Showing posts with label Catholic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Catholic. Show all posts

Sunday, March 22, 2026

Lex Anteinternet: Supporting Immorality in War is Immoral.

Lex Anteinternet: Supporting Immorality in War is Immoral.: Gun camera footage from a P-51 strafing Japanese civilian fishermen during World War Two, a gravely immoral act.  We've conveniently for...

Supporting Immorality in War is Immoral.

Gun camera footage from a P-51 strafing Japanese civilian fishermen during World War Two, a gravely immoral act.  We've conveniently forgotten how much of this sort of thing happened during World War Two, but a lot did.  Allied fighters routinely strafed German farmers during  the war, and I have heard of one account of an Italian farmer being killed by being strafed.  This isn't warfare, it's flat out murder.*
 

III. SAFEGUARDING PEACE

Avoiding war

2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

  • the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
  • all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
  • there must be serious prospects of success;
  • the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine.

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

Section 2309, Catechism of the Catholic Church. 

Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution:

[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; . . . 

The American war against Iran is not a just war.  It's not a legal one, either.

Iran is a world sponsor of terrorism that has sponsored terroristic acts for decades.  Most of those acts of terror were against other sovereign states, not the US, but some can logically be argued to be directed at the us.  That's almost certainly not what the war is about.

Much more likely, Trump is a pathetic doddering senile fool who has spent a life of utter pointlessness.  His wealth is inherited and founded originally on a grandfather who engaged in providing prostitutes to Alaska miners, a gravely evil act.  His father did nothing like that, but the family wealth was used to build more wealth, and Trump in his adult years, after not serving his country (a family tradition to some extent) went on to make and lose fortunes doing that.

Real estate development is, from an agrarian and distributism prospective like that I maintain, a fairly dubious occupation in and of itself.  Not clearly immoral, but frankly I have real trouble with some of it.  Be that as it may, I particularly have trouble with the sort of behavior that Trump exhibited in that questionable occupation.  I wouldn't admire the Wharton graduate for that reason alone.  But the way he has spent his wealth is abominable.  He's a serial polygamist and its getting very difficult to say "there's no evidence" that he didn't sexually fish in the shallow end of the pond.

There's more credible evidence that he's a kiddy diddler, which I'm not affirmatively saying there is, than that he's a Christian.  There's not one single outwardly Christian act that I can think of that he's committed.  What he is, is a shallow opportunist, and he's used desperate Christians to advance his career.  

Knowing that the grave is looming up on him, and with his mind slipping away from him at a rapid rate, Trump has spent much of his second, illegitimate, occupation of the White House trying to build monuments to himself.  He wants a ball room as he's a rich product of the 60s and 70s when things like that mattered to somebody.  They don't anymore, and it'll either never be built, or ripped down.  He wants a triumphal arch, which is simply absurd.

And he wants to be remembered as a great hero, adding to the US landmass, or at least defeating a supposed major enemy.

Benjamin Netanyahu, who is a scary man in his own right, but not a demented fool, saw that he could play the demented fool in the White House.  Netanyahu, like Michael Corleone in The Godfather, sees the Trump dotage as a time to "address all family business".  Seeing a dolt he could play, like Putin has, he's coaxed Trump into a war for Israel's own purposes.  This is, the way Netanyahu sees it, Israel's last best hope to destroy the radical Islamist regime in Tehran.  Israel can't do it on its own, and no future US administration will support doing it.  Israel is not held in that high of regard in much of the world for a variety of reasons, and never has been.  Nobody else is going to play the willing muscled fool for Netanyahu.  If Netanyahu is Corleone, Trump is Luca Brasi, a brutish dolt who is willing to act as an enforcer.

Trump entered this war thinking it would be a two or three day exercise.  He'd bomb Iran and the Iranian people would give up.  Or, maybe, Iranians theocrats would act like American property owners and cut him a deal.  Well, say what you like about Shiite theocrats, but they're a lot less shallow than American businessmen.  They hold to an existential, and unlike Trump it's not all about money and women.  

Oh oh.

So they didn't give up and they aren't going to give up.  They've fought back by striking economic targets and U.S. military installations around the Middle East (and now as far away as Diego Garcia).  And they've closed the Straits of Hormuz.

