We now enter a period of danger as the sleepwalkers of America awaken from their induced consensus trance and begin to understand how they were harmed, swindled, and robbed by a corrupt, criminal officialdom. It will hurt badly because the public wanted so desperately to believe that vaccines would make them safe from the mysteriously conjured Covid-19 virus — and, more than that, would cure their gnawing anxiety over the wreckage of American life caused by what appears to be leadership hostage to sinister forces.
I must say, I believe the truth of our predicament will grow a whole lot weirder as we stumble into springtime. The weirdest part of all will be when America learns exactly who and what have been the prime generators of our disorder. The disillusionment will be cosmic.
Why can’t we see God? Though misrepresented by rationalists as an obstacle to reasonable supernatural belief, this question deserves a satisfactory reply. In response, there are various cogent reasons we cannot see God, some of which are outlined below.
God is a spirit
Everything that exists is either material or spiritual. A material thing is something that you can see, touch, smell, or hear. A spiritual thing is real, but it is not material… God is a spirit–He has no body, therefore you cannot see God (page 12 of Lessons in the Catholic Faith, approved by Rev. Edward B. Brueggemen S.J.).
This is the main reason we cannot see God. To those who regard this explanation as a convenient excuse, consider: You likewise cannot see your thoughts–or take a picture of them–for they arise from the spiritual, immaterial intellect. No-one can deny the existence of our thoughts, therefore, our inability to see God does not preclude His existence.
The Divine Essence and the human intellect
Given the disproportion between the infinite Divine Essence, and the finite intellectual faculties of creatures, in this life, God cannot be the object of such faculties. Accordingly, humans must be strengthened by a Divine light and assimilated to His infinitely simple Intellect, in order to gaze upon the Divine Essence (page 173 of A Manual of Catholic Theology, by Joseph Wilhelm D.D. PH.D and Thomas B. Scannell D.D).
For those who die in a state of sanctifying grace, this process of assimilation occurs, to enable their admission into the Beatific Vision. In this life, however, we cannot (except for extremely rare instances of private inspiration) see God.
His created effects
Emphasis should not be placed on the direct visibility of God and lack thereof. The key point, instead, is that through observing and reflecting on His created effects, we can deduce the logical necessity of an eternal, necessary, omnipotent God.
When we see footprints on the sand, we conclude that someone has passed that way. The universe is filled with the footprints of a Supreme Creator. Every single existing thing or being gives clear testimony of Him (page 12 of My Catholic Faith, approved by Rev. Louis LaRavoire Morrow, D.D; my emphasis).
Specifically, without accepting His existence, we cannot explain:
(a) The origin of matter, even the most elementary;
(b) The origin of motion;
(c) The origin of the very first living organism and of the spiritual soul of man; and
(d) The origin of the order and law so apparent in the universe (page 29 of My Catholic Faith).
The merit of faith
It can, indeed, be conceded that not being able to see God challenges the human intellect. Because His existence cannot be established through the senses alone, this agitates against the animal side of our nature.
Even so, there are good reasons for this challenge. Creation was undertaken for the glorification of God–not for our own good or on account of our prospective merits. Given this, a finite creature must personally expend effort, to have any hope in obtaining an eternal reward from his Creator. But there would be little effort on our part if we all necessarily knew that God existed–as opposed to believing in His existence. This is what makes faith meritorious: We cooperate with God’s grace by persisting in belief, irrespective of the difficulties imposed on the intellect and will.
After St. Thomas doubted the Resurrection, Jesus Christ appeared to and rebuked him along these lines:
Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and have believed (John 20:29; my emphasis).
When considering the merit of belief in God from Him being unseen, it is fortunate that we cannot see God.
Our limited nature
As mentioned above, belief in God prescribes certain challenges on the intellect and will, especially those which emanate from the latter. From a Catholic perspective, belief in God results in strenuous moral obligations–concerning fasting, alcohol consumption, and sexual morality–making life more restricted in these ways than for an atheist. Many people, on these grounds, openly refuse to entertain the possibility of Catholic truth. The justification accompanying this refusal is generally simplistic, narrow-minded, and dismissive.
This refusal to engage is misconceived, because a limited, flawed perception of reality does not change objective reality or the consequences of our failing to recognise it. As regards objective reality, God is foremost: He is “the ultimate reality with which we are engaged during every moment of our existence and consciousness” (The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss by David Bentley Hart).
