Search This Blog

Friday, July 3, 2020

Major Vindication: Hydroxychloroquine Study Vindicates Its Use for Covid


You-all may remember a number of clinical (big-time, double-blind, etc.) studies regarding Hydroxychloroquine began in various places some time ago. I've been expecting them to start to surface with results. About this test below, I've been reading about it for a couple of days, but most info is behind paywalls. Finally, this one at the Gateway Pundit popped up.

See also this report by veteran journalist Sharyl Attkisson.

It involved 2,451 patients over a six-month period. (French Dr. Didier Raoult released a study with similar results last month in France that involved over 3,000 patients.) In the video embedded in the article, Dr Ramin Oskoui notes that we've seen excellent results with Hydroxy in Spain, Italy, France, Turkey, and Morocco.

We can expect more studies producing reports this summer. A lot of people are eating their words, too -- because President Trump touted Hydroxy, the American Left went full force against it. And some time ago, The Lancet, the prestigious Brit Medical Journal, got seriously burned by a fake Hydroxy study that purported to show the drug did not help at all. It took about a week for that "fake news" to crash, for The Lancet to publish an humiliating apology, and even the shadowy organization that sponsered that "study" then went out of business.

Remember, Hydroxy has to be administered quickly after diagnosis, and many articles say it should be taken with zinc, as apparently the zinc does the job; the Hydroxy allows the zinc into the infected cells, where it kills the virus. But whatever the details, this is an important breakthrough about Hydroxychloroquine.

An Préachán

Tuesday, June 30, 2020

Essay reviewing science articles about whether wearing masks does any good (they don't)


Very interesting article. I urge everyone interested about why we have to wear masks (and who isn't?) to read it thoroughly. 

Turns out, it is a big scam. The article lists many, many scientific papers are mentioned, and links provided. As information like this gets out, more and more people are going to "take the red pill" about masks in particular and Covid in general.

Thus, of course, the "powers that be" tried to censor the article, as noted below:

In defense of a good priest: an email I sent to Bishop Robert J. Brennan of Columbus, Ohio

An email I sent to the Bishop of Columbus, Ohio:

June 30, 2020

Dear Bishop Brennan, I am a former resident in the Columbus diocese, and am a retired writer and editor currently residing in Hungary. I have met Fr. Klee a number of times and hold him in high esteem. His anti-abortion work is very commendable. In castigating this good and holy priest, Fr. Klee, you write that, "The Catholic Church proposes a beautiful, life-giving and liberating vision to the world based on the truths about the human person, human sexuality, marriage and the family. We proclaim with one breath the Splendor of Truth and the Joy of the Gospel. The fundamental truth is that every human person is created in the image and likeness of God and as such, must be treated with dignity and respect."

If that is so, dear Bishop Brennan, then why does Our Lord give such a carefully graded explanation of how to remonstrate with persistent sinners in St. Matthew 18, ending with if they will not listen even to the Church, then to treat them “as Gentiles or tax collectors” (this is the same chapter has the famous explanation of how the angels in Heaven rejoiced at the one lost sheep that has been found, and the dire warning against anyone who causes “a little one to sin” and also the “better to enter Heaven maimed than go to Hell whole” verses)? Persistent sinners are not to be accepted into the body of the Faithful, even though they were made in God’s image. Our Faith demands a very moral behavior on our part, and thus I wonder why so often many in the Church deny this "liberating vision" to souls in mortal sin regarding carnal sins such homosexuality? (But hardly limited to homosexuality.) First Corinthians 6, in the latest New American Bible version, says plainly, starting with verse 9, “Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 That is what some of you used to be; but now you have had yourselves washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God."

As a life-long Biblical scholar, I would insist a number of points are relevant in this passage. Yes, homosexuality is certainly and clearly condemned, but so are other grievous behaviors. St. Paul takes that as a given; he lists them all in order to stress that to be baptized, confirmed, and to receive the Most Holy Eucharist, and then afterwards to engage in sodomy (or these other sins), is one of the most heinous acts a Christian can do, as it makes the Incarnated God indwelling in the Christian to be personally partaking Himself in the sins. St. Paul is very clear on this, as in verse 15 in the same First Corinthian chapter above, he writes, “15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take Christ’s members and make them the members of a prostitute? Of course not!” Also, in the larger Biblical context, homosexuality is one of the sins that "cried out from the ground", as Genesis says of the sins of Sodom (and Jewish rabbinical tradition commonly holds that homosexuality was prevalent in the days before the Flood). No Vatican II pastoral document reversed all that, and that Council declared itself not to be a dogmatic council, so no dogma was changed, either.

Homosexuality also refutes Our Lord's grace, as well, destroying the "New Creation in Christ" that a Christian is supposed to be. This is, of course, the “Divinization” dogma, what the Eastern Christians famously call Theosis. The teaching is stated in many ways throughout the New Testament, particularly in St. Paul and St. John. Examples: John 1:12 “But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God; 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” (Obviously, a new creation) 2 Cor 5:17, “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!” (Again, a new creation) 2 Peter 1:4 might well put it best; see also Romans, 6:4, 7:6, 8:15 (the famous “Abba! Father!” verse) 12:2; Galatians 3:27; Ephesians 4:22-24; Colossians 3:8-12. And of course, 3 John 3:1 “See what love the Father has bestowed on us that we may be called the children of God. Yet so we are. The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him.”

God’s Incarnation didn’t lower God so much than elevate human nature up to God. Theosis is achieved through grace – not by nature – and is our incorporation into Christ, raising us up to participate in His Divinity (as St. Peter teaches in 2 Peter 1.4). Usually described in the Western Church as an Infusion of Grace, the dogma insists our natures are changed. (This teaching is denied in Protestantism, which teaches Imputation of Grace: God assigns grace to us but doesn’t actually divinize or change our nature.) Yet because our nature is changed via the sacraments, we cannot intentionally engage in a sin we refuse to see is a sin. Rather, we are “to be perfect, as your Heavenly Father is perfect.” (St. Matthew 5:48) The stakes are very high. As St. Athanasius wrote: "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God." (De inc. 54, 3: PG 25, 192B) and [CCC 460] Or as St. Thomas Aquinas put it: "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods." (Opusc. 57, 1-4) [CCC 460]

