Stephen Roney's Blog, page 26

About Those UAPs/UFOs over New Jersey

 

I think I know what’s going on with ll the drones being spotted over New Jersey.

The clue is that they are over New Jersey. Why New Jersey?

I say this is a promotion stunt for a new movie (or possibly a series) based on HG Wells’s War of the Worlds.

In Orson Welles’s famous radio adaptation in 1938, the aliens landed in Grovers Mill, New Jersey.

That play was done as a mock series of news reports. It was so realistic many thought Martians were really landing.

So a fleet of mysterious drones might recreate the moment and stimulate the sme level of interest again.

It is a good time to do a remake, too. The last was in 2005; twenty years ago. But between then and now, we have had the Covid pandemic, making the ultimate defeat of the aliens by a terrestrial virus topical. And there are current anxieties over the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the war in Gaza, the same sort of tensions that helped the 1938 broadcast go viral.

This makes more sense to me that it being UFOs/UAP of the usual sort. These drones do not look like the usual UFOs, and do not seem to have the same ability to defy the laws of physics. If it were a government operation, why would they do it over a highly populated area like New Jersey, with flashing lights? Hardly the way to ensure secrecy; this looks more as though designed to ensure publicity. Iran or China? Same objection. What would they have accomplished? Revealing a new capability so the US can figure out how to defend against it?

I say it is a Hollywood stunt. I expect the government is in on it. This is why they can say there is no security threat or threat to the population, while also saying they don’t know where the drones are coming from.

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

Remember the Good Old Days?

 

Does anyone remember when pedophilia was supposed to be a crisis only among the Catholic clergy? Any priest was suspect, and the church itself was blamed and fined crippling amounts. All paid ultimately by innocent parishioners. Many churches had to be shut down and sold off. Not to mention church-run orphanages and residential schools.

It was always obvious that this was scapegoating. Nobody was looking for pedophilia anywhere else.

We now know it was also projection. We find increasingly that pedophilia is common in the public schools, in sports teams, in clubs, in Hollywood. We learn that huge numbers of children go missing every year. That there are vast pedophile rings involving the rich and famous. That child sex trafficking is a big business.

And now that it cannot be blamed on the Catholic Church, the chattering classes seem unready to condemn it. Instead, films about the problem are suppressed; client lists are suppressed; child grooming is fairly openly promoted with pornographic books in school libraries and drag queen story hours. And those who object are condemned as bigots.

Does nobody see what is going on here?

The Catholic Church was and is targeted because it is a voice for protecting the children: from abortion, from immorality, from neglect, from abuse, from exploitation. 

Rules and morals protect the weak and vulnerable. The strong and malicious are always against them.

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

How Canada Falls

 

I think Trump is serious about annexing Canada. He’s been harping at it, recently referring to Trudeau as “governor of the great state of Canada.” 

Trump is moving the Overton window, He’s forcing the discussion. He’s done this before. Eventually, it becomes the standard wisdom. Remember when building the border wall was a crazy idea? And it was racist to object to illegals? 

The annexation makes every kind of sense from the American perspective. It is ultimately the only way to secure the northern border. 

Trudeau, predictably, is reacting in the worst way possible, from Canada’s point of view. He always wants a fight; this is how he reacts when challenged. And he does not care what damage he does to Canada; as noted in a recent column, as a narcissist, he probably wants to burn the place down because it is no longer inclined to vote for him.  

Trudeau is idiotically threatening to raise tariffs on American products coming into Canada as retaliation; rather than trying to reach accommodation.

In any trade war, Canada is bound to lose. Canada’s economy depends far more on trade with the US than the American economy depends on trade with Canada. The trade war will probably crash the Canadian economy, and soon have Canadians begging to join the US.

As it stands, an online poll has Canadians evenly split on whether they’d rather stay independent or join the US.

Trudeau’s intransigence may be part of Trump’s calculations. He might have expected this reaction. As a skilled negotiator, he probably studies his opponents’ weaknesses. He seems to be deliberately provoking Trudeau to do something stupid. 

I can see it happening. This or that individual province votes to join the US. The US then piles forces in, forestalling any action by the federal government. If any province but Nova Scotia, PEI, BC  or Newfoundland make this move, they cut Canada in half, making it unviable. 

I’d put my money on Alberta going first.

Poilievre might yet right the ship; but I think it is going to happen. 

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

There Is a War

 

A Jehovah’s Witness recently justified their non-observance of Christmas to me by quoting 2 Corinthians 6:

“14 Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? 15 What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? 16 What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? …

17 Therefore, “Come out from them and be separate, says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you.”

This only works as a reason to shun Christmas if you think Christians are unbelievers. And then you contradict St. Paul in this passage, for he cites Christ as the object of belief. 

But this advice to stay clear of unbelievers is standard for monotheists in general. It should not be ignored.

