Lex Anteinternet: New Year's Resolutions for Other People, sort of.

Lex Anteinternet: New Year's Resolutions for Other People, sort of.: 

New Year's Resolutions for Other People, sort of.

Some years I post basically satiric resolutions for other people.

2024 was not a great year in a lot of ways, and 2025 promises not to be, thus making anything comedic seem rather inappropriate.

So this is a bit more serious.

The general election of 2024 was truly the worst one in the country's history.  Two ancient men were offered up by the nation's two major political parties, with those parties only agreeing on the lie that you must vote for one of the two of them.  The Democratic Party, which emerged for a while after World War Two as a center left party representing the working class, completed its post Vietnam War lurch to the far left and couldn't claw its way back from there.  The Republican Party, formerly the party of conservatism and business, was destroyed by Donald Trump and his populist minions, a process set in motion in the 1970s and Reagan's Southern Strategy, thereby becoming a new expression of the Dixiecrats.  The attack on education that began in the 1980s under Reagan seemed to bear weedy fruit as well, as middle class Americans, and some upper class Americans, grasped onto utter fictions offered up by Trump and company which promised to return the country to a fictional perfect past.  Many voters, of course, felt trapped and voted both for and against politicians based on social issues which the Democrats in particular had helped bring into the forefront resulting in their defeat.

So, some serious hopes, if not resolutions.

Americans need to quit believing in something because it sounds like something they wish to be true.

We can't be an island insulated from the world.  We've hoped to some degree to that since day one, but we've never been close to achieving that status.  George Washington may have urged us to avoid foreign entanglements but we were involved, on an undeclared basis, in what were essentially two world wars by the early part of the 19th Century, one against France, and another against the United Kingdom and her allies.  While many have long declared that "we aren't the world's policeman", if we aren't there's hardly any police at all.  And if new police arise, there's a really good chance we won't like it.  Our best hope, if we get to that point, is that its the combined countries of Europe, but what if, instead, its the People's Republic of China?

The internet and modern travel have shrunk the world so much that there's no escaping the impact of even minor disruptions around the globe.  A war in Ukraine increases the cost of pasta in Italy and groceries, thereafter, in the US, as the most minor of examples.

We can whine about "forever wars" but the truth of the matter is that we haven't fought a substantial war since we backed out of Vietnam in 1973.  Even at that, there were fewer men garrisoned in Vietnam at the height of the American involvement in the war than there were involved in the Battle of the Bulge, which of course was a single American World War Two battle.  All wars are serious and horrible, but the post Vietnam War conflicts we've been in have, in real terms, been minor in comparison to anything that came after 1975's fall of Saigon.

We can't ignore the globe.

Climate Change is real and needs to be addressed basically 30 years ago. There is still time to act, but that action needs to be massive and drastic.  Believing that this isn't the case is an example of willful denial of science and ultimately an act of theft, if not murder, of future generations.  Denying this because my income is based on oil, and I freely concede much of mine is, doesn't change the reality.

Science of all types needs to be taken seriously.  Sure, it isn't always right, but it's more often right than the ravings of somebody who bases their positions on the spouting of former Playboy centerfolds or quack celebrities.¹

On this, vaccinations work.  They do.  If you don't want to get vaccinated, don't, but don't pretend that's because Bill Gates is looking for a way to steal your lunch.

On science, we need to comport more to nature.  That includes our own natures.  Poisoning the womb and murdering infants in the womb isn't "health care", its poisoning yourself and murdering your offspring.  Its' deeply anti natural.

Along the same lines, there are only two genders in mammals. That's it.  You, smart primate, are a member of the most sexually dimorphic species on the planet and are either deeply male or female.  Those pretending otherwise as to their persons are mentally ill, either temporarily or perhaps more permanently.  Society doesn't need to accommodate, in any fashion, this illness.

Homosexuality is the same, some sort of disorder, but not one that presents a societal threat through its tolerance.  It does, however, due to excess accommodation.  One of the world's oldest institutions, marriage, has been so damaged.  But much damage had already been done to marriage due to the erosion of a serious understanding of what it is.

Of course, that was long in coming and gets to the next topic.  Many societal institutions exist for the preservation and protection of society itself, not to make you "happy" or "fulfilled".  Starting in 1953 we began the massive erosion of societal institutions and its been a complete disaster.  There needs to be a serious effort to claw back that which has been lost, including in this area.  There's no reason to tolerate extramarital procreation, whether its by some nameless drug addict or Elon Musk.  Societal norms need to be restored.² 

This gets necessarily to the topic of religion, which has been in the news constantly this year.  It's odd if you realize that we can now so easily access early Christian texts that we can determine what early Christians believed very easily, and it often doesn't look anything like what's coming from The New Apostolic Reformation, or for that matter the "reformed" branches of the 16th Century Reformation, none of which has kept people from imagining Donald Trump as a latter day Cyrus the Great.