As a professional writer, I find the Biblical writings, and the Holy Church’s clear pronouncements over the past two millennia, to be obfuscated in all the modern-day pompous and pretentious verbiage of the currently in-fashion (and very cliché) way of speaking about the Church’s mission, such as you example in your writing about Fr. Klee that I quote above. We must never betray the Holy Gospel, even if we believe it is too difficult for modern people. In the case under discussion, about which Fr. Klee’s Gospel witness is being discussed, active homosexuals who do not repent of their sin – need I remind you that "repent" means turn away? – are in serious danger of Hell? Do you deny that truth to them? That at least is the plain meaning of St. Paul I quoted above, and the Church has understood it that way for two millennia. Have we somehow "evolved" beyond the Gospel? Are we now too nuanced, too sophisticated, too chic to “preach Christ, and Him Crucified”?
In sum, are we to mirror the irreligious zeitgeist around us? The Supreme Court ruled in Roe (1973) that unborn people weren't people, and they ruled later ruled two men could marry each other (Obergefell), or two women (but why not two men and three women, or some other combo?) and thus ruling there's no legal difference between a vagina and an anus, and in this very month, in Bostock, these supreme legal mavens ruled that women weren't women – that any man who wanted to claim he was a woman could do so and BE a woman according to law, thus, legally, removing legal recognition of the female sex from actual biological women. Maybe next they'll rule that shoes are ships and cabbages are kings. It's all a farce.
Dear Bishop Brennan, such are the famous “signs of the times” (St. Matthew 16:3) today. In such an environment, where “plain speech” is rare, I quite understand it might make a bishop unpopular to affirm Our Lord Christ’s traditional moral teaching today, but then, bishops wear purple to remind them that they may well need to be martyrs. Throughout history, the "Splendor of Truth" has been witnessed in blood, martyrs' blood, because “the world” rejects it. As St. John wrote (quoted above) “The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him.” Bishop Brennan, are you willing to be a martyr to your "Joy of the Gospel" that has led to Our Lord's Crucifixion, the death by martyrdom of all His Apostles, except for St. John, who died in exile? To be a Christian is not to enter Public Service Club, still less is it what the Anglicans like to call themselves, “a Church for all peoples” (thus becoming a Church of very few people at all). Your martyrdom would be to garner the hatred of the sinful culture in which we live. Is that too much for you? Today in the world, according to opendoorusa site, between 8 and 11 Christians are killed every day. Against this reality, is it too little to ask good priests like Fr. Klee be supported, and indeed, honored, and that the all too common smarmy cant that covers up the unconfessed, uncorrected sins of the flesh, eschewed? After all, not fully preaching the Gospel is a direct affront to Our Lord and a mockery of the Holy Spirit's inspiration of St. Paul's writings.

In closing, while neither you nor I know whether any specific, individual homosexual, or fornicator, idolater (this age worships sex, self, and pride), or adulterer will go to Hell (unless you so bind one formally in your full ecclesiastical capacity) but we are charged with witnessing the Gospel, you far more than I, a simple layman. And you are supposed to see the sacraments refused to an unrepentant sinner. In the spirit of Christian charity and in the umbra of Canon 212, I have witnessed to you today, and on Judgment Day you can witness to God that I did.

In Christ,
Ronald Blackstone Crow

Sunday, June 28, 2020

Good News from Prestigious Doctors About Covid


As part of my ongoing effort to fight the Covid Panic Porn, I'm mentioning  this article. There's a lot of good news, actually. And the MSM can't keep it hidden much longer. Or one wouldn't think so. Too many denigrate such "good Covid news" but here you'd have to denigrate some important doctors, such as Dr. Donald Yealy of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, and Professor Harvey Risch, M.D., Ph.D., is a researcher at the Yale School of Public Health with a specialty in cancer etiology, prevention and early diagnosis, and epidemiologic methods, and Dr. Thomas Yadegar at Providence Cedars-Sinai. Want to denigrate them all?

Saturday, June 20, 2020

"If you’re a conservative Christian, you now have serious reason to fear for your livelihood."


An excellent column by John Zmirak on the ridiculous Bostock decision, and the all-too-obvious ramifications. But first, one of the comments at Edward Feser's blog here
A comment which says in part (highlights mine):
As for the merits of Gorsuch's approach, Justice Alito addresses that, but of course he thinks it actually is necessary to opine what the word "sex" means for purposes of determining how the prohibition against discrimination of the basis of sex is to be understood and applied. Again, I am just puzzling over this. I understand that an intelligent ivy league trained lawyer like Gorsuch can perform the mental and lingual gymnastics necessary to convince himself and others that firing a male for having sexual intercourse with his wife at work presents no plausible case of sex discrimination because the male's sex is not involved but firing a male for having sexual intercourse with another male at work presents a plausible case of sex discrimination because the male's sex is involved. It's all about categories and controlling the question, as are most if not all equal protection cases. And clever lawyers can frame that question as much as necessary to make the favored answer virtually inevitable. But what is the truth of the law? Or perhaps I should stop looking for the truth of the law and just focus on winning positions and the rationale necessary to get there?

Meanwhile, showing utter contempt for women, Democrats promote boys competing in sports as women: That's twenty-eight Democrat members of Congress voting to destroy Girls' sports. Just incredible. Attorney General William Barr opposes

Of course it is "fundamentally unfair." It's actually insane. There's no "truth" in any of this, not even common sense. These Dems are either possessed, certifiable, or (far more likely) just playing their endless game of "whoring after" special interest groups. (Idolatry is alive and well, it seems.) There's no "truth" in how far too many legal elites manipulate the law, either, nor common sense. It's just a charade of cleverness, a game by sly, guileful, cunning lawyers practicing mental contortions to build fantastical architecture "where the angles are all wrong" as Lovecraft described the sunken city of R'lyeh. (One of his more diabolical creations.)

And there's no out for any of us who stand up for traditional morality and the ancient anthropology it is so closely associated with. No out, except, that is, to fight. The good news is that as human nature is in fact immutable, after a lot of chaos, blood, and evil, the survivors will be back to square one.

"Beware the beast man...": Dr. Zaius explains humanity

Here's excerpts from Zmirak's article.

An excerpt (Highlights are my own):

And on June 15, the current Supreme Court performed the same operation on “sex.” It snipped off its real world meaning and biological function, and redefined the word to produce … the political outcome it wished for. Six out of the nine justices agreed, including “conservative” appointees John Roberts and Neil Gorsuch. They ruled that the Civil Rights Act outlaws discrimination against homosexuals and “transgenders,” because that law has the word “sex” in it. No, seriously.
It was bad enough that the Congress outlawed sex discrimination in 1964. That provision, adding “sex” to “race,” went in as a poison pill from segregationists hoping to kill the law. That’s because most Americans knew that treating men and women exactly the same, and enforcing that by law, is absurd.
But Congress decided that the poison pill seemed tasty, and bit. That helped produce the family-shattering feminist movement. It  eventually forced most moms out into the work force — and their kids into daycare.
The Congress in 1964 had no notion whatsoever of including “sexual activities” or “imaginary sexual identities” when it passed the Civil Rights Act. Laws banned homosexual activity in 49 of 50 states. No member of Congress suggested the law had such implications. Till the Obama administration got the bright idea of outflanking an unwilling Congress, no court ever ruled so.
The new Supreme Court ruling is such an instance of sophistry, I really do worry that animal rights activists could get this court majority to apply the 14th Amendment to any mammal. The argument would simply be that our “evolving notion” of “person” now includes our furry friends.

No More Ladies’ Rooms or Women’s Sports

Justice Alito has written a stinging, shocked dissent from this decision. I won’t try to reproduce it. He shows all the threats to religious liberty and liberty in general posed by this latest torturing of the law. Every institution, sporting event, rest room or changing room in America will now be open to men who claim to “be women.” (Whatever on earth that even means anymore.) Goodbye women’s sports. They’re over now, thanks to the final, insane extension of the logic of “equality,” applied with no reference to reality or human biology.
Good luck to Christian schools that don’t want to make a mockery of their own teachings. Now they’ll have to hire teachers who blatantly, publicly defy the teachings of scripture. Now Christian scout troops will have to hire cross-dressing scout troop leaders, and fight in court for the right to disagree. If you don’t have millions of dollars, I don’t recommend it.