To deny God because He cannot be seen, is like to “a blind man who refuses to believe there is a sun, because he cannot see it. Is God limited because we are?” (page 25 of My Catholic Faith).
Our mediate knowledge of God
In this world, we are only ever granted to obtain a mediate, as opposed to a direct, knowledge of God. It should be kept in mind that this obscured knowledge of God shall be illuminated in the world to come, by means of the Beatific Vision. “We see now through a glass in a dark manner; but then face to face” (1 Corinthians 13:12).
What I haven’t noticed, not even once, are reporters from any of Canada’s news agencies walking among the trucks to find out who these people are.
They didn’t make high-falutin arguments from Plato’s Republic, Locke’s treatises, or Bagehot’s interpretation of Westminster parliamentary systems. Instead, they see their government willing to push a class of people outside the boundaries of society, deny them a livelihood, and deny them full membership in the most welcoming country in the world; and they said enough.
I live in downtown Ottawa, right in the middle of the trucker convoy protest. They are literally camped out below my bedroom window. My new neighbours moved in on Friday and they seem determined to stay. I have read a lot about what my new neighbours are supposedly like, mostly from reporters and columnists who write from distant vantage points somewhere in the media heartland of Canada. Apparently the people who inhabit the patch of asphalt next to my bedroom are white supremacists, racists, hatemongers, pseudo-Trumpian grifters, and even QAnon-style nutters. I have a perfect view down Kent Street – the absolute ground zero of the convoy. In the morning, I see some protesters emerge from their trucks to stretch their legs, but mostly throughout the day they remain in their cabs honking their horns. At night I see small groups huddled in quiet conversations in their new found companionship. There is no honking at night. What I haven’t noticed, not even once, are reporters from any of Canada’s news agencies walking among the trucks to find out who these people are. So last night, I decided to do just that – I introduced myself to my new neighbours.
The Convoy on Kent Street. February 2, 2022.
At 10pm I started my walk along – and in – Kent Street. I felt nervous. Would these people shout at me? My clothes, my demeanour, even the way I walk screamed that I’m an outsider. All the trucks were aglow in the late evening mist, idling to maintain warmth, but all with ominously dark interiors. Standing in the middle of the convoy, I felt completely alone as though these giant monsters weren’t piloted by people but were instead autonomous transformer robots from some science fiction universe that had gone into recharging mode for the night. As I moved along I started to notice smatterings of people grouped together between the cabs sharing cigarettes or enjoying light laughs. I kept quiet and moved on. Nearby, I spotted a heavy duty pickup truck, and seeing the silhouette of a person in the driver’s seat, I waved. A young man, probably in his mid 20s, rolled down the window, said hello and I introduced myself. His girlfriend was reclined against the passenger side door with a pillow to proper her up as she watched a movie on her phone. I could easily tell it’s been an uncomfortable few nights. I asked how they felt and I told them I lived across the street. Immediate surprise washed over the young man’s face. He said, “You must hate us. But no one honks past 6pm!” That’s true. As someone who lives right on top of the convoy, there is no noise at night. I said, “No, I don’t hate anyone, but I wanted to find out about you.” The two were from Sudbury Ontario, having arrived on Friday with the bulk of the truckers. I ask what they hoped to achieve, and what they wanted. The young woman in the passenger seat moved forward, excited to share. They said that they didn’t want a country that forced people to get medical treatments such as vaccines. There was no hint of conspiracy theories in their conversation with me, not a hint of racist overtones or hateful demagoguery. I didn’t ask them if they had taken the vaccine, but they were adamant that they were not anti-vaxers.
When I interviewed AmeriCorps chief Harris Wofford, I asked him how sending out AmeriCorps members to sway people to accept food stamps meshed with his statement that “national service reduces our reliance on Government.”
Few things are more perilous to freedom than permitting politicians to sanctify government’s iron fist. We should not turn young people into cannon fodder for good deeds that exist only in White House press releases. At a time when the media endlessly denounces inequality, remember that the greatest and most dangerous inequality is that between haughty government officials and citizens stripped of their constitutional rights.
In the wake of America’s disastrous Civil War, the Thirteenth Amendment was enacted to prohibit involuntary servitude. Unfortunately, top newspapers, pundits, and think tanks are now campaigning to nullify that prohibition. Apparently, slavery was evil not because of the unjust subjugation but because plantation owners, not politicians, were the profiteers.