By closing the Straits, they've also demonstrated that the US is, in fact, not as powerful as it pretends it is.  We can't open them and we've been begging for help.  Nobody else is willing to get into an endless war for Israel, and therefore that help isn't coming.  In order to open them we will have to engage in a ground invasion.

Trump is trying desperately to avoid that, for a variety of reasons.  One thing is that he's probably been told it will be a bloody mess.  Body bags will be coming home to "Red" cities all around the country.  People already don't support the war and they definitely will not when Johnny or Mary come home to be buried in Riverton Wyoming, or Billings Montana, having died for Bibi Netanyahu.  

And then there's this:


There's not going to be a draft, but the satiric suggestions that he serve are not wholly ingenuine.  Right now, the US is getting into one war after another.  Franklin Roosevelt's children served, so did TR's. Why not Trump's?

Because Trumps don't serve the country, they take from it. That's why.

In his desperation to end the war, Trump is now threatening to bomb Iranian power facilities if they do not open the Straits of Hormuz.  He broadcast this on social media, which is idiotic  It also won't work.  The Allied bombing campaigns against Germany did not work in World War Two.  They didn't work, save for the Atomic bomb, against Japan, either.  Nor did they work against North Vietnam.  They won't work here.  Instead, civilians will be killed and whatever support for a new regime replacing this one in Iran exists, will evaporate.

What Trump is doing is criminal. The US is killing people for. . . what?

The whole war is criminal from the first place, from a US prospective.  We're using military force to kill people with no declaration of war.  And now we propose to engage in a tit for tat campaign of economic retribution against them as we can't beat them.  We haven't been able to articulate a single reason for the war, other than Iran cannot be allowed to have the same thing that Israel, the United States, France, Russia, North Korea, the United Kingdom, Indian, Pakistan, and South Africa have. . . an atomic bomb.

There is some logic to that, of course.  An Iran with an atomic bomb would be scary, just like North Korea with an atomic bomb is scary.  But given our ill thought out military adventure here, we are actually making this situation worse.  North Korea, it might be noted, is improving missile capabilities, and why wouldn't they.  If North Korea has not determined an absolute need to be able to hit the continental United States due to Donald Trump, it'd be amazing.  And if Iran, which has its nuclear material yet, has not concluded that it has an absolute need to complete a nuclear project, that would be amazing.

But it's clear that Trump never thought this out.  He went, we're told, with his gut, which is nearly always wrong.

So, here we are in this long winded thread.

And here's to the point.  Supporting immorality, is immoral.  Everyone engages in "remote cooperation with evil", which you can not do much about.  Using illegal drugs is illegal, but paying the pizza guy when you know he's going to use some of that cash for illegal drugs isn't.

Here, we now have an interesting situation.

We are in an illegal war and doing immoral acts.  The Republicans in Washington are mostly sitting around on their ass doing nothing about it. They're afraid.  They're not paid nor elected to be afriad.

And all over the country the MAGA element of the GOP just lies down like the 13 year old girls at Epstein Island and gives into whatever Trump wants.

It's immoral.

For years and years Christians, particularly those of my faith, voted for Republicans in spite of reluctance because we opposed abortion and the Democratic Party supported it.  Even as late as the last election I heard Catholics with severe doubts about Trump say they were voting for him for that reason.

Abortion is a grave moral evil.  Engaging in an illegal war and targeting civilian targets is a grave moral evil.

I'm not saying vote for the Democrats without thinking, but I am saying that supporting this Administration and the Republican Party at this point is supporting moral evil.  When John Barrasso and Harriet Hageman come around backing the war, they're backing a moral evil.  When Chuck Gray declares his undying love for Trump and promises to be the most loyal of his political concubines, he's expressing a love of a moral evil.

Most Germans during the Nazi era did nothing.  Most Republicans aren't going to either.  In future years, they'll be looked at with utter disgust.

Christians believe that they'll have to account for their sins in the next world.  I very much doubt that bothers Donald  Trump as he's stupid and ignorant, which is sort of a defense, and I very much question if he has any belief in God at all.  For that matter, while I have only the incidents to raise the question, I doubt the beliefs of many in Congress who claim they have one.  For those of us who do believe, and frankly a person who doesn't has simply blinded themselves to reality, it's all too easy to believe that our self interest must be moral.  Protestant churches have, for instance, by and large completely given up on being concerned about sexual morality for the most part.