We’re All Bob Jones University Now

But I do have a recommendation. Let me start by reminding you of the territory we’re in now. If you’re a conservative Christian, you now have serious reason to fear for your livelihood. The nation’s highest court has ruled that sexual activities and identities which the bible teaches are evil, are part of the public good. In other words, faithful churches now stand in the same position that Bob Jones University did in the 1980s, when it banned interracial dating.
The entire Christian tradition of sexual morality has just been dumped in the same flaming dumpster as crude racial prejudice. Will the courts even respect churches’ liberty to teach the old morality? They didn’t respect Mormons’ right to teach and practice polygamy, since that went against “significant state interests.”

An Préachán

Friday, June 19, 2020

Columbus, Ohio, to remove statue of Christopher Columbus from city hall


Well, I see Columbus, Ohio's city government is removing Chris Columbus' statue from in front of city hall, and putting it "in storage"; Columbus State is also removing its statue, too.
A statue of Christopher Columbus will be removed by the largest city that bears the explorer’s name, the Ohio city’s mayor announced Thursday.
The statue located in front of City Hall in Columbus, Ohio, will be removed immediately and placed in storage as monuments to Confederates and other historical figures who repressed or oppressed other people are being dismantled across the country.
“For many people in our community, the statue represents patriarchy, oppression and divisiveness.” Democratic Mayor Andrew Ginther said in a release. “That does not represent our great city, and we will no longer live in the shadow of our ugly past.”
"The statue represents patriarchy, oppression, and divisiveness...", don't these idiots know they're the first to be shot when the Revolution comes (a Left rev or a Right?) Lenin's "useful idiots" are always the first to provide fertilizer for the weeds. Morons. Dolts. Imbeciles. (Somehow those types are to smart for describing Mayor Ginther. Compost? There ya go.)

So, how long before they rename the city? And to what? The name of some rapper? Itsoktocry, or Lilbootycall, or Bootychaaain, or Lil Toenail, or my favorite actual rapper name: Leeky Bandz? Or here are a couple of actual girl names for inner city babies: La'Quishraniqua and Mo'Nique (clever way to spell "Monique"): so La'Quishraniqua Mo'Nique City? Maybe they can find a Black Lesbian Tranny with that name -- kill three "birds" with one stone, as it were? When I worked as a textbook editor, I used to make up outlandish inner-city names for use in the books, and no one ever caught that they were made up.

To all my friends who live in Columbus, I'm sorry to see it. And I'm glad I'm not there. Were I there, I'd dress up in Renaissance elegance and march up and down in front of city hall with a sign, "We Europeans discovered the world; you-all had more class as cannibals" or something similar. Maybe: "We Europeans should have left you in the jungle eating each other." Something. Such stupidity as displayed by the Columbus city council and mayor just begs for the nastiest, snarkiest reaction. Of course, I'd need quite a few body guards.

What this is really about is to remove all White accomplishments, all White heroes, and the foundation of the distinctiveness of Western Civ. Iconoclasm is always about erasure, oblivion, and what the Romans called Damnatio memoriae. Columbus is esp a target because he was an not merely an explorer and "adventure capitalist" but a crusader as well, wanting to bring the Catholic Faith to the Indies even before the Jesuits were founded. And of course the Church today would rather die itself than defend the man.

Archbishop Viganò is right in what he wrote Trump. John Zmirak has an excellent column on the Church's decompostion here at Human Events. JZ doesn't mince words.

Historically, a little less than 34 years after Columbus discovered America, the Battle of Mohács was engaged on August 29, 1526, and Hungary lost that battle to the Turks.

Somehow I don't think it will take 34 years to loose Columbus, Ohio, to the mob.

An Préachán

I've never ate there and I now never will. There's stupid, profound stupidity, and something beyond that for which there are no words. The Chick-fil-A guy is the definition of that.

Wednesday, June 17, 2020

First slave owner in 13 American colonies was a Black man -- amazing but true story


Oh, the irony.

Occasionally I've wondered how the institution of chattel slavery developed in the American colonies. I remember reading that the first Africans "sold" in the Virginia Colony were bought from the Dutch in 1609 but that they were indentured servants, "bound" to their masters for seven years. I suppose I assumed the full chattel slavery developed from that, but I was too incurious to pay much attention. I did know that in the "Old South" there were Africans who owned slaves -- one such was a river boat owner, a native of Louisiana (Louisiana had a number of such Black slave owners) -- whose fleets plied the Mississippi, the river being Federal property, he stayed on his boats when not in Louisiana, and he bought a young Negro woman he liked and freed her and then married her.

An excerpt:
Anthony Johnson (BC 1600 – 1670) was an Angolan who achieved freedom in the early 17th century Colony of Virginia.
Johnson was captured in his native Angola by an enemy tribe and sold to Arab (Muslim) slave traders. He was eventually sold as an indentured servant to a merchant working for the Virginia Company.
Sometime after 1635, Antonio and Mary gained their freedom from indenture. Antonio changed his name to Anthony Johnson.
In 1651 Anthony Johnson owned 250 acres, and the services of four white and one black indentured servants. The black indentured servant John Casor (Casar, Cazarao and Corsala) demanded that Johnson release him after his seven years of indenture.
In March of 1654, according to Delmarva Settlers, Anthony’s servant, a man named John Casar requested that Johnson release him from his indenture because it had long expired past the usual seven years. Johnson replied that he knew of no indenture and that Casar was to be his servant for life. Anthony Johnson’s neighbors, George and Robert Parker, stated that they knew of another indenture for the said Casar to a planter on the other side of the bay. They continued to threaten Johnson with the loss of the servant’s cattle if he were to deny him his freedom. Johnson, with the influence from his family, released the servant, and even went to see that John Casar received his freedom dues. Freedom dues are materials and supplies given to the freed person in order for them to start their new lives with the necessary materials. In the case of John Casar, clothing and corn.[110] But after careful reflection, Johnson was certain that Casar was his servant for life; a slave. Johnson then sued the Parker brothers for unlawfully taking his property from him, and since there were no other indentures for John Casar, he was returned to the Johnsons.
The courts ruled in favor of Anthony Johnson and declared John Casor his property in 1655. Casor became the first person of African descent in Britain’s Thirteen Colonies to be declared as a slave for life as the result of Johnson’s civil suit.
In the case of Johnson v. Parker, the court of Northampton County upheld Johnson’s right to hold Casor as a slave, saying in its ruling of 8 March 1655:
“This daye Anthony Johnson negro made his complaint to the court against mr. Robert Parker and declared that hee deteyneth his servant John Casor negro under the pretence that said negro was a free man. The court seriously consideringe and maturely weighing the premisses, doe fynde that the saide Mr. Robert Parker most unjustly keepeth the said Negro from Anthony Johnson his master … It is therefore the Judgement of the Court and ordered That the said John Casor Negro forthwith returne unto the service of the said master Anthony Johnson, And that Mr. Robert Parker make payment of all charges in the suit.”
In a 1916 article, John H. Russell wrote, “Indeed no earlier record, to our knowledge, has been found of judicial support given to slavery in Virginia except as a punishment for a crime.”
So do the black descendants of Anthony Johnson have to pay reparations?

An Préachán

Victor Davis Hanson discusses the politicization of the military...

... military coup possible against President Trump. Very sobering podcast. The podcast is here; titled: Winding the Coup Clock.