Politicians have long been hustling to establish their prerogative to commandeer young Americans’ lives. At a “Volunteerism Summit” in Philadelphia in 1997, President Bill Clinton announced that America needed more “citizen-servants” and that “the will to serve has never been stronger.” Clinton praised Maryland and the District of Columbia for making “service” mandatory for any student seeking a high school diploma. In a Playboy article headlined, “The Return of the Hitler Youth?” I ridiculed Clinton for “crusading for a national kiddie draft—forcing all teenagers to labor in politically approved community service” for hundreds of hours before being granted a diploma.
But the “kiddie draft” was only the opening bid. There were plenty of progressives and conservatives itching to compel all young to sacrifice a year or more in “national service”—a perpetual fantasy inside the Beltway ever since military conscription was suspended in 1973. Unfortunately, the easiest way to prove your moral superiority in Washington is to champion destroying everyone else’s freedom.
It Began with AmeriCorps
AmeriCorps, a program created by Bill Clinton, is viewed as a prototype by many advocates who seek to shackle all young people to “serve” politically approved causes. AmeriCorps presumes that volunteering is such a wonderful thing that the federal government should subsidize it, paying AmeriCorps members as much or more than many of them could have earned in real jobs. Subsidizing volunteering by some people was a stepping stone to mandating “volunteering” for all young Americans.
I investigated AmeriCorps in the late 1990s and found that it generated more boondoggles per tax dollar than any other federal program. When I interviewed AmeriCorps chief Harris Wofford, I asked him how sending out AmeriCorps members to sway people to accept food stamps meshed with his statement that “national service reduces our reliance on Government.” Wofford replied, “A self-reliant citizen knows what their opportunities are and figures out how to make use of those opportunities. You don’t have much self-reliance if there is a door [for handouts] there and you have not been shown the door.” Knowing the address of the welfare office became the new, improved self-reliance.
Wofford epitomizes the moral pretensions permeating AmeriCorps. Wofford boasted that Ameri-Corps provided its recruits with the “moral equivalent of war.” Dealing with preteen hecklers during an AmeriCorps puppet show was as valiant as Marines dodging rocket-propelled grenades in a firefight. Wofford perpetually bragged about his own character-building experience in the Army Air Corps in World War II, but he never mentioned that he never saw any combat—thereby qualifying him for a D.C. Faux Courage Medal of Honor.
Despite its pratfalls, AmeriCorps remained exalted by politicians who sought to dragoon all young people into submission. In 2008, Republican presidential nominee John McCain championed conscripting all young people into at least a year of politically approved “service.” He got badly whupped by Barack Obama, who favored vastly expanding AmeriCorps. Immediately after he won, Obama’s change.gov website announced that it was “developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year.” Once that federal precedent was established, politicians could easily multiply the number of youthful hours commandeered in the name of service.
National Assessment of Educational Progress indicates that, as of 2019, only 37 percent of American high school seniors were proficient in reading. The results drop to 24 percent in math and 22 percent in science. The root of the problem is government’s near monopoly of education…
The introduction of politicized education ideas like “critical race theory” into the curriculum of government schools is a major reason for American public school systems’ decline. In many schools, political agendas have been crowding out what many parents understand as the primary purpose of schools — educating students in core subjects such as reading, mathematics, and science.
US government data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress indicates that, as of 2019, only 37 percent of American high school seniors were proficient in reading. The results drop to 24 percent in math and 22 percent in science. The root of the problem is government’s near monopoly of education that means there is little to no incentive to stop federal, state, and local “educrats” from imposing the latest education fads on students. Any attempts by government to “fix” education, such as No Child Left Behind or Common Core, inevitably fail.
The replacement of education with indoctrination is one reasons many parents are pulling their children out of public schools to homeschool. Of course, one main reason for the growth in homeschooling is the covid lockdowns and mask and vaccine mandates. Restrictions at schools have been especially absurd since children have tended to be in little danger from covid.
Homeschooling is legal in all 50 states. However, the authoritarians who believe children’s education must be controlled by “experts” are constantly trying to undermine homeschoolers. Sometimes homeschoolers’ enemies are aided by well-intentioned homeschooling supporters. For example, there is a bill pending in the Alabama state legislature that would make homeschoolers eligible for taxpayer funding. Homeschooling advocates supporting this bill forget that government funding is inevitably accompanied by government control. Thus, any homeschooling family that accepts government money is inviting the government to tell them how to educate their children. Further, some school districts use truancy laws to harass homeschoolers. States also make parents prove homeschool students are receiving an education that meets state standards.