God will not be mocked.  Christians who declare Trump to be a "Godly Man" are willfully blinding themselves or outright lying.  None of us are around here all that long.  The "why did you support the murder of my children" question is coming up, and the "well, I supported Trump", or "well, the Iranians were baddies", or "well, the Iranians were Muslims" line is not likely to be a sufficient excuse for being complicit in murder.

Footnotes

*This may seem like a strange point to start in this thread, but wars routinely devolve, even when they fit the just war criteria, into flat out murder and the US has not been exempt from this.  Arguably the cleanest war the US ever fought was World War One, with the Korean War being relatively clean.  World War Two may be recalled as a uniformly just war, but the bombing campaigns against urban Japan and the use of nuclear weapons was outright not.  And the tolerance of what is depicted above, which was very widespread, was not.

Monday, February 2, 2026

Churches of the West: Claiming the mantle of Christ in politics. Don't support liars and don't lie. Addressing politicians in desperate time, part 4.

Churches of the West: Claiming the mantle of Christ in politics. Don't s...:    Χαῖρε Μαρία κεχαριτωμένη, ὁ Κύριος μετά σοῦ, Ἐυλογημένη σὺ ἐν γυναιξὶ, καὶ εὐλογημένος ὁ καρπὸς τῆς κοιλίας σοῦ Ἰησούς. Ἁγία Μαρία, μῆτερ...

Claiming the mantle of Christ in politics. Don't support liars and don't lie. Addressing politicians in desperate times, part 4.

 

 Χαῖρε Μαρία κεχαριτωμένη,

ὁ Κύριος μετά σοῦ,

Ἐυλογημένη σὺ ἐν γυναιξὶ,

καὶ εὐλογημένος ὁ καρπὸς τῆς κοιλίας σοῦ Ἰησούς.

Ἁγία Μαρία, μῆτερ θεοῦ,

προσεύχου [πρέσβευε] ὑπέρ ἡμῶν τῶν ἁμαρτωλῶν,

νῦν καὶ ἐν τῇ ὥρᾳ τοῦ θανάτου ἡμῶν.

Ἀμήν

So, a big one that we didn't include yesterday, as it deserves its own post.  This may be the most significant post of this thread.

Don't lie and don's support liars.

Everyone has heard the old joke, “How do you know a politician is lying?” The answer.  Because their mouth is moving."  That stretches the point, but there's some truth behind the joke, as there is with any good joke.

Indeed, we've become so used to politicians lying that we basically expect it. The current era, however has brought lying, as well as truth telling, into a new weird surreal era.

Lying is a sin.  It's been debated since early times if it's always a sin, or if there are circumstances in which it may be allowed, limited though those be.  If it's every allowable, it's in situations like war, where after all, killing is allowed.  Most of us lie, but it's almost always sinful.

In Catholic theological thought, lying can be a mortal sin.  It's generally accepted that most lies are not in that category. So, "yes, dear, I love gravy burgers" is not a mortal sin.  But lies can definitely be mortally sinful.  Lying over a grave matter is mortally sinful, if the other conditions for mortal sin are met.

Donald Trump, whom some deluded Christians refer to as a "Godly Man", lies routinely and brazenly, and this has brought lying into the forefront, even as he's shocked people, rightfully, by following through on some of his promises, but not all, that were assumed to be lies or at least exaggerations.  He's advanced lies about who won the 2020 election, and many of his followers have advanced those lies as well.  Some people, of course, believe the lies and advance what they assume to be the truth, but some of that is being wilfully ignorant that they are lies.

Of course here, as always, I'm coming at this from a Catholic prospective.  I do not accept the thesis that some do that lies can be utilized to advanced something we regard as a greater good. Some hold the opposite view and I'm fairly convinced that some Christian Nationalist politicians hold the opposite view.  I frankly wonder, for example, if Mike Johnson, the Speaker of the House, hold the opposite view.  Johnson claims to be a devout Christian and if he doesn't hold the opposite view, based on the lies he spouts, he must despair of his own salvation quite frequently, unless he hold the completely erroneous "once saved always saved" view some Evangelical Christians hold, or if he's a Calvinist that figures that double predestination has the fate of everyone all determined anyhow, which is also a theologically anemic position.