Here's an excerpt I transcribed from the end of Prof. Hanson's talk:

We're in a really precarious position once the generals and admirals dominate the media and the cultural landscape and tell us that an elected president has no moral authority to do anything and then unelected officers and unelected intelligence bureaucrats have the higher moral ground to oppose him, and when you have an admiral saying he should leave sooner and the better, and another person said we can unite without him, I'm not sure that that doesn't enter Trump's mind that if he gave an order to a four-star that to send in the 82nd or 101st into Seattle and restore order, that that general would say "No," and what would be the reaction if he did say no: Would everyone say, "Oh my God; in the 232nd year of our republic, we now have a military coup!" or would they say, "Aha, this person was a genuine Patriot; he stood up to a tyrant; he protected the Constitution." And he would be canonized. And with those options and differences in reaction be known to the military, and how would they react to them once you will erode the authority of the commander-in-chief, for whatever reason of your dislike of him and once you politicize the military and once you have 93% negative coverage of an administration, and once you've already established the precedent in the Director of National Intelligence and the CIA and the FBI that you have the president and the vice president in 2016 that you have a moral right to the Constitution to oppose that president -- whether that's surveilling his national security advisor or doctoring documents or redacting names and leaking them or -- when you've already gone there and cross the Rubicon, I wouldn't  be surprised at anything anymore.

An Préachán again: In other words, if you're not afraid, you should be.

Such a coup would cause absolute chaos in government, economic crash (just as good economic news is coming out) and probably open warfare in the streets. Real warfare, not the garbage rioting by ignorant thugs and Antifa whites. An American coup would also be the greenlight for China to attack Taiwan and anyone else they wanted to.

As for a true civil war in resistance to the generals, Forbes says about a million people have signed up for Trump's Tulsa rally. Don't believe the polls saying his support is at 45%. Those same polls predicted Hillary would win. (I think the polls fake the number for a variety of reasons, not least of which is to adversely affect pro-Trump morale; but also of significant importance is that the big urban political machines need "cover" for their vote stealing, and strong polls for Biden today can explain how he gets the usual Democrat Black vote in those urban areas.)

We are in seriously dangerous waters, my friends. It is no joke. And all this idiocy of Russian Collusion (I know people who insist Trump DID collude with Russia, or who insist that the Mueller report did find collusion, etc.) and endless effort to delegtimize Trump from the get-go (Obama clearly intended to have Trump in a confrontation with Russia when Trump took the oath of office) have created the environment where what these retired generals and admirals are saying is WWII aviation gasoline poured on a fire.

Here are two Victor Davis Hanson articles related to this:

An Préachán

Saturday, June 13, 2020

Catholicism, Racism, and the Sins of Pride and Envy

Catholic philosophy, based on Aristotle and the Biblical tests as it is, sees "race" as incidental to the underlying human qualities of the individual. Humans are the rational animals, bodies formed by immortal, rational souls – souls give shape to the body, and when the body dies, the soul departs and thus the body goes back to the natural elements. Height, weight, age, skin color, intelligence level, skull shape, whatever, are incidental compared to the hybrid soul-body creatures possessed of an eternal destiny that constitutes human beings.

However, the races seem to have different graces. They certainly have different histories and different cultures. And in a huge variety of ways, these cannot be just blended together seamlessly. In the frescoes in Pompeii, we can observe women on the beach wearing what look like modern-day bikinis. But in all of the long and fabled history of China, they never developed such clothes. Such dress never – remotely – occurred to them, along with democracy, one-man one-woman marriages (a Western idea that is, from the beginning separated East from West), and so much else.

We're all related through Adam and Eve and "equal" before God, because of the human nature He has given us. But we are different. Most basically, men and woman are different, yet we reside in a culture insisting "sex", i.e., the sexes, are interchangeable "genders" – literally and figuratively (sex-change operations are supposed to create "women" from men, etc.). All that is absolute nonsense, yet it is the regnant philosophy today.

We deal with our very real differences through true Charity, and indeed, no doubt God allows these differences as an occasion of charity – yet Marxism is an absolute war against that charity. Our problems are inherently moral, and the underlying sins of pride, envy, and greed, must be preached against, fervently by the Church -- and demonstrated in its own actions. But the current Church leadership is embracing all the ills, conceits, and even evils of modern society.

None of this can end well.

Wednesday, June 10, 2020

A Reflection on Modernism and Protestantism

Modernism is Protestant. One might say that as an ideology, it is Protestantism with the Catholic trappings removed. Catholicism is a revealed religion, descended from on high (like a few others claim to be, but most religions just sort of developed in certain ethnic peoples, over time).

And "revealed religion" is the very thing Modernism rejects. It came from German Protestants about the time Darwin was making waves, and Modernism is all about evolution. Evolution of a certain sort. There was the natural Development of Doctrine, which could be said to be a form of evolution -- but if it were, the Holy Ghost directed it slowly, steadily, over the centuries.
Protestantism wrenched that away and created the basis for "Evolution by Fiat", a intentional redirection of Doctrine based not on lived experience threaded through centuries and many, many individuals, but something directed by revolutionaries with "novel" doctrines. (The very idea of Sola Scriptura cries out for absolute novelty from every single reader of Holy Writ.) Once that began, then a new form of evolution started, actually a devolution, resulting in the basic Modernist beliefs, seen in Mainline Prot Churches and the Mainline Catholic National Language Churches, i.e. everything evolves, we evolve, morality evolves (as in our understanding of the death penalty), the Faith evolves (obviously "the spirit" of Vat 2 operates on that notion), the Church evolves structurally, and ultimately God Himself evolves.

The corporate managers running the Church today were weaned on this core bone marrow of Modernism and I suspect they really don't have a clue as to what a revealed religion really implies; certainly they don't grasp what Catholicism means. If ever I had that rock in my gut, as a friend put it, of wondering about whether the current bishops, etc., were actual Catholics, I guess I passed that (rather large) kidney stone some time ago.

An Préachán

Tuesday, June 9, 2020

The Democrat Party and Obama's Purge of the Military -- a little history


Something said last night got me into research a bit of history that I'm surprised I don't remember very well. Something Obama, who famously said, "Elections have consequences," did. In the context of recent events, it is important to bring it up.

Tucker Carlson is a conservative commentator on Fox News, and I have friends who think he goes a bit extreme, and I do indeed get the sense he sometimes goes too far, as he did when the Coronavirus was first appearing on the international scene. Carlson was in scream mode, then. He was a Cassandra, then, although later he quickly enough took the opposite position as evidence mounted that it was a hoax -- "hoax" in the sense that it was in no way the all-conquering, millions-killing disease it was initially cranked up to be, requiring us to shutter the Western World economically.

Now Tucker is on the meme (or scream) that Black Lives Matter is about to take over the U.S., by taking over the Democrat Party and giving us Joe Biden as a puppet president and Keith Ellison as Attorney General -- he's an execrable American Muslim and former Congressman -- whom George Soros' money installed as Attorney General of Minnesota (legal experts are saying already that Ellison is making a mess of the prosecution of the cop that killed George Floyd, and Floyd might easily get off). It is certain that the Democrats will try to "steal" the election in November in divers ways, and it is possible they might succeed -- the Dems are excellent at stealing votes, that's well-documented -- though tensions are so high that if they'd do so, the U.S. would descend into a true shooting Civil War.