The same advice is in the Talmud: "Separate yourself from the nations, and do not eat with them." Jubilees 22: 16.

The Quran is more violent: “Kill them [the unbelievers, kafirs] wherever you come upon them and drive them out of the places from which they have driven you out. For persecution is far worse than killing.” Surah Al-Baqarah 191.

Even John Locke and the philosophers of liberal democracy say so: religious liberty is a necessary human right, freedom of conscience, but atheism is not to be tolerated in a liberal democracy.

This is vital advice. We cannot ignore or reject it; it comes with the warrant of God himself. Believers cannot mix with those who do not believe in God. One or the other will be persecuted. Belief and unbelief are fire and water.

This is indeed historically shown to be true. The pagan Roman empire could get along with the worshippers of any given pagan/polytheistic deity. But they could not tolerate the Jews, and levelled Jerusalem and destroyed the Temple. And they persecuted the early Christians. So did the polytheistic Babylonians before them—then the Jews were allowed to return to their lands by Cyrus, the Zoroastrian, a fellow monotheist. 

Other historical examples could be multiplied almost indefinitely. 

But why are the two positions incompatible? Why can’t we all just get along?

Belief in God means belief in the absolute. God is the absolute, by definition. God is the good, the real, and the beautiful. Rejecting God is relativism. Relativism cannot permit the existence of the absolute, and therefore cannot accept absolutism as tolerable. And absolutism must view some things as positively wrong; therefore it cannot accept relativism. 

Locke’s objection is that an unbeliever cannot feel himself bound by an oath. Not recognizing the authority of God implies not recognizing the demands of morality, or truth, or beauty. Relativism cannot accept that there is such a thing as reality, or truth. 

Similarly, it cannot accept that anything is either good or bad. So a relativist will not accept the demands of morality.

That is usually why people become relativists: to escape their conscience. The existence of God is accessible to human reason. It has been proven by the philosophers a dozen or more ways. Given that this is so, anyone rejects God ultimately because they reject the authority of God, reject being subject to Him, or to anyone but themselves. 

“Better to reign in Hell, then serve in Heav’n.” – Milton, Stan’s speech, Paradise Lost.

Accordingly, as Locke argued, one cannot trust an unbeliever. 

Now let’s get to the third great transcendental. Rejecting God means rejecting reality, for God is the ultimate real. It means rejecting good and evil, rejecting morality. It also means rejecting the concept of beauty. As, for fear of their conscience, unbelievers will shun any hint of the absolute, they will actually shun beauty.

This illuminates Jesus’s repeated test of the false prophet: “By their fruits you shall know them.” 

A relativistic age like our own will lose its capacity to produce beauty in the arts. Artists who are unbelievers will not produce anything of value.

But here’s the bigger, more ominous problem: we are now living cheek by jowl, throughout the West, with a large mass of genuine unbelievers, kafirs. This is unsustainable, and must lead to trench warfare, figuratively or even literally. There is a reason why we all it a "culture war."

We are seeing the battle lines draw up more clearly all the time: the religious cluster around Trump in the US, Catholics like RFK or JD Vance, evangelicals like Huckabee or Cruz, Hindus like Ramaswamy or Gabbard, orthodox Jews like Ben Shapiro; while the Liberal Party in Canada bans from their ranks anyone who opposes abortion.

And one side or he other must triumph. They cannot just coexist.

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

How Trudeau Will Kill Canada

 

Jordan Peterson points out that Justin Trudeau is a narcissist. This is dangerous, because he is about to lose power. What does a narcissist do if he is rejected? Narcissistic rage. He will try to destroy those who have rejected him. This is the impulse that gives us mass shooters. Trudeau has no love for Canada. On leaving office, he is likely to do whatever is in his power to destroy Canada, for letting him down.

We saw Hitler do this, ordering the destruction of German infrastructure in his final days, rather than letting it fall to the Allies. Orders fortunately countermanded by Speer.

Biden is also an extreme narcissist. This is why he sabotaged Kamala Harris’s campaign in subtle ways; why he sabotaged the Democratic Party by pardoning his son. They let him down. Now he is releasing long-range missiles to Ukraine. We must fear what else he might be up to; especially since he has the nuclear codes. But the US president is fortunately relatively restrained in what he can do unilaterally. 

Trudeau, as Canadian Prime Minister, unfortunately, has more unilateral power and fewer constraints. The Liberal Party’s rules prevent MPs from rising against him. He can do more damage than Biden can. He has already pushed through some outrageous legislation. We must fear what he may do in the almost one year he has left, if he grasps that he is inevitably going to lose the net election.