A very tiny minority of Christians hold such views, however.  For the rest of us, it's incumbent not to reward lying, and not to advance lies.  It's dangerous and destructive to everyone.  It should not be tolerated by anyone.  And in this era, and for the proceeding several, it's destroying everything.

Last and prior editions:

Claiming the mantle of Christ in politics. Addressing politicians in desperate times, part 3.


Wednesday, December 17, 2025

Churches of the West: Unsettling news for Catholics in Rock Springs.

Churches of the West: Unsettling news for Catholics in Rock Springs.: This comes as bit of a shock, as well as evidence of how slow news actually travels in our current age in which everything seems flash drive...

Unsettling news for Catholics in Rock Springs.

This comes as bit of a shock, as well as evidence of how slow news actually travels in our current age in which everything seems flash driven:

Giving some credit to the news, I'll note that this hit smaller news venues earlier, which I guess leads me to wonder a bit about how well Natrona County is served by the media.

Anyhow. . . 

The church is this one:

Sts. Cyril & Methodius Catholic Church, Rock Springs Wyoming


 

 


This Romanesque church was built in 1912 after a protracted period of time in which efforts were made to build a church specifically for the Catholic Slavic population of Rock Springs, which was quite pronounced at the time. The church was named after brothers Cyril and Methodius who had been the evangelists to the Slavs.  The first pastor was Austrian born Father Anton Schiffrer who was suited to the task given his knowledge of Slavic languages.

The news broke just before the celebration of the church's 100th anniversary, which isn't great timing, but no doubt that was simply coincidental.

To my surprise, there are three Catholic churches in Rock Springs.  I was aware of there being two. The Catholic community seems to be served there in the same way the community in Casper is, as a Tri Parish, rather than three separate parishes.

 Here's the announcement that was given by the Diocese:



Not too surprisingly, there has been some local opposition and the Bishop has suspended his order until February, when he will meet with the aggrieved parties.  The suspension is on line, but I was not able to download it, in order to post it.  

I'm not terribly optimistic, but the potential closure has drawn opposition from secular quarters as well:

Watch List: Saints Cyril & Methodius Catholic Church, Rock Springs


In terms of timing, another interesting aspect of this is that it comes right as the Catholic parish in Rock Springs started undertaking an effort to build a community center for the parish, the brochure for which is partially set out here:



There's more to the brochure than that, but I can't think of something more likely to put a damper on this effort than to close a century old church while its ongoing.

I'd also note that one of the stated desires is exactly the opposite of what brought Sts. Cyril & Methodius Catholic Church about in the first place, that being the desire to "create unity and one Catholic identity".  That's a common, and admirable, goal but in the real world, people don't like it.  Individual ethnicities within the Catholic Church have always struggled against this, sometimes with pretty disastrous results.  Indeed, Orthodoxy in the US got a big boost just from such an event when Bishop John Ireland disapproved of Eastern Catholicism remaining separate, causing Fr. Alexis Toth to lead a group of them into the Russian Orthodox Church.  In  the early 20th Century Catholic Diocese often responded just the way that the Diocese of Cheyenne did here, by simply creating additional churches that recognized the different identifies.

That won't happen here, and these are all Latin Rite churches.  Moreover, the strong ethnic identities in Rock Springs from a century ago have no doubt dissipated considerably.  But that doesn't mean that parishioners in a unique Church, or really any Church, like to have their church closed and be told they need to go elsewhere, even if it makes sense, which it very well might, given the antiquity of the building.  Doing it while also undergoing a campaign that expresses the goal of unity is more than a little unfortunate.

Indeed, that's the case as even in this modern age, not everyone likes to be grouped into one big group.  I'm one of those people.  The Diocese here had an event several years ago where all the local Masses were cancelled so that one huge Mass could be held at Casper's David Street Station. Rather than do that, I drove to Glenrock and attended Mass there. . . and I noticed some other Casperites I recognized there as well.

Sunday, December 7, 2025

Lex Anteinternet: Turning our backs on American Careerism. A synchronicitous trip.

Lex Anteinternet: Turning our backs on American Careerism. A synchr...: The Angelus by Jean-François Millet I experience synchronicity in some interesting ways from time to time.  Ways which, really, are too stro...

Turning our backs on American Careerism. A synchronicitous trip.

The Angelus by Jean-François Millet

I experience synchronicity in some interesting ways from time to time.  Ways which, really, are too strong to put up to coincidence.