In 2024, when the writings of 124 AD are easily available, "religious" Americans who feel that Christianity stops at their own front door and that what they do is okay as they do it, are often far off the mark.  Finding Donald Trump to be a "Godly man" with his serial polygamy and what not is absurd, but then people getting married again and again and pretending that comports with the faith also are out to lunch.  It's not just Christianity, we'd note, that suffers from this.

Nature cares little if you accept nature and its doctrines.  It simply gives the dope slap to those who don't.  Not immediately, but sooner or later.  The Populists who seized control of the country have a chance to recreate the county into what they imagine it should be, but only if they accept that.  Chances are, of course, that National Conservatives will rapidly eclipse them in a year or two with Donald Trump's inevitable passing or inescapable dementia, and like it or nor, they appear to have a firmer grasp on this.  People should ponder it and try to get a grasp themselves.  

Part of that would be that if you feel a politician or a super rich dude has your interest in mind, or that if you believe that economics serves your own economic interest because it must, or if you feel that God abhors your homosexual neighbor but is okay with your third marriage, you need to rethink things.

Footnotes

1.  Jenny McCarthy, who seems to have dropped off the public radar, was famous initially for being a brash Playboy centerfold was an early backer of the vaccines cause autism baloney. They do not.  Now we see Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., backing that absurd view.

2.  The other day I saw an item on Twitter in some dimwit on Twitter claiming some level of authority stated:

Taylor @taylor_vahey

waiting until marriage to have sex with someone is incredibly stupid due to the fact that sometimes two people are not sexually compatible

do not wait until you are locked in for life to find that out

That post is so moronic, on multiple levels, that it could lead to a long thread itself, but only a blistering rich and narcissistic society would even have a concept in some quarters of sexual compatibility.

Our species, homo sapiens sapiens, has gone from nearly being driven to extinction 900,000 years ago to dominating the globe.  We know for a fact that homo sapiens sapiens mated with homo sapiens neaderthalensis, and we're we're learning that we, and the Neanderthals, mated with the Denisovans.  Sexual compatibility doesn't seem to be a human problem.

Last edition:

Honesty and Authenticity. Resolutions.

Labels: Authenticity, Honesty, Introspection, New Year's Resolutions

Lex Anteinternet: The Four Things.

Lex Anteinternet: The Four Things.: 

The Four Things.

Because I've referenced it more than one time, but apparently never posted it (cowardice at work) I'm going to post here the topic of "the four sins God hates".  I'm also doing this as I'm getting to a political thread about this years elections and the candidates, in the context of the argument of "Christians must. . . " or "Christians can. . . "

First I'll note using the word "hate", in the context  of the Divine, is a truncation for a much larger concept.  "Condemns" might have been a better choice of words, but then making an effective delivery in about ten minutes or less is tough, and truncations probably hit home more than other things.

Additionally, and very importantly, sins and sinners are different.  In Christian theology, and certainly in Catholic theology, God loves everyone, including those who have committed any one of these sins, or all of them.

This topic references a remarkably short and effective sermon I heard some time ago. The way my 61 year old brain now works, that probably means it was a few years ago.  At any rate, it was a homily based on all three of the day's readings, which is remarkable in and of itself, and probably left every member of the parish squirming a bit.  It should have, as people entrenched in their views politically and/or economically would have had to found something to disagree with, or rather be hit by.

The first sin was an easy one that seemingly everyone agrees is horrific, but which in fact people excuse continually, murder.

Murder is of course the unjust taking of a life, and seemingly nobody could disagree with that being a horrific sin. But in fact, we hear people excuse the taking of innocent life all the time.  Abortion is the taking of an innocent life.  Even "conservatives", however, and liberals as a false flag, will being up "except in the case of rape and incest".

Rape and incest are horrific sins in and of itself, but compounding it with murder doesn't really make things go away, but rather makes one horror into two.  Yes, bearing a child in these circumstances would be a horrific burden.  Killing the child would be too.

The second sin the Priest noted was sodomy.  He noted it in the readings and in spite of what people might like to say, neither the Old or New Testaments excuse unnatural sex. They just don't.  St. Paul is particularly open about this, so much so that a local female lesbian minister stated that this was just "St. Paul's opinion", which pretty much undercuts the entire Canon of Scripture.  

A person can get into Natural Law from here, which used to be widely accepted, and which has been cited by a United States Supreme Court justice as recently as fifty or so years ago, and the Wyoming Supreme Court more recently than that, and both in this context, but we'll forgo that in depth here. Suffice it to say that people burdened with such desires carry a heavy burden to say the least, but that doesn't make it a natural inclination.  In the modern Western World we've come to excuse most such burdens, however, so that where we now draw lines is pretty arbitrary. 

Okay, those are two "conservative" items.

The next wasn't.

That was mistreating immigrants.  