Investment in Canada has been in decline ever since he took power in 2015.The Canadian economy does not look that bad yet, but I suspect that it has been running on prior reputation and fumes. That can go on for a while, and then there is a general collapse. We already have a homelessness crisis, a medical crisis, a drug crisis, and a cost of living crisis. And a foreign affairs crisis, Trudeau having alienated many trading partners. Even without Trump’s 25% tariffs, things could get worse quickly. I now think Trump genuinely intends to impose the tariffs. And Trudeau may be doing his best to speed the general collapse. He wants it. Canada has failed him.

Jordan Peterson fears that by the time Poilievre gets into power next October or before, the damage may be too great to repair. He will just be left holding the bag. 

We may be begging the US to come in and take over.

Something similar happened to Scotland in 1707: economic hardship and poor management obliged them to unite with England, in return for debt relief. Similar financial problems convinced Newfoundland to join Canada in 1947. 

Why would the US want us?

Canada’s natural resources, including important strategic materials, make it a good investment.

But more critically, in this age of easy transportation and mass migration, the world’s longest undefended border has become untenable. It is possible to build a wall across the US-Mexico border. The Canada-US border is too long for that, and needs to remain porous to sustain the current volume of trade. 

The only solution to that problem is to ensure that Canadian and US immigration and border policy is the same: undesirables must be stopped on entry to Canada, as they cannot be stopped at the US border.

This means the US border must encompass Canada. 

Trump may have seen this, and the 25% tariff may be intended to force the issue.

Let’s just hope it happens without too much suffering, dislocation, or blood.

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

A Traditional Family Christmas

 

Anti-Israel protesters disrupting Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade, NYC.
Last night I attended our city’s ceremonial lighting of the municipal Christmas tree in front of City Hall. The mayor and councilors were there; the local MPP; Santa Claus, and a dancing angel. A big event, well attended, with other ancillary events going on all over town. Free Christmas films in the restored theatre. Marshmallows over campfires in the park. Strolling carollers. Dancers in the malls. An organ recital at the Anglican church. It should have been a magical evening for families.

But it was marred from the start by perhaps a half-dozen protesters who parked in front of the unlit Christmas tree, waving Palestinian, Syrian, and Lebanese flags, playing loud music with a political message from some boombox, as if to drown out those on the dais, and shouting through a loudspeaker such slogans as “Happy f***ing birthday, Jesus!” and “Jesus was born in Palestine.”

After a while they disappeared. I hope it was because the police threatened arrest.

Such demonstrations and, worse, riots in places like Montreal, are a major reason why popular sentiment is turning so quickly against mass immigration. October 6, last year, was a turning point. 

Day after day, the pro-Palestinian protesters are doing their best to show that multiculturalism does not work. 

Now even Justin Trudeau and Kier Starmer are promising to reduce immigration and deport illegals.

The silent majority only wants to live their lives in peace and quiet. 

Grifters can play on this. They raise a fuss, and the majority will give them whatever they demand, to keep the peace.

But this is danegeld. The troublemakers get louder and louder, seeing that it pays well, until at last the majority wakes up to the realization that the only way to keep the peace is to get rid of the troublemakers. 

The grifters will always make this mistake. 

We seem to be at that point. 

I am tempted to say that Muslim immigrants from the Levant specifically are the problem. I thought at the time it was madness to allow a mass immigration of Syrians fleeing the Syrian civil war. The problem was, by letting in both sides, we were importing the war itself. It was as if, in response to persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany, we opened our borders to all German immigration, not just Jews.

But it is not just the Muslims who have gone too far. It is also the transgender lobby with their demands to take our children. It is the indigenous lobby with their church burnings and false claims of mass graves. The great awakening is surely waking up to them as well.

It may not get too bloody; it may not be as bad as WWII.

A similar parallel is Quebec, with its mounting demands and threats throughout the second half of the twentieth century. All it took then was Stephane Dion laying down the law in a closely reasoned public letter. 

Let’s hope.

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

Bubble Life

 

I attended a coffee and conversation recently in which one participant bravely brought up his political doubts, in an oblique way.

“Whatever you think about Trump, didn’t the media let us down? Didn’t they tell us Trump couldn’t win? Didn’t they tell us nobody would vote for Trump? Seventy-five million people did. How is this possible? They’re not giving us the whole story.”

Cognitive dissonance. Other participants first responded by suggesting other news sources he might prefer-- all either “mainstream” or explicitly on the left. No right-wing sources like Daily Wire or Instapundit or even X. Of course they would not mention X except to condemn it; but BlueSky was recommended.

A non sequitur, of course. All were media that said Trump was evil and Harris would win. Still within the bubble.

The disconnect being too obvious, one participant at last piped up:  IQ has been dropping in the US for a couple of generations.

Mutters of agreement. This seemed to satisfy everyone, and ended the conversation. They moved on to another topic.