Sometime last week I saw this post on Twitter by O. W. Root, to which I also post my reply:

O.W. Root@owroot

Nov 29

Sometimes I have wondered if I should write about being a parent so much, but I've realized that it's one of the most universal things in the whole world, and one of the most life changing things for all who do it, so it's good to do.

Lex Anteinternet@Lex_Anteinterne

Nov 30

It's also, quite frankly, one of the very few things we do with meaning.  People try take meaning from their jobs, for example, which are almost universally meaningless.

My reply, was frankly, extremely harsh.  "[A]lmost universally meaningless"?

Well, in fact, yes.  I was going to follow that up with a post about existential occupations, but I hadn't quite gotten around to it when I heard some podcasts and saw some web posts that synched into it.  I've been cat sitting recently and because of that, I've been able to catch up on some old ones (note the synchronicity of that. . . the tweet above was from November 29/30, but the podcast episode was from June).  The podcast episode in question is:

People to Catholicism Today? ⎮Flannel Panel - Christopher Check


That episode discusses a very broad range of very interesting topics, and it referenced this one amongst them:   Catholicism Is So Hot Right Now. Why?

I haven't listened to the second podcast, but the first is phenomenal.

These are all linked?

Yes they are.

I've noted here on this blog and on Lex Anteinternet that the young seem to be turning towards social conservatism and traditionalism.  It's easy to miss,. and its even easy to be drawn to it and participate in it without really realizing it.  This is different, we'd further note, than being drawn to the various branches of political conservatism.  There's definitely a connection, of course, but there are also those who are going into social conservatism/traditionalism while turning their backs on politics entirely, although there are real dangers to turning your back on politics.

What seems to be going on is that people are attracted to the truth, the existential truths, and the existential itself.  

Put another way, people have detected that the modern world is pretty fake, and it doesn't comport at all with how we are in a state of nature. It goes back to what we noted here:


I think what people want is a family and a life focused on that family, not on work.

As noted above, most work is meaningless.  That doesn't mean it's not valuable.  

Very few jobs are existential for our species.*  We're meant to be hunters and gatherers, with a few other special roles that have to do with the organization of ourselves, and our relation to the existential.  Social historians like to claim that society began to "advance" when job specialization, a byproduct of agriculture, began, and there's some truth to that, but only a bit, if not properly understood.  That bit can't be discounted, however, as when agriculture went from subsistence agriculture to production agriculture, i.e., agriculture that generated a surplus, wealth was generated and wealth brought in a great perversion of social order.  Surplus production brought in wealth, which brought in a way for the separation of wealth from the people working the land, and ultimately ownership of the land itself.  Tenant farming, sharecropping and the like, and agricultural poverty, were all a byproduct of that.  When Marx observed that this developed inevitably into Feudalism, he was right.

Agriculture, originally, was a family or family band small scale deal.  While it's pretty obvious to anyone who has ever put in a garden how it worked, social theorist and archeologist got it all wrong until they made some rather obvious discoveries quite recently, one of the most obvious being that hunter/gatherer societies are also often small scale agricultural ones.  How this was missed is baffling as Europeans had first hand experience with this in regard to New World cultures, most of which were hunting societies but many of which put in various types of farms.  Even North American native bands that did not farm, it might be noted, were well aware of farming themselves.  Even into the present era hunter/gatherer societies, to the extent they still exist, often still practice small scale farming.

It turns out that grain farming goes way, way back. But why wouldn't it have?

Additional specialization began with the Industrial Revolution, and that's when things really began to become massively warped for our species, first for men, and then with then, with feminization, for women.  We've long noted that, but given the chain of coincidences noted above, we've stumbled on to somebody else noting it. As professor Randall Smith has written:
It’s important to understand that the first fatal blow to the family came during the Industrial Revolution when fathers left the house for the bulk of the day. The deleterious results that followed from ripping fathers away from their children were seen almost immediately in the slums and ghettos of the large industrial towns, as young men, without older men to guide them into adulthood, roamed the streets, un-mentored and un-apprenticed. There, as soon as their hormonal instincts were no longer directed into work or caring for families, they turned to theft and sexual license.
Randall Smith, A Traditional Catholic Wife?  