This sort of speaks for itself, but there it is. Scripture condemns mistreating immigrants.  You can't go around, as a Christian, hating immigrants or abusing them because of their plight.  

Abusing immigrants, right now, seems to be part of the Conservative "must do" list.

And the final one was failing to pay workmen a just wage.  Not exactly taking the natural economy/free market approach in the homily.

Two conservatives, and two liberal.

That's because Christianity is neither liberal or conservative, but Christianity.  People claiming it for teir political battles this year might well think out their overall positions.

Lex Anteinternet: Quick! Avert your eyes. . . nature is happening.

Lex Anteinternet: Quick! Avert your eyes. . . nature is happening.:       

Quick! Avert your eyes. . . nature is happening.

 

 Not a housecat, no matter what some commission may decide.

New York's Commission on Human Rights had determined that its unconstitutional not to serve pregnant women alcohol.

That's stupid.

Nowhere in any constitution, state or Federal, is there a clause that says "When a pregnant boozehound comes into your dram shop, you shall liquor her up".  Nonsense.

But a lot of or cutting edge social law has become quite nonsensical recently.

Truth be known, a lot of the original concepts of rights involve "leave people alone".  They hardly ever involved "you must recognize this".  People had the right to assemble, but you didn't have to credit their assembly as smart, nifty or valuable.  People had the right to be secure in their own homes, which basically meant leaving them alone, at home.  Lots of stuff was that way.

Now, however, there are beginning to be a lot of "you musts".  And the "you musts" are often followed by the social derision of the pop class, who is rarely impacted by anything directly.  And a lot of this is because our country has become almost completely divorced from nature, and seeing a sudden acceleration of "you must" recognize this or that.

Indeed, just yesterday I actually heard a person interviewed who has "changed" their gender (a genetic impossibility) state that he or she should be allowed in a bathroom that comports to his or her gender reassignment, but that those who dressed contrary to their gender were "perverts".  My goodness, how can a person actually make that statement?  Its incredibly biased, and at the same time mind numbingly confusing to the vast majority of people who are comfortable with the gender dictates of their DNA and their clothing.  Can a person actually say that?  I don't think so. They shouldn't say it, and I have to believe that what they meant was actually something else and that htey didn't mean to go after the clothing thing.  After all, how can a person who has had surgery and who is taking chemicals to defeat their DNA say that about somebody who is just wearing a different set of clothes.  Bizarre.

On the bathroom thing, I'm not commenting on where people who have had their genders reassigned should go and I doubt that they or anyone else actually regarded this as a burning issue.  It seems to me that they probably have to go where surgery has now assigned them.  Indeed, I'm amazed that this is now an issue that requires Federal pondering.  I'll say beyond that, however, that at the point at which the Federal government starts issuing guidelines on this, it obviously has too little to actually do. Likewise, when celebrities start spouting on it, it shows how slavish they are to trends.  I don't think any legislature needs to legislate on this at all, and that in the absence of all of the recent legislation, this would never have been an issue, but at the same time what this reflects is a sense in society that something has gone really wrong in what people are being told they must believe.  Gender reassignment is a prime example, as statistically its' a disaster with horrific impacts for a large percentage of the people who undergo it.  In Europe its generally prohibited for minors and its been shown that the majority of minors who claim confusion later resolve it in accordance with their actual DNA.  But here in the US we are actually entering a "you must not question" people who declare that they wish to do this, in spite of the horrible historical track records that actually exist.  We claim to have "freedom of speech", but here we are outright declaring that the speech must be squelched and you must accept this, in spite of the evidence.

This is contributing to the outright revolt in a percentage of the American electorate.  Commenters wonder why a figure like Donald Trump has seized the GOP nomination this year, but stuff like this is why.  When a person can't say "I think this is wrong", about gender reassignment, or "I think this is wrong", about serving a pregnant woman alcohol, they react.  And when they do, it'll be an extreme reaction.

Most of this is, in some way, related to our separation from nature.  We've always been a fallen species, but we now don't seem to know what we are.  As a species, we have the highest degree of morphological and psychological differences between the two genders of any mammal. That's simply a fact.  But in the name if equality we must now pretend that isn't so, and that everything is just the same as everything else. And apparently we must also pretend that a woman who is out to drown her baby in booze before the baby is even born isn't committing child abuse. She is.

No group of people can infinitely ignore nature.  It will not work.  Nature gets even.  And societal movements that don't credit that don't last forever.  Nor should they.

Nature deserves her due.

Lex Anteinternet: Wednesday, March 7, 1274. Death of St. Thomas Aquinas.

Lex Anteinternet: Wednesday, March 7, 1274. Death of St. Thomas Aqui...:  

Wednesday, March 7, 1274. Death of St. Thomas Aquinas.

 

Thomas Aquinus died on this day in 1274.  He was a proponent of the major Catholic school of thought, natural theology, and the father of a school of thought known as Thomism after him.