Reginald Pole, the last actual Archbishop of Canterbury, in case you were wondering.
There hasn't been a legitimate one since, in absolute terms.
Showing posts with label Protestant. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Protestant. Show all posts
Friday, October 3, 2025
Lex Anteinternet: Reginald Pole, the last actual Archbishop of Cante...
Lex Anteinternet: Reginald Pole, the last actual Archbishop of Cante...:
Sunday, September 28, 2025
Lex Anteinternet: A Protestant Dominionist Dictatorship brought to you by Project 2025 and the New Apostolic Reformation or the End of the Reformation?
Lex Anteinternet: A Protestant Dominionist Dictatorship brought to y...:
They aren't dominionist, however. They're more in the nature of Catholic Integralist, a movement that long predates Christian Nationalism or Dominionism.
A Protestant Dominionist Dictatorship brought to you by Project 2025 and the New Apostolic Reformation or the End of the Reformation?
When Trump was elected President, people, for the second time in a row, thought "oh he won't be so bad".
He's been as bad as expected, and worse.
A large segment of the politically aware American demographic is wondering, nearly every day, "what on Earth is going on here" as the Trump administration does something odd day after day.1 A second group, his core MAGA adherents, ignore the oddities and assume that a lot of the nonsense about lurking Marxist must be true, and assume that Trump is doing what needs to be done to save the Republic.
Well, Trump is demented, which explains a lot. But there's something else going on. And that something else is Christian Nationalism with a strong Protestant Dominionist focus.
Round Head flag, English Civil War. Takinginterest01, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons. There were several varieties of this standard, as there was no standardized Parliamentarian flag.
Trump himself isn't really a sharp enough tool in the shed to do what's occurring. quite frankly, and at any point in his life, he probably wouldn't be interested enough to care anyway, as long has people are praising him and he seems to be getting what he wants.. To the extent he has any deep thoughts at all, and he likely doesn't, many of his real thoughts and desire run contrary to much of what's occurring. Trump, after all, is nothing much more than a wealthy playboy. He likes money, women, and has bad taste. M'eh.
But Trump was savvy enough to know he needed muscle and backing to get into office and moreover back into office. The intellectual muscle has been provided by far right populist, Protestant Evangelicals and their fellow travelers, the latter of which will live to regret ever being associated with the movement. Trump supporting Catholics are going to come to particularly regret traveling on this bus.
We've often said here that the United States is a Protestant country, culturally. It's so Protestant that people who aren't Protestant often are, culturally. Right now we have a really good example of that in the form of Stephen Wright, who is Jewish by heritage and perhaps by practice, but who in views is a raging Calvinist. It's pretty easy to find run of the mill, and even some non run of the mill, Catholics in the Trump fold who likewise culturally looked not to Rome, and not even to Luther, but to John Calvin.
The very first religiously significant group of English colonist in North America were religious dissenters, something very much worth remembering. The Puritans were Calvinists, not members of the dominant and official religion of England, the Church of England. Their landing in 1620 came in the context of an ongoing struggle in England over what England was to be, in terms of its faith. The Anglicans were in control at the time the Puritans left for North American shores and they were also suppressed for their religious radicalism in their native land. England was now solidly Protestant, sort of, with latent Catholicism seemingly having been beaten down with the peasants losing the Prayer Book Rebellion of 1549, but whether England would be radically Calvinist or sort of looking back at its Catholicism with the Church of England had not been determined. That question would provide much of the background to the English Civil War in which the parliament sought to depose an Anglican king, while being lead by a Calvinist who would be declared the Lord Protector. Ultimately, Calvinism didn't sit well with the English, and while parliament won the war, the crown would be restored and playboy king seated on the throne, who would convert to Catholicism sometimes prior to his death.
Calvinist would flee to North America upon the crown being restored.
The early English colonies in North America were frequently religiously intolerant. They were commonly sectarian and aggressively enforced the religion of their founders. The Puritans did not come to North America for religious freedom in the manner in which so often portrayed in grade school when I was a kid, but rather to avoid suppression under the crown and enforce their version of Christianity where they lived. People living in Puritan colonies had mandatory worship requirements at the local Calvinist church. It's not as if, if you lived in one, you could sit that out, or for that matter declare that you were a Catholic and would worship elsewhere.