However, what Carlson didn't mention, and as I've noted before, within the larger African-American community, Black Lives Matter (BLM) is in an uneasy partnership with AME (i.e. "African-Methodist-Episcopal", the long-established Black Civil Rights mafia that controls a good part of the Democrat Party), and even now, evidence is quickly mounting that "blowback" is coming against the extremist BLM people. The AME people are big in the Democrat Party and regularly ensure Democrats get the Black vote. But BLM is just too extreme for them. Also, were they to just surrender to the BLM, the AME factin would lose their cachet of power -- something they definitely don't want.

This article: gives a good description of the stark issues facing the standard Democrat Party bigshots. Since the 2018 election (when the Dems took control of the House of Representatives), standard Democrats have so far let the Left (as in Sandy Ocasio, a.k.a. "AOC") run the Democrat show. For example, the past couple of years have seen countless articles discussing how "AOC" has upstaged and to some extent bossed Nancy Pelosi around. The Leftist tail is wagging the Democrat dog, to put it that way.

But are mainstream (i.e., mildly Left-of-center) Democrats willing to "go there"? It is far more likely that the BLM and the rioters and the insane rhetoric will turn off far, far more Democrat votes (Black, White, Latino, Asian, Gay) than it will attract. Also, over the summer, indictments not only of radical Leftists (Antifa) but the Deep State plotters will be filed. (Or so one hopes.) It will be interesting. And as for "defunding the police", Chicago has suffered it worse night for murder, 18 murders in 24 hours.
I can't image many people really voting "Democrat" this Fall. BTW, the mayor of Chicago is begging businesses to stay, as they get prepared to leave, like Walmart. But why would anyone in any of these cities? In Minneapolis, the same story.
An excerpt:
A Minneapolis manufacturing company has decided to leave the city, with the company's owner saying he can't trust public officials who allowed his plant to burn during the recent riots. The move will cost the city about 50 jobs.
"They don't care about my business," said Kris Wyrobek, president and owner of 7-Sigma Inc., which has operated since 1987 at 2843 26th Av. in south Minneapolis. "They didn't protect our people. We were all on our own."
Wyrobek said the plant, which usually operates until 11 p.m., shut down about four hours early on the first night of the riots because he wanted to keep his workers out of harm's way. He said a production supervisor and a maintenance worker who live in the neighborhood became alarmed when fire broke out at the $30 million Midtown Corner affordable housing apartment complex that was under construction next door.
"The fire engine was just sitting there," Wyrobek said, "but they wouldn't do anything."
Two days after the riots began, Gov. Tim Walz described the city's response as an "abject failure." Walz ordered the National Guard into Minneapolis to restore order at the request of Mayor Jacob Frey. The violence sometimes overshadowed peaceful protests over the death last month of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police officers.
Frey said Monday that he was unaware of 7-Sigma's decision to move, and he declined to say whether the company's decision reflects the challenges facing city leaders as they try to convince business owners to rebuild in Minneapolis. Many business owners have criticized the city, saying their pleas for help went unanswered.
Ron again:
Fantasy is fun, but Reality is a beast.

However, last night Carlson asked an excellent question: "Why doesn't the Left criticize the military any longer?" I hadn't noticed that. They don't. Carlson said the Left/Democrats/Deep State had subdued the military. Right now the Left is in full-scale war against the police, however, and that's because they don't control them, but are aiming to. The police won't actually be "defunded" but regular police will be replaced by BLM-approved security forces, heavily Muslim and Sharia compliant, especially in Minneapolis, which has a large Muslim population now.

As for the military, this fiasco of the Sec of Defense ordering both regular military and Nat. Guards to "stand down" during this past weekend's riots is interesting to me. Extremely. In any coup d'état, you need to control the military, or a good portion of it.

In any event, Carlson's point is that the Left is critical of the police because they don't control them, but they control the military. Look at Gen. James Mattis ridiculous critique of Trump, and there's a host of others, like retired General John Kelly. There's a host of others.

So I did a little research and found this article from October, 2013:
An excerpt
    07:01 PM ET 10/29/2013

Defense: What the president (at that time, Obama) calls "my military" is being cleansed of any officer suspected of disloyalty to or disagreement with the administration on matters of policy or force structure, leaving the compliant and fearful.

We recognize President Obama is the commander-in-chief and that throughout history presidents from Lincoln to Truman have seen fit to remove military commanders they view as inadequate or insubordinate. Turnover in the military ranks is normal, and in these times of sequestration and budget cuts the numbers are expected to tick up as force levels shrink and missions change.

Yet what has happened to our officer corps since President Obama took office is viewed in many quarters as unprecedented, baffling and even harmful to our national security posture. We have commented on some of the higher profile cases, such as Gen. Carter Ham. He was relieved as head of U.S. Africa Command after only a year and a half because he disagreed with orders not to mount a rescue mission in response to the Sept. 11, 2012, attack in Benghazi.

Rear Adm. Chuck Gaouette, commander of the John C. Stennis Carrier Strike Group, was relieved in October 2012 for disobeying orders when he sent his group on Sept. 11 to "assist and provide intelligence for" military forces ordered into action by Gen. Ham.

Other removals include the sacking of two nuclear commanders in a single week — Maj. Gen. Michael Carey, head of the 20th Air Force, responsible for the three wings that maintain control of the 450 intercontinental ballistic missiles, and Vice Adm. Tim Giardina, the No. 2 officer at U.S. Strategic Command.

From's Facebook page comes a list of at least 197 officers that have been relieved of duty by President Obama for a laundry list of reasons and sometimes with no reason given. Stated grounds range from "leaving blast doors on nukes open" to "loss of confidence in command ability" to "mishandling of funds" to "inappropriate relationships" to "gambling with counterfeit chips" to "inappropriate behavior" to "low morale in troops commanded."

Nine senior commanding generals have been fired by the Obama administration this year, leading to speculation by active and retired members of the military that a purge of its commanders is under way.

Retired U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, an outspoken critic of the Obama administration, notes how the White House fails to take action or investigate its own officials but finds it easy to fire military commanders "who have given their lives for their country." Vallely thinks he knows why this purge is happening.

"Obama will not purge a civilian or political appointee because they have bought into Obama's ideology," Vallely said. "The White House protects their own. That's why they stalled on the investigation into Fast and Furious, Benghazi and ObamaCare. He's intentionally weakening and gutting our military, Pentagon and reducing us as a superpower, and anyone in the ranks who disagrees or speaks out is being purged."

Another senior retired general told TheBlaze on the condition of anonymity, because he still provide services to the government and fears possible retribution, that "they're using the opportunity of the shrinkage of the military to get rid of people that don't agree with them or do not toe the party line. Remember, as (former White House chief of staff) Rahm Emanuel said, never waste a crisis."

For President Obama, the military of a once-feared superpower is an anachronistic vestige of an America whose exceptionalism and world leadership require repeated apologies. It must be gutted and fundamentally transformed into a force wearing gender-neutral headgear only useful for holding the presidential umbrella when it rains. It is to be "his" military and used only for "his" purposes.

An Préachán

Monday, June 8, 2020

The Ghost of George Floyd about to be retired? Riots losing steam? Exploitation not what it used to be?


I know you're all tired of the Racism Riots and the endless MSM (Left and Right) chatter about it endlessly, but I'll take this opportunity to make a last observation or two. This most recent avatar of the long-running Clash of the Races in the U.S. is fizzling out fast.

First, what is/was it, exactly? A protest against "police brutality"?