Fortunately, as homeschooling has become a more popular choice, many new resources have become available to aid parents who desire to homeschool their children. Among these resources is the Ron Paul Curriculum.
Students using my homeschooling curriculum can attain a superior education in comparison to standards set by politicians or bureaucrats. Instead of indoctrinating students with instruction in subjects including critical race theory, my curriculum provides students with a solid education in history, literature, mathematics, and the sciences. It also gives students the opportunity to create their own websites and internet-based businesses. The curriculum is designed to be self-taught, with students helping and learning from each other via online forums.
Starting in fourth grade, students are required to write at least one essay a week. Students are required to post their essays on their blogs. Students also take a course in public speaking.
The curriculum does emphasize the history, philosophy, and economics of liberty, but it never substitutes indoctrination for education. The goal is to produce students with superior critical thinking skills who can thrive with their individuality.
If you think my curriculum may meet the needs of your child, please visit www.RonPaulCurriculum.com for more information.
The British government on Saturday accused Russia of organizing a plot to install a pro-Moscow government in Ukraine, as the Kremlin masses troops and materiel near the Ukrainian border in what Western officials fear is an impending military assault on the neighboring nation.
The U.K. Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office gave relatively little information about the intelligence unveiled Saturday other than to say that the Russian government was considering trying to make a Russia-leaning former member of Ukraine’s parliament, Yevhen Murayev, the country’s new leader.
“The information being released today shines a light on the extent of Russian activity designed to subvert Ukraine, and is an insight into Kremlin thinking,” U.K. Foreign Secretary Liz Truss said in a statement, calling on Russia to de-escalate and pursue a path of diplomacy.
“As the U.K. and our partners have said repeatedly, any Russian military incursion into Ukraine would be a massive strategic mistake with severe costs,” Truss said.
British authorities also said they had information showing how Russia’s intelligence services maintain links with numerous former Ukrainian politicians. Some of those former Ukrainian politicians are in contact with Russian intelligence officers planning the attack on Ukraine, the British government said.
Last week, British Foreign Secretary Liz Truss publicly accused Russia of organizing a plot to install a pro-Moscow government led by a former member of Ukraine’s parliament.
The intelligence underlying that revelation, which also linked some former Ukrainian politicians to Russian intelligence officers involved in planning for an attack on Ukraine, was collected and declassified by the United States, according to multiple people familiar with the matter. The Biden administration asked the British government, which vetted the intelligence and was confident in its accuracy, to publicly expose the Russian plotting, the people said.
U.S. intelligence has assessed that Putin has underestimated how costly an invasion could be in Russian lives lost and in the devastating effects of sanctions on Russia’s economy, according to officials familiar with the information.
Intelligence analysts also have concluded that Putin is being misinformed by his own circle of advisers, who appear unwilling to confront him with the full consequences of military action.
Not only came the fake ‘intelligence’ from the U.S. instead of the UK, it was also totally sucked from a thumb. As is the alleged ‘intelligence assessment’ about a misinformed Putin.
If you want to know how an ‘invasion’ of Ukraine by Russia would look like read
at the Saker’s site. Yes, it is a fiction. The ‘rules of targeting’ by Russia would realistically be less harsh than NATO’s. But the time frame of a some five days long war, mostly by stand-off missiles, seems quite realistic to me.
Oh, by the way, for me as a German the best paragraph in the later WaPo piece is this one:
For its part, Germany also remains skeptical of an imminent Russian invasion. At this stage, Berlin sees no indication that Russia will move into Ukraine immediately, a senior German official said. Evidence that Moscow plans to act quickly may exist, but if the United States possesses it, it hasn’t shared it with the Germans, the official added.
Politicians that defer to “experts” for their decision making abdicate their power.
Psychopaths do not feel guilt.
This episode was recorded today, February 5th, 2022. Dr. Julie Ponesse is a philosopher specializing in applied ethics, bioethics, and ancient philosophy. Unfortunately, 20 years in academia came to an end after failing to comply with a vaccine mandate at the University of Western Ontario. Then, in a video response aimed at 1st-year ethics students, she spelled out her position on forced medical procedures. Her response went viral. Dr. Ponesse has since become the Pandemic Ethics Scholar for The Democracy Fund, through which she published My Choice: The Ethical Case Against Covid-19 Vaccine Mandates. ‘
“Every word he says he is a lie. A nose as long as the trucker‘s convoy.” – Dr. Jordan B. Peterson
When thousands of truckers drove toward Ottawa in protest against the vaccine mandates, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau described them as “the small fringe minority” holding “unacceptable views.”