Mary Dyer, a Quaker, was executed in Massachusetts for preaching her variant of Protestantism in that colony.
Christian Dominionist look back to the Puritans and the 1600s for their concept of what the state should be like. Not to the 1770s to 1790s. They may not all do so consciously, but they do. When they say that the United States is a Protestant nation, they mean its a Puritan one.
We all know, of course, that 1st Amendment protects the freedom of worship. That text states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
When that law, and that's what it is, was added to the Constitution in 1791 the infant United States was much different that the loose group of sectarian colonies of the 1600s. Indeed, the mother country itself was much different than the one that had fought the English Civil War. Having endured that experience, and with its own history of sectarianism, what the drafters of the Bill of Rights wanted was to avoid there being a Church of the United States, which if it had been created, would have been a branch of the Anglican Church. The amendment protected the right of various people to worship as they saw fit, or not at all. Modern conservatives have decried the Courts for decades about this amendment being misinterpreted, but it isn't. The Bill of Rights inserted religious tolerance ito the law.
Be that as it may, there's no doubt that the country remained a Christian nation. Other religions made an early appearance, setting aside native religions, very early on, but they were a distinct minority. A Jewish house of worship existed in New York, for example, as early as 1654. But overall, non Christian religions were practiced to a very small degree. And early patterns of settlement meant that the sectarian nature of the colonies continued to reflect itself into the early 1800s, and even into the mid 19th Century, although patterns if immigration began to heavily impact that, particularly the immigration of Catholics, who were largely detested by everybody else for a very long time. Be that as it may, American culture reflected Protestant Christianity well into the 20th Century and still does today.
This began to break down, as so much in our modern culture has, in the 1960s with the Baby Boom generation. Baby Boomers, or at least many of them, outright rejected many of the basic tenants of Christianity and brought in the really loose cultural Christianity, although with a leftward tilt, that we see today. One religion was a good as another, Christianity was basically "be nice". The warnings that St. Paul had given in his letters were ignored.
Things decayed.
On this site we've tracked some of that decay. While not meaning to spark a mass debate, we've noted the erosion of hetrosexual religious standards starting in the late 1940s and which were in full bloom before the Baby Boom generation with the massive success of Playboy magazine, and the concept of the loose moral big boob dimwit and sterile "girl next store", who was always ready to have sex. By the 1960s the erosion was becoming generational. By the 1970s it was becoming part of the culture and homosexuality began to openly emerge. Marriage started taking a big hit by the 1980s, with divorce becoming increasingly common by the late 1970s A culture in which divorce had been hard to obtain had evolved into one where marriage wasn't necessary at all, and ultimately into one where same sex couples could marry, the original meaning of marriage having been pretty much lost.
Enter (Evangelical) Christian Dominionism.
In 1975 Evangelicals Loren Cunningham and Bill Bright had a meeting in which they claimed to receive a divine message related to the culture. They were shortly thereafter joined in their infant movement by Presbyterian theologian Francis Schaeffer.. They claimed a mandate from the Devine to invade and achieve dominion over the "seven spheres" of society identified as family, religion, education, media, entertainment, business, and government. The New Apostolic Reformation is informed by this movement. And this is the Evangelical wing that is active in the Trump Administration and which have heavily influenced Christian Nationalist.
Dominionist, no matter what they may say, are not democratic. They are part of the Illiberal Democracy movement, and in the United States, they are the very core of it. Believing that the culture has been hopelessly corrupted in the seven spheres, they do not seek to convert by example, but to seize control of the culture, force a reformation of it, and bring about a Puritan nation on the model, sort of, of the original Puritan Massachusetts Bay Colony.
Puritan flag of the Massachusetts Bay Colony.
This heavily aligns with the concept of Illiberal Democracy. You can have a democracy, the Dominionist and Illiberal Democrats hold, as long as it fully accepts the predominant cultural world outlook. No countering that is allowed.