So, in the long chain of events, there was nothing wrong at all about farming. There was something wrong about the expropriation of the wealth it created, and that fueled the fire of a lot of development since them.  That first set of inequities ultimately lead to peasant revolts in Europe on occasion, and to a degree can be regarded as what first inspired average Europeans to immigrate to various colonies. . . a place where they could own their own land.  . and then to various revolutions against what amounted to propertied overlords.  The American Revolution, the Mexican Revolution, and the Russian Revolution all had that element to them.  Industrialization, which pulled men out of the household, sparked additional revolutions to counter the impacts of the Industrial Revolution, with some being violent, but others not being. The spread of democracy was very much a reaction to the the evils of the Industrial Revolution.  Unfortunately, so was the spread of Communism.

Money has never given up, so the same class of people who demanded land rent in the bronze and iron age, and then turned people into serfs in the Middle Ages, are still busy to do that now. As with then, they often want the peasants to accept this as if its really nifty.  People like Donald Trump, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk are busy piling up money and concubines while assuring the peasantry that their diminished role in the world is a good thing as its all part of Capitalism.

It is part of Capitalism, which is a major reason that Capitalism sucks, and that there's been efforts to restrain its worse impulses since its onset, with efforts to limit corporations at first, and then such things as the Sherman Anti Trust Act later on.

All that's been forgotten and we now have a demented gilded prince and his privileged acolytes living off the fat of the land while people have less and less control of their own lives.  Most people don't want to glory in the success of Star Link of even care about it, but people feed into such things anyway, as the culture has glorified such things since at least the end of the Second World War, the war seemingly having helped to fuel all sorts of disordered desires in society that would bloom into full flower in the 1960s.  A society that grew wealthy from the war and the destruction that it created, saw itself as divorced from nature and reality, and every vice that could be imagined was condoned.

And we're now living in the wreckage.

I think this is what is fueling a lot of this.  Starting particularly in the 1950s, and then ramping up in the 60s and 70s, careerism really took hold in American society, along with a host of other vices.  Indeed, again, as Professor Smith has noted:
The “traditional Catholic family” where the husband worked all day and the wife stayed home alone with the children only really existed – and not all that successfully – in certain upper-middle class WASPy neighborhoods during the late 1950s and early 1960s. Working in an office all day is not necessarily evil (depending upon how it affects your family). It’s just modern. There’s nothing especially “traditional” about it.
Most careers are just dressed up jobs, not much else.  Nonetheless people have been taught they need to leave their homes, their families, they're very natures, in order to have a career, sometimes abandoning people in their wake.  They're encouraged to do so, to a large extent.

Indeed, I dare say, for most real careerist, nearly always abandoning people.

And average people are sick of it.

That's why young men are turning towards traditionalism of all sorts.  They're looking for something of value, and they're not going to find it behind a computer in a cubicle.  And that's why young women are reviving roles that feminist attempted to take away form them.  

They mean something.



Footnotes: 

Existential Occupations are ones that run with our DNA as a species.  Being a farmer/herdsman is almost as deep in us as being a hunter or fisherman, and it stems from the same root in our being.  It's that reason, really, that people who no longer have to go to the field and stream for protein, still do, and it's the reason that people who can buy frozen Brussels sprouts at Riddleys' still grown them on their lots.  And its the reason that people who have never been around livestock will feel, after they get a small lot, that they need a cow, a goat, or chickens.  It's in us.  That's why people don't retire from real agriculture.

It's not the only occupation of that type, we might note.  Clerics are in that category.  Storytellers and Historians are as well.  We've worshiped the Devine since our onset as a species, and we've told stories and kept our history as story the entire time.  They're all existential in nature.  Those who build certain things probably fit into that category as well, as we've always done that.  The fact that people tinker with machinery as a hobby would suggest that it's like that as well.

Indeed, if it's an occupation. . . and also a hobby, that's a good clue that its an Existential Occupation.

If I were to retire from my career, which I can't right now, I wouldn't be one of those people who spend their time traveling to Rome or Paris or wherever.  I have very low interest in doing that.  I'd spend my time writing, fishing, hunting, gardening (and livestock tending).  That probably sounds pretty dull to most people.  I could imagine myself checking our Iceland or Ireland, or fjords in Norway, but I likely never will.

Friday, October 3, 2025

Tuesday, September 16, 2025

CliffsNotes of the Zeitgeist, 102nd edition. Short attention span and a Ballroom Blitz*. And self sabotage.

