Too Much Like The "Reign Terror"

 What is happening in our universities, on our streets, and in our media is reminiscent of what lead to the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution. Strangely and sadly, many of our leaders and most of our academics see it happening but support it anyway in spite of knowing what happened. I am bewildered that those we consider the most intelligent do not foresee the obvious consequences. 

There Is a Limit

Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was

at first feared primarily as something that would operate

through the acts of the public authorities, and this is how

the man in the street still sees it. But thoughtful people

saw that •society itself can be the tyrant—society collectively

tyrannizing over individuals within it—and that •this kind

of tyranny isn’t restricted to what society can do through

the acts of its political government. Society can and does

enforce its own commands; and if it issues wrong commands

instead of right, or any commands on matters that it oughtn’t

to meddle with at all, it practises a social tyranny that is

more formidable than many kinds of political oppression.

Although it isn’t usually upheld by such extreme penalties,

it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more

deeply into the details of life and enslaving the soul itself. So

protection against the tyranny of government isn’t enough;

there needs to be protection also against the tyranny of

prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society

to turn its own ideas and practices into rules of conduct,

and impose them—by means other than legal penalties—on

those who dissent from them; to hamper the development

and if possible to prevent the formation of any individuality

that isn’t in harmony with its ways. . . . There is a limit

to how far collective opinion can legitimately interfere

with individual independence; and finding and defending

that limit is as indispensable to a good condition of human

affairs as is protection against political despotism.

--John Stewart Mill, Liberty

And It Came to Pass...

“Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just around the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me.”
― George Orwell, 1984

“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”

― George Orwell, 1984

“Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.”

― George Orwell, 1984

Remember Maximilien Robespierre July 28, 1794

What goes around comes around.

The Fabric of Reality

 When discussing how it is not yet possible to discover particles even smaller than the smallest known particle, this sentence appears in an online article in ScienceABC, 27 March 2020:  "Think about it like this… you’re literally trying to rip apart the very fabric of reality." As far as we know, almost everything of which we are aware is composed of a bunch of quarks and electrons making up a bunch of neutrons and protons making up a bunch of atoms making up a bunch of molecules, making up a bunch elements which when properly arranged and combined allow us and other sentient creatures to see or imagine we see a table or whatever. How is it possible that we visualize a table rather than a bunch of elements or atoms? A table falls readily into the 'matter' category by definition. However, are 'the mind' and 'fire' matter?  How about the number 7? We are clearly aware of both 'mind' and 'fire' and even the number 7 but by the strictest definition of matter, they do not appear to any of our five senses.  If there are things within our awareness that are not 'matter', what are they and what are they made up of? And if there are things we are aware of that are not matter, are they real? Which leads us to ask, what is reality?

Most of us would agree that reality is simply that which we are aware of through our senses. Yet we would also most agree that the concepts of 'mind', 'fire',  and the number 7 are real. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528840-500-reality-the-definition/  We would also agree that smells and sounds, while not matter, are as well real. So concepts, smells, and sounds are real but do not constitute matter. Back to square one: What is reality? It goes beyond what we perceive to include what we can conceive. Maybe reality is what we experience. Maybe reality is only in our minds. Consequently, each sentient being has its own reality.

P.S. What is a 'mind'?

Of Course I Didn't Mean What I Said, or Something

On March 3, 2020, Senator Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) said, “I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”

Now, we all know that politicians on both sides of the aisle, even some independents, are wont to say stupid things. Then they apologize with even stupider statements. Chuck's recent gaffe is a perfect example. Before realizing the potential backlash, he spoke to please an already sympathetic crowd and to release his frustration and ire toward those who may think and rule differently than he desires regarding killing babies, born and unborn.


Chuck's office's attempt to explain away the personally threatening language as referring to "the political price Senate Republicans will pay for putting these justices on the court," is ridiculous on the surface. How is it possible to misinterpret, "you Gorsuch," "you Kavanaugh," "You have released," "you will pay," and "You won't know," to mean other than the named individuals? It isn't and anyone who hears or reads those knows with absolute certainty that the speaker meant them as a personal threat to the named justices. If he meant something different, he would have so said.

Then yesterday, Chuck, instead of apologizing in a forthright manner, made the aforementioned "stupider statement," "Now, I should not have used the I used yesterday. They didn't come out the way I intended to. Of course, I didn't intend to suggest anything other than political and public opinion consequences for the Supreme Court. I shouldn't have used the words I did, but in no way was I making a threat. I would never do such a thing." This is a stupid statement and worse, a lie!

Pelosi Hates Trump

I am convinced.

Her rant is prima facie evidence. Seems that people that are correctly accused of an embarrassing negative respond with considerably more vigor than than those wrongly accused. Had she, instead of ranting, responded somewhat quietly and certainly more calmly her rebuttal would have been more believable. Something like, "No, I do not hate the President, although, I do find much of what he says and does disagreeable as I believe it not to be in the best interest of the country, and, as I've said, even unconstitutional."

And, Nancy being a Catholic seems to mean little more to her than tagging all the sacramental bases. Being Catholic is not exculpatory evidence that she does not hate. How could a true Catholic support the murder of unborn children? Nope, don't believe it's possible. As for her hating Trump, sure she does. Meriam-Webster says she does. Shakespeare says she does, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks". The President is an aversion to her. She demonstrates an"extreme dislike" and "disgust" of Trump, the very definition of "hate." To accuse anyone with wrongdoing of any kind with finality is an emotional not a logical response to that person's being. Nancy lied and the majority of Americans know so, some because they also hate the President and others because they support him.