Now, something careful observers will note is that this movement is now all over the European world. And some of the early Christian Nationalist are most definitely not Evangelical Christians. R. R. Reno is a convert to Catholicism from the Episcopal Church. Patrick Dineen is a Catholic, although he's notably moved away from the Republican Party and is now openly part of the American Solidarity Party. Rod Dreher was a Protestant who converted to Catholicism and then converted to Orthodoxy. He's also now moved on from the Republican Party to the American Solidarity Party. The head of the Heritage Foundation, which is responsible for Project 2025, is Kevin Roberts, who is Catholic. And of course, J. D. Vance is a Catholic convert.
How do we make sense of this?
Well, one way in which we can makes sense of this, although not in the case of Dineen, Reno or Dreher, is to admit that a large segment of Catholics are heavily Protestantized, although this notably excludes younger Catholics and recent converts who most definitely are not. Gen. Jones Catholics and Gen. X Catholics were often very poorly catechized and therefore you can find quite a few who have gravitated to the far political right and who will state very Evangelical views of things which they have picked up from it, sometimes theological views that Catholics don't hold at all. Boomer Catholics went through the entire Spirit of Vatican Two era and are sometimes pretty beat up by it, and the younger ones experienced the Kennedy betrayal of religious adherence which caused many Catholics to follow suit. Some Boomer Catholics were on the very liberal Church end as well to the irritation of nearly everyone else in the Catholic sphere, who are glad to see their waning influence, but who contributed to the atmosphere the same way that poorly catechized late Boomer/Jones/Gen X Catholics were, but with a certain added massive whineyness on some occasions.
Anyhow, while it happened later than the birth of the Dominionist movement, intellectual and younger Catholics have moved towards an increased conservatism for quite some time, and it is now really visible in the Church. Overall it's a very good development, because it's so Catholic, and it reflects the view expressed in the letter to Diognetus more than any Seven Mountain tract. But the decay in the culture, which is particularly evident from the much more informed Catholic perspective, has caused some intellectuals, notably Dineen, Reno and Dreher, to despair of the culture and, in the case of of all three, to openly maintain that liberal democracy is an experiment that has failed.2
Integralism argues that the Catholic faith should be the basis of public law and public policy within civil society, wherever the preponderance of Catholics within that society makes this possible. It formed out of the chaos of the late 19th Century in Europe and was strong in traditionally Catholic Romance language speaking countries. It never supported the concept of a state religion, but rather subordinating the state to the moral principles of Catholicism, rejecting morality from the state, and, in its European form, favoured Catholicism as the proclaimed religion of the state
Integralism really fell away from Catholic thinking as a discussed topic after World War Two for a variety of reasons, one being that modern liberal democracies quite being hostile to religion, which frankly most had been before the Second World War. Indeed, over time, the Church increasingly disapproved of clerics being in politics, and ultimately banned it. But in 2014, with an essay by Dinneen, it started to reappear. It's adherents claim that its the official position of the Church, but fail to acknowledge that on many things the church's "official" position can be pretty nuanced. Even prior to the Second World War it had always been the case that integralist took the view that imposing a Catholic view of things on a population couldn't be done on a non Catholic culture. In more recent years the Church has really emphasized that there's a civic duty to participate in elections, which while not rejecting integralism, does demonstrate a view accepting democracies and requiring Catholics to participate in their democracies.
The revival of integralism came about the same time, however, that dominionism started to gain steam, and for same, but not identical, reasons. Dineen's essay came out in 2014, but the following year the Supreme Court issued the Obergefell v. Hodges decision, and just as we predicted here, thing have really gone off the rails. Justice Kennedy's decision lead directly the populist outrage and right on to Donald Trump.
Obergefell was just a bridge too far for many Americans, but the drift towards societal libertinism it expressed had been going on for a long time. As we've noted, you can trace it back at least to 1953 and the release of Playboy, but savvy students of culture would point out that perhaps the signs were there as early as the very first movies, which took a run at pornography right from the onset until being reigned back in. Mass communications of all types, including mass media, had a big role in this no matter how much society attempted to restrain it. The moral shock of the First World War lead to the Roaring Twenties which foreshadowed the 1960s, interrupted only by the economic deprivation of the 1930s and the Second World War. At any rate, the decay had set in pretty deep even by the early 1970s.