Lex Anteinternet: Wednesday, September 15, 1915. Counsels leave Nor...

CliffsNotes of the Zeitgeist, 102nd edition. Short attention span and a Ballroom Blitz*. And self sabotage.


Attention span deficit.

Something I hadn't expected, but which really says something about our times, is that the murder of Charlie Kirk is already, for the most part, in society's rear view mirror.

Yes, there's a lot of discussion about it still, but it's in the chattering class, which I suppose includes this website.  Otherwise, things have already moved on.

The speed at which news moves, and the lack of attention to it, is a very bad thing.

Of course, now that it doesn't really appear to be a politically motivated killing, it's lost its attraction as a story to some degree.

A fictional narrative

The story, as noted, is now in the domain of the chattering classes, but also the possession of right wing myth makers, which are really working on it.  The odd thing here is that the media has an incentive to downplay what is being learned about the killer, and to an extent, the MAGA myth organ does as well.

What we now know about the killer, Tyler Robinson, is that he was a homosexual living with another homosexual who was in the process of being mutilated to take on the appearance of a woman.  Unless this isn't clear enough, they were in a "romantic" relationship, which means they were engaged in sodomy.  The "transitioning" roommate was apparently shocked by the killing, but according to one family member, that person was deeply anti Christian and hated political conservatives.

Now, the reason that this isn't getting this much press as the "transgendered" aren't particularly associated with crimes of any kind, let alone violent ones, and homosexuals certainly are not, but this story is deeply weird.  A man trying to become a woman is deeply weird, and it is not the same thing as homosexuality.  One man screwing another man who is trying to take on female morphology is very weird as well.

We touched on this in a post about Robert Westman, who was an actual "transgender" figure who committed a mass shooting recently.  Indeed, he's the only "transgender" figure I know of to commit one, the overwhelming majority are white hetrosexual men.

Anyhow:

A deeply sick society.


We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise.  We laugh at honor and are shocked find traitors in our midsts.  We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.  
C.S. Lewis.

I explored the topic pretty fully there, and I'm not going to repeat it here other than to note that finding a transgender person hating Christianity isn't surprising. Real Christianity holds that to be wholly immoral, even while real Christianity still loves the person. And such a person hating conservatism isn't surprising either, as conservatives hold a similar view.

Robinson wasn't the transgendered person here, but the whole story of this relationship would lend to the theory that he was pretty pliable as a personality.  The point is, therefore, this likely wasn't really an act of domestic terror in the conventional sense, so much as it was a person reaching out  under the influence of a sexual partner.  In an odd sort of way, this killing is more comparable to Dr. Carl Austin Weiss Sr.'s murder of Huey Long, which was over redistricting that impacted his father in law.  I.e., a personal connection is likely to have motivated it more than any overarching weltanschauung.

That's a story that's not really going to get explored, I suspect.  The right wing wants Kirk to be a martyr, the left doesn't want to talk about the mental health issues this really brings up.

Groypers?

I'd never heard of this term before, but apparently they are followers of Nick Fuentes.  As I don't pay any attention to Fuentes, I didn't know that.

Apparently they've drawn a lot of attention following Kirk's murder as there was some peculiar speculation that they were responsible for it.  They obviously are not, but that speculation was there, and I'm not sure why.

Fuentes, whose movement is outwardly anti homosexual, as well as anti a bunch of other stuff, has said some really odd things in this arena, one being that having sex with women is gay.  Eh?  Another apparently was that homosexual sex doesn't mean what it used to, as women aren't living up to their reproductive responsibilities.

Not in homilies

Apparently, at least according to Twitter, a lot of people are mad today as their parish priest didn't include a reference to Kirk's murder in their homilies yesterday.  

Why would they?

For Apostolic Christians, Catholic and Orthodox, yesterday was the Feast of the Cross, and homilies probably largely had to do with that.  Moreover the Catholic Church is just that, catholic, i.e., universal, and this is a domestic American matter that remains unclear.  Kirk wasn't attacked because he was Catholic, he wasn't, and the attack upon him may only have a tangential relationship with his Christianity.

Nonetheless, I saw one person who was irate at the Pope for having not mentioned it.

Spencer Cox

The guy who is really coming out looking good after all of this is Utah Republican Governor Spencer Cox.  He's spoken multiple times and has been a calming voice every time.