For those, such as my European friends (Antifa and BLM riots are occurring now in some European cities), stats from various sources over the past decade or so show that there's no real case to be made that U.S. Blacks are special targets of U.S. police (many of whom are Black). Occasionally, of course, it happens, as with George Floyd. But as a predicate for mass riots and burning and looting, no, it is insane to try to justify all that by the small number of such actual cases. See the Attorney General Bill Barr in a hostile interview swat down every attempt to make this sort of case:

Even more importantly, all these police forces and cities that have George Floyd-type killings are run by Democrats. For example, Democrats have run Minneapolis for 40 years or so, non-stop. Same is true of Detroit, Baltimore, Chicago, you name it. It must be understood that in great part, the majors and city councils of these places are allowing all this insanity in order to cover up their own incredible malfeasance, their incompetence, and their using of the Blacks as stooges to further their aims. Even more incredibly, they have the gall to blame the Republicans for these problems! Republicans, shut out of these cities, have be definition nothing to do with the Democrats' lousy government.

Second, is racism inherent in U.S. society? The most basic "racism" in the U.S. is Affirmative Action (today and for some decades past, at least, whatever its use was in the '60s; Griff can explain earlier time) for it implicitly (and, really, explicitly) enshrines into law that African-Americans are incapable of ever competing in society their own and need all kinds of help and preferences given to them, apparently in perpetuity. Anyone – ANYONE – who has looked for work in the U.S. since probably the '80s or even before (Lyndon Johnson legalized this racism in the '60s) has been aware that if one is white, male, and non-homosexual, one has a Hell of a time getting a job. Blacks and women, have the advantage in getting jobs.

As long as that full, formally institutionalized racism that is Affirmative Action structurally built into the U.S. legal and business architecture, we'll never get ride of actual racism. White perpetually resent the quotas, Blacks can never know if they get a job on their merits or the color of their skin. An excellent article on this little-discussed (because it is taboo) subject, is this:

Finally, were the George Floyd riots an attempt to overthrow the U.S. government?

Sheesh, if so, I could have organized a putsch / coup d'état better than what's happened this past week – probably have, several times! (If I think about it.:) I was expecting the "Masses" to charge the WH Saturday, but nope. I was expecting a Storming of the Winter Palace or a redo of the Pairisan mob carrying Louis XVI from Versailles to Paris in 1789.

But no.

And then yesterday, the Anifa-George Soros crew were going to organize a million man march on D.C. but...

Yesterday the new black panderers organized a million Antifa march with the Black Lives Matter crowd in Washington DC.  Unfortunately, they fell approximately 990,000 people short of the million person goal; only about 10,000 marchers present.

I guess the Whitey Antifa kids found they just couldn't get their feral inner-city mobs to "get with the program" beyond looting stores.

And maybe Papa Bergoglio can wash the feet of Muslims in Rome and get kudos from the MSM, but Whitey doin' it down in the 'hood, well, it just doesn't impress anyone:

Late today I see headlines where Democrats in Congress have "taken the knee" to George Floyd, using the U.S. Capitol as a stage for their burlesque. Idiots. In contrast, a Georgia state trooper who happens to be Black said today, "I only kneel for God." (The idea of any American kneeling or bowing – remember Obama bowed to the king of Saudi Arabia – is reprehensible.)

So, well, well. I guess when you breed a couple of generations "without chests" as C.S. Lewis called them, then even the revolutionaries are without chests, too, right?

Seriously, something is deflating the whole shebang. "Sundance" discusses it at some length at the above conservativetreehouse link. There definitely was a plan involving Joe Biden at the funeral in Houston, where Biden was to meet with Obama and "W", the second Bush president (I've lost all respect for that one, every smidgen). And James Clyburn, the South Carolina Congressman (6th district, from 1993 – he's a great argument for term limits), is the "ringmaster" for Biden and the Democrat leadership this show. He's the one who put Biden in the Dem nomination, and is the Biden campaign's capo. But whatever. For "inside baseball" on this circus, checkout the conservativetreehouse. I know that site often seems like it is too much into the tea leaves, but they've been right far more often since Trump's election than otherwise.

For instance, few of you know about the BLM (Black Lives Matter) cohort being in essence a Muslim-American front org., while most of the traditional U.S. Black Civil Rights/Oppression crowd are "AME", i.e. originally founded in and still (more or less, to some degree) encompassing Black Christian churches. The two disparate groups have joined up – the newer, more radical, Islamic BLM with the AME – but they turn off the Latino elements of "the oppressed", not to mention any Black man or woman who refuses to live down on the dystopia-like "Asphalt Plantation" inner cities (which is pretty much burned out dystopia, now). It's the BLM that is supporting the "Defund the Police" meme because they want to use Muslim Sharia law enforcers, and the AME is not on for that ride. Even the more classic types of "Liberal-Left" Whites are scared of that.

As Sundace writes: "This type of political calculation based on identity politics always carries a risk. We could be seeing – once again – the outcome of what happens when political ideology intersects with a very divided assembly of special interests."

And of course, I hasten to add, that none of the above affects the ongoing Deep State effort to remove Trump from office. That three-year-long puts ch seems to be always with us, like STDs, mosquito, and human folly.

An Préachán

Tuesday, June 2, 2020

Reflections on the U.S. Communist insurrection (otherwise known as peaceful protests)...


Many of you are in Europe and probably think the U.S. has lost its collective mind. A couple of things are intersecting here, strains of thought and cultural-and-political history that create the chaos the U.S. is experiencing.

First, and foremost, the U.S. really is a federal republic (like Germany in many ways, or Canada or Australia) and its states are sovereign in many of their own capacities. It is kind of like an American secular version of the Catholic principle of Subsidiarity. Local things need to be handled by local authorities, and on up the line, as bigger the issues get, the higher the authority required to manage them.

Therefore, a major question is: how bad can things get before a President can simply override the wishes of local government?

So, regarding the current riots:
Initially, there was the apparent (from what we can tell as of now) murder of George Floyd, 46, a black man, by a white cop on May 25, the Monday of Memorial Day weekend, a major U.S. holiday. Floyd and Chauvin, the cop, probably knew each other, as both worked as Security at the same nightclub, a sleazy place owned by a Somali immigrant where counterfeit money was passed, and Floyd himself was arrested to begin with for passing a counterfeit $20). Soon after, protests began in Minneapolis, Minnesota,  (Note: there was none of this when a Black cop murdered a white woman -- an Australian -- a few years ago, in 2017: That cop was a Muslim Somali immigrant; the mobs are now baying for his release. The point is the Minneapolis Mayor and Police chief new they had some problems with the police department, and needed to fix those. Obviously, they didn't.)

These Floyd protests quickly turned violent, and as the police didn't aggressively stop them early on, they quickly morphed into madly violent, chaotic looting and now brutal murder. (That's how things appeared on the surface; I'll address Antifa below.) Many people were injured by violent thugs, as well. By now of course many have been severely beaten, and some people have been murdered. This grotesque violence has increased, naturally. Many police have been attacked and many killed. For example: and and

Now, today, eight days later, the MainStream Media (MSM) is screaming its collective throat out that Trump is causing all this with his Tweets and other comments and actions, while conversely, many on the Right excoriate him for not sending in the Marines (Fox commentator Tucker Carlson has gone on a ridiculous rant last night against Trump for not doing enough to stop the riots), while many on the Left, exactly counterwise, threaten to resist any such action:  (BTW, today, as NY's governor attacks NYC's mayor for failing to defend the city, even though 8,000 police were out: , actually, Gov. Cuomo is calling for all 38,000 of NYC's cops to be deployed. And these guys don't need the military? How long can the entire police force be on active anti-riot duty? And who polices when take time to sleep? NYC Mayor de Blasio refuses to call in the National Guard to restore order; he used them to enforce quarantine, but not to save the city from destruction -- de Blasio is despicable.)

Talk about the Donald being Damned if he does and Damned if he doesn't! This is why few people want such high leadership positions.

The MSM hurled abuse on him for going into a White House bunker one night, and the next day hurled abuse at him -- the abuse throwers including the Episcopal bishop of D.C. and the reprehensible Catholic archbishop -- for walking across the park to a damaged church carrying a Bible. The Left is just becoming utterly incoherent.

So, what's up? What the heck is going on?

Because of the U.S. system, it was the duty of the local authorities to handle local matters. At first. The mayor of Minneapolis, Jacob Frey, and his Minneapolis Police Chief Medaria Arradondo, didn't. (Note that Arrandondo became Chief of Police in 2017, replacing the chief at the time of the 2017 murder linked to above.) A Leftist, Frey sided or condoned of sympathized -- as Leftists do, see below -- with the rioters. Frey ordered the police to retreat, and abandoned a police precinct house to destruction by the mob. Soon things were out of control and eventually the governor of Minnesota, Tim Walz, stepped in. But again, Walz didn't get the National Guard (each state has Army or Air Force or whatever of Guardsmen, who can be "activated" for whatever emergencies, natural or political, exist at a given time; the U.S. President can "activate" them as regular U.S. military, too) out in force, and armed -- i.e. prepared for a no-nonsense repression of the chaos. It took Walz about three days or so to "get tough", by which time a great deal of damage was done, and also the riots spread across America.

Why do Leftists -- from mild to strong Leftists -- coddle rioters? See below about "Social Justice". Walz is also interesting in that his own daughter was helping -- via mobile phone -- to direct riots to targets. NYC's mayor's daughter was actually arrested for rioting; the mayor says he's proud of her.

Now, President Trump had encouraged Walz to activate the Guard, and offered Walz federal help, as in regular Army, but Walz demurred. Trump has offered help to other governors and mayors, as well, but all of them being Democrats, for the most part, they hesitate. They don't want to make Trump look good, A, and B, they could care less about the damage being done, as they'll come hat-in-hand to the federalis to get money to clean up.

However, as president, Trump is empowered by the U.S. Constitution to see that "laws are faithfully executed" and the 1807 Insurrection Act gives the president great power to "step in." Also, it is manifestly absurd for "Blue State" (Leftist) rulers to allow a majority of city centers burned to the ground and some their people to be slaughtered in the name of their Leftist policies?

In fact, about 12 times the U.S. National Guard was called in to quell riots (and/or the regular military). Some of the listed examples below had the military called in, (copied from various sources). To wit:

  • 1861 When the Southern states began their revolution against Lincoln's election in 1860 (amazing how Democrats don't want to allow a peaceful transfer of power, isn't it?), Lincoln didn't hesitate to deal with it (quite cleverly too, getting "the Rebs" i.e. Democrats, to fire first, on Fort Sumter). Lincoln would also later use regular U.S. Army soldiers to quell anti-draft riots in New York City.
  • More recently, race riots raged in Los Angeles in 1965 (34 dead) wherein 4,000 National Guardsmen were called out to suppress the madness.
  • Newark NJ in 1967 (26 dead) with about 8,000 state police and National Guardsmen used to quell the chaos; many bloggers -- some originally from New Jersey -- have pointed out that this riot ruined Newark and started an exodus from the city; it's never recovered. Today it is a typical Democrat slum.
  • 1967 (Known for its "long hot summer" of riots) in Detroit, 43 dead and 2,000 injured. Michigan's then governor, George W. Romney (Mitt Romney's father) ordered in the Michigan Army National Guard, then President Lyndon B. Johnson sent in the United States Army's 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions! Crack troops. (Once, while waiting for a bus in the Detroit bus station, I saw a middle-aged Black man with a T-shirt bearing the logo: "I'm so bad I vacation in Detroit." :)
  • 1968: After the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. in Memphis, Tennessee, violence erupted in 125 cities from April 4 to 11, leaving at least 46 dead and 2,600 injured. In Washington, then-President Lyndon B. Johnson ordered in the 82nd Airborne Division to quell riots. The riots stopped. (Bloggers have written in the past few days that those 1968 riots were something to behold -- entire city blocks were burned down, and these modern riots are nothing in comparison. Our friend Griff can tell us a lot about this.)
  • 1968 in Chicago: vicious riots occurred all across the country, but in Chicago it was bad. 11 Chicagoans (mostly Black) were killed. Later that year, the Democrat National Convention in the same city was surrounded by rioters, but this was Leftist Underground types -- a real mess.
  • In 1980, a riot in Miami against the police for a motorcyclist's death resulted in 18 dead.
  • 1992: the Rodney King riots (someone filmed police officers beating King) resulted in 59 dead. George H.W. Bush sent in the Marines on that one. (This was the last time a U.S. President sent in regular military over the wishes of the locals, if I read the history correctly.) Needless to say, riot quelled. Riots in other large cities also occurred at the same time, to protest King's treatment.
  • Minor, but Ohio-based: A series of riots over several (four) days in 2001 in Cincinnati Ohio's Over the Rhine neighborhood resulted in many injuries but no deaths. There was a boycott of downtown businesses afterward.
  • In 2014, ten days of riots kicked off in Ferguson, Missouri, after a police officer shot a black teen who was apparently going to attack the officer. After the first six days or so, the governor, a Democrat, one Jay Nixon, finally called in the state's National Guard.
  • 2015 Riot in Baltimore, Maryland, was set off by more police brutality. This city, like Detroit, is a classic case of Democrat machine politics ruling the city for decades. Baltimore is 2/3s Black. The Maryland National Guard was deployed.
  • 2016 riots over a few days (with the governor eventually calling a state of emergency but I can only find police were used), occurred in Charlotte, North Carolina -- the situation was sparked by the police shooting of Keith Lamont Scott, a Black. Charlotte is a college town and students got involved. This is not to be confused with the 2017 mess when in Charlotte, VIRGINIA, a white driver drove a car through "peaceful" protestors, killing one. The thing started when white supremacists held a rally in the town to stop the removal of a Confederate monument. Leftist "activists" showed up, ready for a confrontation. The MSM blamed Trump, of course, and have been blaming him for everything on Earth and beyond ever since his election. But this fiasco was clearly a "set-up" by both the white supremacists and Antifa or proto-Antifa activists.
Note: The later '60s riots involved Leftists and Left-Terror activists, such as the infamous "Weather Underground," who, like Antifa today, try to organize and direct the riots.

Why are Blacks so involved in riots?
First, many of them live on the margins of society, and any society under stress, such are the first to be pinched by circumstances.
  • Black communities are ruled by Black political machines that see to it only Democrats are elected. I think Minneapolis has not had a Republican mayor for 50 years! (Something like that.) One-party cities and states are -- without question -- going to be badly governed.
  • Black communities (and many Latino) are awash with drugs, too, and the vast majority of gun-related deaths in the U.S. are "Black on Black" murders, most of them related to drugs. (Whites also have a serious drug problem in the U.S., of course. It's a major national health crisis, far, far, far more important and mortal that Covid-19.)
  • Democrats say the U.S. is inherently racist (hard-core Leftists say it is irredeemable) but it is mainly Democrats who have historically oppressed the Blacks, and use them to cause political chaos.
  • First it was the Democrats who insisted on slavery and tried to destroy the country in 1861 because they refused to accept the election of Lincoln, a Republican.
  • The Republican Party was in part an anti-slavery party. Lincoln insisted he would not bother slavery in the states where it existed, but Southern Democrats didn't believe him (and they insisted on extending slavery into the U.S. territories.)
Today, Democrats refuse the accept the election of Trump. Like a crazed rioter in an insane mob, they simply let their emotions run away with them. "Blind leading the blind." In 2000, they refused to accept the election of the second Bush, or many of them did. It was until the 2004 election that they had to admit Bush was legit.
They loathed Nixon from the 1950s -- look up the name Alger Hiss -- and hated him for getting elected in 1968 and went white-hot-in-all-Hell fury that he stopped the Vietnam War (which they used to great affect in political agitation). In any event, after the Civil War, the Democrats created Jim Crow (an institutionalized oppression of Blacks), and it was Democrats under Lyndon Johnson who showered them with government handouts and welfare projects, which resulted in the destruction of the Black family.
One can reference Daniel Patrick "Pat" Moynihan and review his ideas about all that. Moynihan was a Democrat, but of the old style, as my mother was, not the modern ideologue type of Leftist we are bedeviled with today.

So far as I know, all the current rioting (as opposed to mostly actual peaceful protests, per se) has been/is taking place in Democrat-controlled cities and/or states. A Florida ("Red State") sheriff has warned outsiders will be shot by the locals, all of whom have guns.

Democrats apparently have gone full Left. They've have steadily moved to the Left for decades, so that Ronald Reagan could say in the 1980s that he was as "conservative" as Jack Kennedy was in the early '60s. That's true. The Dems have moved so far Left that today's Joe Biden -- on many positions -- makes Hillary Clinton herself look "centrist"! That's amazing.

Secondly, Blacks are involved in riots because one of the foundational tenants of Leftism, since Jean-Jacques Rousseau started it, is the idea that individuals are not responsible for their behavior, but rather society is. This Rousseau-based notion is the core of all "Social Justice" cant, "SW" is the vague slogan to describe this theory today. Obviously, this is counter to Christianity, of course. Western Philosophy and Christianity have always posited that human beings are moral agents, and responsible for their own behavior. Yes, people often treat their fellow humans very badly, as individuals and groups, but "Two wrongs don't make a right" in that maybe you are suffering because of others, but that doesn't give you a right to cause them to suffer, or to spread suffering broadcast.

This is actually a revolution in thought. Ancient Greek heroes, for example, are often described in the Iliad as being particularly brave or cowardly because some god other other prompted them so. In the Irish language, there's a special passive that is active, a leftover from when the gods motivated human actions. So this idea seems to be the "root programming" of the human race, or at least, a strong contender for such.

Back to the Blacks:
However, huge numbers of Blacks, educated (if that verb can be used for it) in public schools, have been Social Justice brainwashed that all the problems are because on inherent white racism. I used to substitute teach in Columbus, Ohio's inner-city schools, and was amazed at the indoctrination. It begins early, I can tell you.

In any event, the ancient "I'm not responsible for my actions" notion has flowered into the demented "social justice" flowers. Tokien so aptly described them: "Wide flats lay on either bank, shadowy meads filled with pale white flowers. Luminous these were too, beautiful and yet horrible of shape, like the demented forms in an uneasy dream; and they gave forth a faint sickening charnel-smell; an odour of rottenness filled the air." Yes, indeed. Sounds like U.S. Academia and the Entertainment Industry, doesn't it?

Anyway, the sickening charnel-smell of chaos drifts now American cities because of these underlying ideological ideas; they're a mainspring of all Leftism. Look what Senator Bernie Sanders has said here: Anyone on the Left would agree, those in the Lefty middle-center might agree but disagree on what to do about it, exactly (calling for more social programs, probably) while those on the right most likely would not agree, but if in some specific example a case could be made, no one on the Right would approve of action either "kinetic" or "lawfare" or whatever, to redress it -- in general.

Meanwhile, Antifa. Antifa ("anti-fascist") is a Communist organization the intent of which is to bring about Revolution, and they closely ally to "Black Lives Matter" (in part, a Muslim front organization). Antifa are clearly behind the protests turning violent. White people dressed in black clothing have been filmed paying young Blacks to riot and loot, and these Antifa have been filmed using tools to break into buildings or cut fences, then directing mobs to the break-ins, facilitating destruction. They also deliver pallets of brings to important street locations so these can be thrown. And we know they've been moving about the country, across state lines, fomenting insurrection, full force.

Thus Attorney General Bill Barr and President Trump have spoken on this, and Trump has officially declared them domestic terrorists (to the degree he can, because Congress has never written clear laws on how to do that, while the have done so for foreign terrorists -- however, as Antifa is international, this shouldn't prove much of a problem). As officially declared terrorists, the U.S. law known as "RICO" (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) allows anyone associated with Antifa (financial benefactors of whatever sort) to be arrested, tried, and if proven guilty, stripped of their property and money.

Therefore, this move by Trump and Barr should scare the Hell out of the Hollywood celebrities and whoever else have been praising the violence/insurrection or Antifa directly. The government can go after them. And of course it is a federal crime to go across state lines in order to commit crime in another state. Antifa is doing that all the time.

Finally, President Trump has declared he will be stopping the riots. As noted above in the case of the New York attorney general, the Leftist (universally called "Blue States") states and cities will complain vociferously, and maybe actually resist in some physical manner. Some, like NY's Cuomo and the wretched would-be dictators of Illinois and Michigan talk big, but are all probably too cowardly to try it. Were any of these rather impish orcs actually try some sort of real resistance, Trump could declare Marshal Law for that state, arrest them, and ship them to Gitmo. Please remember that across the U.S., many cities and even some governors have been trying to established "sanctuary cities" for illegal immigrants. They actually work against ICE agents going about their business. These actions are illegal in the extreme. States are sovereign in many things, but not in deciding who is a legal or illegal immigrant. Trump would be within his rights to arrest of lot of mayors and a few governors, that's for sure. We'll see what happens in the next 24 hours.

But whatever happens tonight, these past eight days or so have made it manifestly clear that our Western Civilization is on very thin ice. In the U.S., the "essential country" of the West, not only are large segments of certain elements of the populace apparently ready to turn into animals at a moment's notice, but the ruling elite of many states, large and small, are willing -- for the sake of their Leftist ideology -- to let the mob destroy everything in sight. That cannot continue. One-party states and cities cannot continue. Democrats cannot keep "moving Left". The election systems must no longer be manipulated; machine political mafias must be broken up. Past and current wrongs do not make a right nor entitle special groups license to destroy civilization. The contrast between Left and Right is obvious this past week when the U.S. launched a spacecraft up to the space station for the first time since 2011, whereas the Left just tried to burn the country to the ground. 

So, that's the background and what is at stake. We'll see. Trump has excoriated the Blue State governors and mayors in various ways, as in a conference call the other day, and has brought the regular military to Washington D.C., and says he's doing the same to other locations.

We'll see.

An Préachán