Of course this explanation was nonsensical. There is no reason to suppose that people with a low IQ will automatically vote en masse for an obviously bad candidate. At most, you would expect their votes to be a bit more random.

I appreciated the bravery of the man who raised the question, if timidly. He was braver than I. I kept my peace. It was not worth it to speak up. I suspect there were others in the meeting who also did not believe Trump was an obviously better choice than Harris. But who wants to be first to say so? We have all learned that it does not pay to disagree with a leftist. They will become hysterical. 

This is what it looks and feels like when people are delusional. 

I think wokism and wokery will now collapse quickly. The bubble has begun to pop. It has popped, and many are wandering around, confused.

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

More Reasons for Canadian Independence

 

In my quest for one good reason why Canada should be independent of the US, I have watched a video from True North.

Here are their arguments, as I noted them:

1. Canadians are more polite

Canadians have a reputation for being more polite; so do US Southerners. “Southern gentility.” Would anyone consider this a reason for the US South to be independent?

2. Canadians welcome immigrants.

Obviously, the US too welcomes immigrants. It is the original immigrant society. As we have that in common, it is an argument for union, not separation. 

3. America expects their immigrants to assimilate.

The old saw was that Canada was a “mosaic,” while the US was a “melting pot.” Canada has now enshrined “multiculturalism” in our constitution, while US money carries the motto “E Pluribus Unum.” A sad attempt to make Canada different from the US somehow. A distinction; but it is still an argument for union. Multiculturalism, as anyone could have predicted, is proving a disaster wherever it is tried. Witness the riots in Europe. The fact that it is embedded in the Canadian constitution, is a compelling argument for abolishing Canada and assimilation to the US. It may be the only way to get rid of the policy.

4. America has stronger protections for rights and freedoms. E.g., Canadians are squeamish about a right to bear arms.

One might also cite the stronger commitment to freedom of speech, versus Canada’s “hate speech” laws. Again, while this is a distinction, it is a compelling argument for union. It gives us more rights.

5. Commitment to the crown

This is the reason Canada exists. But how important is it? How much is it worth sacrificing for? The crown’s role, afer all, is only symbolic.

6. There is more decentralization of power in Canada

This is a bit of a historical accident. On paper, US states have more power than Canadian provinces. Canadian decentralization has developed de facto from the need to appease Quebec.

That need would continue were Quebec part of the larger union. Accordingly, assimilating Quebec should decrease centralization throughout North America, given that the US Constitution allows for more decentralization than the Canadian one.

This makes union more desirable: decentralization is a trend already in the US.

7. America is an escape route for oppressed Canadians, so long as it is independent.

This argument works the opposite way too: Canada is an escape route for oppressed Americans, as in the days of the Underground Railroad, or the Vietnam draft.

This seems to me the best argument for an independent Canada. 

Yet the escape route is more open and accessible, if less complete, if we have the right to live and work on either side of the border. With fifty states, or fifty-five, instead of ten provinces, we have more options. If we need to flee some federal policy—there is still the UK, Australia, New Zealand, the Bahamas, Thailand, and so forth. It seems less necessary than it once was for the complete escape to be within a day’s drive.

So I have yet so see a strong argument for Canada to remain independence. It seems no more than a sentimental attachment.

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

Unburdened by What Has Been?

 

Discussion of the US annexing Canada is spreading, in the media and on X. 

I watch carefully the Canadian responses. What arguments does anyone have? Why is Canada independent?

The one argument I see is “we have universal health care.”

Not a good argument. In theory, if it so chose, Canada could still offer and provide universal health care for its residents as a US State.

Most often, no argument is given. Just an expletive, usually one beginning with F and ending with off.

This proves those who react this way have no argument.

As a businessman and entrepreneur, Trump has the skill of seeing a business opportunity. He sees when money has been left on the table. 

Canada was left on the table by the Statute of Westminster, and then progressively by the dropping of preferential tariffs when the UK entered the EU, the patriation of the Canadian constitution, and the influx of new immigrants. Its reason to exist was its British ties. They are gone. Britain walked away.

I think Canadians have felt this in their hearts for some time. Hence the frequent lament about an absence of Canadian identity. Justin Trudeau himself has said Canada has no identity, no reason to exist, no "mainstream." Hence the Canadian desire to join any international association going. Hence it's idolization of anything coming from abroad, its "multiculturalism."
Perhaps it would be a mercy.'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

I Think He's Serious

 

Someone leaked Trump's comment at his recent meeting with Trudeau, suggesting Canada become the 51st state. 

Why was this in particular leaked, and nothing else from the meeting?

Actually looks like a trial balloon.

Trump has since posted this on X:

Yeah, could be a troll. 

Bet it isn't. He's certainly forced the idea into the public discourse. Trump knows how to move the Overton window. Remember when building a border wall was a crazy idea?

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.