This isn't the first time he's waded into these issues.  Following the killing at an Orlando gay bar some years ago he appeared at a vigil and stated:

How did you feel when you heard that 49 people had been gunned down by a self-proclaimed terrorist? That’s the easy question. Here is the hard one: Did that feeling change when you found out the shooting was at a gay bar at 2 a.m. in the morning? If that feeling changed, then we are doing something wrong.

Cox's comments are clearly against the stream of the MAGA mainstream. He was originally a never Trumper but claimed to have changed his mind and voted from Trump in his Presidential contests.  I suspect we'll be hearing more out of  Cox going forward, and he may very well be a Presidential candidate in 2028.

Ballroom Blitz

King Donny went from being outraged by the Kirk killing to bemoaning how it interrupted his might fine, in his mind, ballroom from being the focus of everyone's adoring attention.

That's pretty weird.

Also weird is how quickly this is going up.  It's apparently under construction right now.  Trump clearly wants it up before he leaves office, on the theory that will mean nobody will take it down.

The monstrosity will now be 40% bigger than originally planned.

Quite frankly, I thought this vandalization of the White House would not actually occur, as it would, in normal times, take quite a while to design and engineer a building. Indeed, I was frankly planning on just that.  I never thought the monstrosity would go up, as whomever is Present next won't be stupid or narcissistic enough to bother with a Trump "look at me!" ballroom.  It's really moronic.

But it's going up.

If I were President, which of course I never will be, my first executive order would be for the Army Corps of Engineers to remove the offending pile of dogshit within twenty foour hours of my being sworn in.  I'd have the resulting trash hauled and upmed in front of Trump Tower.  But that won't happen.  Trump is probably right.  A giant cancerous growth will be there forever.

Here is the oldest photo of the structure, and what it's actually supposed to look like:


Of course, as it might be noted, the building has been altered before, most notably the addition of the West and East Wings.  Those additions were made due to legitimate working concerns, however.

Again, if it were me, I'd be tempted to take it back to purse original.  It's just supposed to be a big house.

The architects for the vandalization are McCreery Architects, whose website has an image of the interior of the structure as its first slide.  The following slides show a lot of other impressive structures they've worked on.  They do seem to favor heavily classic styles, which is nice.  The site oddly doesn't have any text, but maybe if you need to hire a  heavy duty architect, you don't need text and the equivalent of architectural headshots works better.

A rational question would be why does this bother me so much?  Well, perhaps I just have an irrational reaction to all things Trump by this point.  But the ostentatiousness of the whole thing smacks of trying to be The Sun King.**Have we reached that point in this country?  I fear we have.

We've always had rich men, of course, but this is the era of fabulously wealth men.  It's not right.

Ah, sic transit gloria mundi.

Something we may wish to consider a bit. . . 

Maybe we have it too darn good (so we're self sabotaging).

It sounds absurd, but there's something to it.

The current Wyoming Catholic Register has an article pointing out that, in 1980, the year before I graduated from high school, 40% of the world's population lived in desperate poverty, an improvement from the mid to late 19th Century when it was 90%.

Now, just 10% does.

Big, huge, improvement.

By any objective measure, the condition of the world has massively improved. 

Why do we believe otherwise?

Evolutionary biology has a lot to do with it.  We evolved to live in a state of nature, and nature if pretty rough on everyone.  So we're acclimated to things not being quite right, and trouble being just around the corner.  Now, for most of us, that's not the case.

Gershwin wrote:

Summertime and the livin' is easy

Fish are jumpin' and the cotton is high

Oh, your daddy's rich and your ma is good-lookin'

So hush little baby, don't you cry

Well, it turns out that in summertime when the cotton is high and the fish are jumping, we're looking for a thunderstorm and worried about work on Monday.  

I know that I do.

And a super rich society, like ours, seems to make up its own problems.  

This is all the more the case when the gates are off the door, as they are.  Now, not only are there all our real and imagined problems, but we just go ahead and make new ones up.  Woman trapped inside a man's body?  Not if the Goths are at the city gates planning on killing everyone.  

Anyhow, it seems like we're busy, now that we are in the richest period of our existence as a species, making sure that real problems appear.  Apparently we missed them.

Footnotes

*Ballroom Blitz is an early 1970s, rock song by the band The Sweet.

**King Lous XIV.

Related threads: