, ones that directly impact any American who still believes that the constitution and laws of this country will protect and defend his rights.

In so many words, tenants facing eviction were and are nothing more than an excuse.  This was an exercise to see if the progressive left could get away with defying the law and the Supreme Court.  So far, they have, just as President Lincoln did when defying the courts over the suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War.  Biden is no Lincoln - he's about as far from a Lincoln, in terms of his lack of competence and ability, as it's possible to get - but he's taken a page out of his distinguished predecessor's book.  He's defied the law.  He's neutralized the third arm of the tripartite system of government - legislative, executive and judiciary - that has until now lent stability and reason to our country.  That stability now totters unsteadily on only two legs . . . and that can't last.

I regard this as far more of a pretext for revolution than anything that has gone before.  If the rulings of our courts are no longer binding on all of us, then anything goes in America.  Might makes right.  Feelings matter more than facts.  Emotions are more "valid" than principles.  "If it feels good, do it" has ascended from teenage efforts to evade conventional morality to the founding principle of the state - and with results that will doubtless prove just as disastrous in the long term.

Tucker Carlson is 100% accurate in his summation.

If you’re wondering how all of this can possibly be legal, rest assured that it’s not — it’s not even arguably legal. We know for a fact that it’s not. The Supreme Court just ruled on the question, specifically. The court found that the CDC does not have the right to institute a nationwide eviction moratorium. Period. Only Congress can do that. Now, the court didn’t make us guess on their view on this, the court put that in writing, in the clearest possible language. There's no debate about that. The Biden Administration just ignored what the court said.

How can they do that?  

Congresswoman Maxine Waters of Los Angeles understands exactly how they did it. Waters is hardly a genius. It’s likely she’s never read an entire book. But one thing Maxine Waters knows well is how third-world regimes operate. When you want something, you simply take it. You’ve got the guns. Who’s going to stop you? Might makes right. The Fidel Castro method. Waters explained that out loud today, as she pushed Rochelle Walensky to suspend private property in America.

"I don't buy that the CDC can't extend the eviction moratorium," Waters wrote on Twitter, perfectly aware that the Supreme Court had already prohibited it. "Who is going to stop them? Who is going to penalize them?" 

Well, good question, nobody. And Nancy Pelosi knows that too. Pelosi knows that what Rochelle Walensky just did is illegal by definition. She also knows that openly ignoring a Supreme Court ruling will mean the end of our current system. That’s fine with Nancy Pelosi.

"The CDC has the power to extend the eviction moratorium," Pelosi said. She didn’t explain where that power comes from. She simply declared that it exists, as dictators do.

Keep in mind that even Joe Biden, who knows very little, knows that what his administration has just done is against the law. He said it on camera yesterday: 

JOE BIDEN: I've sought out constitutional scholars. To determine what is the best possibility, that would come from executive action or the CDC judgment. What could they do that was most likely to pass muster? Constitutionally. The bulk of the constitutional scholarship says that it's not likely to pass constitutional muster. Number one. But there are several key scholars who think that it may and it's worth the effort.

So the eviction moratorium has been in place for months, it has just been extended as of today. So people have debated this, jurists have weighed in on it, and so we know, it won’t pass, "constitutional muster," says Biden. In other words, it’s illegal. The people doing it are criminals. That’s the word we use for people who knowingly break the law. But like most criminals, they’re not embarrassed by breaking the law, that’s what they do.

. . .

These people are so filthy, but they’re self-righteous. Did you catch that? We don’t have the legal authority to do what we’re doing. But we’re doing it anyway. Because who’s going to stop us?  

Republicans? Mitch McConnell? Please. Mark Milley doesn’t report to Mitch McConnell. Mitch McConnell doesn’t control the FBI or the intelligence agencies. Mitch McConnell is unarmed. What’s he going to do about it? Give a grumpy speech and drive back to his condo? 

That’s what they’re saying. That’s what criminals always say when they shake you down at gunpoint. And make no mistake, that’s exactly what they’re doing. That’s exactly who they are.

There's more at the link.

I've been hoping against hope that we can avoid an actual civil war in this country;  that, despite all the odds against it, enough Americans still had faith in the constitution and the rule of law to prevent a descent into mutual fratricide and destruction.

After this week's events, that hope has been extinguished.

The progressive left had previously gotten away with murder, metaphorically speaking, by stealing last year's election:  but they had not yet demonstrated such open contempt for the Supreme Court and the Constitution.  They at least tried to maintain the fig-leaf, the veneer, of legality.  They are no longer doing so - and they won't stop there.  They'll build on that "success" by doing it again, and again, and again.

Ironically, attempts by the progressive left to prevent and destroy resistance to their efforts will rely on the same legal and judicial framework that they've just trashed over the no-eviction order.  History will probably get the last laugh over that . . . but that depends on which side wins the struggle for freedom.  If the progressive left has its way, their jackboots will snuff out our freedoms forever.

Time to gird your loins, friends.  This immediate issue may not affect you, but I guaran-damn-tee you that another one will, soon enough.  Be ready - and be prepared to pay the price for the America you believe in.  It won't be cheap.  Our survival is not guaranteed.  Nevertheless, if we have to die for a cause, there are worse ones to defend.

More than a few years ago, I swore an oath.

I [name] do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

That oath had, and has, no expiration date.  It was, and remains, binding on my conscience.  I shall keep it.  Thanks to the antics of the progressive left, I now expect I'll have to.

Peter

Got the crud again...

 

Last weekend we (the North Texas Writers, Shooters and Pilots Association, as we tongue-in-cheek refer to ourselves) gathered for our usual Saturday supper.  Unfortunately, one of our number has since tested positive for COVID-19.  He's self-quarantining, of course;  he says it feels like a head cold, nothing too serious (I'm assuming he probably has the Delta variant).  Another couple weren't feeling very bright and breezy, and had themselves tested, but so far are negative for COVID.

I began to feel feverish and a bit under the weather yesterday afternoon.  I haven't been tested yet - that'll probably happen today - but I've got hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, and zinc and Vitamin D supplements, so I'm well equipped to deal with it if necessary.  I started a course of hydroxychloroquine last night, and I'll continue that until I know for sure whether I have teh Covids.  If I do, I'll keep it up for a week.

At any rate, I'm going to take today slowly, and sleep as much as I can.  Blog posting will be suspended for the rest of the day.  Please go read the bloggers in my sidebar;  they write good too!  For those of you so inclined, prayers for good health will be appreciated.

Thanks, friends.

Peter