As the movement gained momentum and the truckers were joined and cheered on by scores of their compatriots objecting to Canada’s regime of Covid oppression, Trudeau implied that they were racists and Nazis. This he added on top of his earlier characterization of those who object to his policies as misogynists, science deniers, purveyors of misinformation and conspiracy theorists.
By doing this he followed the standard line of the woke elites when dealing with those who do not want to go along with their de-humanizing and exploitative agendas. Rather than meeting the other side in rational discussion, they simply hurl insults that are void of any substance. “Racist,” “Nazi,” “conspiracy theorist,” “misogynist” are their slurs of choice. It does not matter to them that such characterizations are baseless. Their wanton abuse of language and truth shows just how pathetic and detached from reality the elitists really are.
Trudeau’s tirades could not be more laughable or absurd. That the unfolding protests have nothing to do with racism or Nazism or misogyny or science-denial is glaringly obvious to everyone with the eyes to see. What the protesters are standing up against is their government’s Covid chicanery, which has been among the most repressive in the western world.
Lockdowns, curfews, travel bans, injections and boosters forced via onerous ID passports, police harassment: this has been Canadians’ experience in the past twenty-four months.
And when people finally rise against their oppression, Trudeau resorts to calling them names which bear no relation to who these people are or what they are asking for.
What Canada needs is a true leader and not some little weaselly dictator like Justin Trudeau. One perceptive lady told me the other day that Trudeau seems to her like someone who should model underwear. The lady was not trying to be funny; she was speaking in earnest. I was struck by the aptness of her observation and how it seems to have captured something essential about the man. Trying to picture it, he would be a very good candidate for this kind of role in these Covidic times.
What would climate lockdowns look like? Most likely, cities and states would begin a gradual and discrete ramp-up of restrictions. During the early days of the pandemic, millions of Americans worked from home; this could become the permanent norm if special carbon taxes are put in place. Such taxes could be imposed on companies, limiting driving or air miles, and extend to individual employees. Drive to work in a car? You get hit with the tax. Children could be impacted by climate lockdowns, too. Schools, especially those heavily influenced by teachers’ unions, could impose permanent online-only days.
The past two years have been a checklist for the worst impulses of government and public sentiment. COVID allowed for supposedly temporary measures to morph into two years of “emergency” restrictions. But what if COVID was only the opening act, and another proclaimed crisis is the main event? Implementing significant but partial restrictions, one by one, in the name of the common good can allow for encompassing government control that results in relatively little backlash. Fear over climate change could lead to long-term soft lockdowns, given the precedent of immense growth of government power and significant support for sweeping state actions.
This isn’t a right-wing fever dream. Calls for harsh government measures in the name of saving the environment are already in the parlance of influential organizations and figures. In November 2020, the Red Cross proclaimed that climate change is a bigger threat than COVID and should be confronted with “the same urgency.” Bill Gates recently demanded dramatic measures to prevent climate change, claiming it will be worse than the pandemic. Despite millions of people having died from COVID, former governor of the Bank of England Mark Carney last year predicted that climate deaths will dwarf those of the pandemic. Lockdowns, which significantly reduced carbon emissions during 2020, could be the solution. After all, the EU’s climate service gloated, the first COVID lockdown may have saved 800 lives.
What would climate lockdowns look like? Most likely, cities and states would begin a gradual and discrete ramp-up of restrictions. During the early days of the pandemic, millions of Americans worked from home; this could become the permanent norm if special carbon taxes are put in place. Such taxes could be imposed on companies, limiting driving or air miles, and extend to individual employees. Drive to work in a car? You get hit with the tax. Children could be impacted by climate lockdowns, too. Schools, especially those heavily influenced by teachers’ unions, could impose permanent online-only days. Delhi, India is already using a version of this concept to crack down on smog pollution.
At the same time, either through direct government fiat or due to ineffective green energy policies, some areas of the country could regularly experience California-style rolling blackouts. And as fossil fuels (and nuclear power) go by the wayside, consumers may be prevented from buying new gasoline cars, lawnmowers, or chainsaws.
Significant measures are already being planned to combat climate change. California will ban the sale of gasoline cars in 13 years, as will Germany. Britain plans to do the same in just eight. Prohibiting internal combustion engines could save the planet, the argument goes. As each negative weather event is blamed on climate change, government will increasingly use its restrictive tools.
Author 
MCViewPoint 