Anyhow, Integralism and Dominionism are not the same thing. Pope Francis, noting a rising connection between Integralism and Christian Nationalist, approved a publication criticizing the drift in this direction. Catholics getting tied up in the far right Evangelical movement's goals are going to be in for a surprise when they learn that many in that community would not even regard Catholics as Christians. The re-Puritanization of the country would not be a good thing for Catholics, who after all hold a very broad view of Christianity rather than a nationalistic view of it, and who don't share the same millennialist views of things at all.
Dominionist, for their part, would be shocked to learn that Integralist hold a lot of things that Dominionist frankly accept as abhorrent. They may be united on abortion being evil and transgenderism being contrary to the moral law, but modern American Evangelical Christians would be surprised that the mass of the Catholic Church holds divorce to be a great moral wrong and condemns easy remarriage. They'd also be surprised to learn that Catholics condemn sex outside of marriage, including all sexual acts outside of the unitive type, to be grave moral wrongs, and that's the Catholic concern with homosexuality.
Rod Dreher, who seems to have joined the Christian Nationalist movement, or who had joined it (I'm not sure about his current position, given that he's a member of the American Solidarity Party), early on advocated a sort of walled in approach to societal moral decay in his book The Benedict Option. I criticized that approach here, and he seems to have retreated from what he seemed to indicate that book espoused. Anyhow, looking at the situation overall, this is a really dangerous moment in American history, but also one from which Western societies might emerge into something new, and better.
Much of this comes in the context of the collapse of the Reformation, and it stands to accelerate it. At the end of the day, holding Donald Trump as any sort of "Godly Man" is absurd. The direct attack on American democracy, which is occurring as we write, is highly dangerous, but probably won't succeed. Forces on the other side have taken forever to react, but are finally starting to, including a reassessment of the really radical and downright goofball positions the left has advocated for some time. The New Apostolic Reformation and Dominionist movement carrying the flag is causing "Christianity" to be condemned, but among thinking Christians is causing a reassessment of the Reformation churches and a massive movement away from them back into the Apostolic fold, as the theology of the Reformation churches simply can't be defended.
Roman society was reformed by Christianity, but not by operation of law, but by operation of the faithful members of the "one Catholic, Holy and Apostolic Church". We're in the death throws of the Reformation, of which this is all part. If that's right, it'll be a blessing in the end.
Footnotes:
1. In fairness, a lot of the odd things that Trump does is because he very obviously has dementia, which nobody is doing anything about. He's really not mentally stable enough to occupy the office he's in.
2. Evangelicals of the far right are particularly focused on transgenderism and homosexulaity, but just completely ignore almost all of the remaining actual Christian tenants on sex. Donald Trump, whom Evangelicals have really adopted, is a serial polygamist. White House "faith advisor" is on her third husband. Evangelical churches have pews fill up on Sundays with people who are living in what St. Paul very clearly condemned as states of mortal sin.
Related threads:
A Protestant Country. It's history, and what it means.
Labels: 1940 Wyoming Legislature, 1941, 1970s, Blog Mirror, Evolutionary Biology, Long Posts, Marriage, Monday at the bar, religion, Sex, Sexual Revolution, Social Issues, Sociology, The relationship between men and women
Labels: Agrarianism, Commentary, Conservatism, Democracy, Distributism, Illiberal Democracy, Liberal Democracy, Liberalism, Populism, Progressivism, William F. Buckley
Labels: 2020s, 2022, Christian Nationalism, Conservatism, Illiberal Democracy, Liberal Democracy, Liberalism, Politics, Populism, trends
Thursday, September 18, 2025
Lex Anteinternet: Things in the air. Some observations with varying degrees of introspection.
Lex Anteinternet: Things in the air. Some observations with varying...:
Things in the air. Some observations with varying degrees of introspection.
Cheerfulness strengthens the heart and makes us persevere in a good life. Therefore the servant of God ought always to be in good spirits.
St. Philip Neri.
I've recently had the opportunity, or rather no choice, but to observe some interesting personalities at work.
The first one I'll note I've known for a very long time, and over time I've watched this person sort of crawl into themselves.
They're mad.
I'm not really sure at what. But I'll make an observation below that may explain it.
This person had a really rough early life, but it picked up considerable in the person's teens. Still, coming from a "blended" family, this person sort of got the short end of the stick on a major family deal, and was quietly resentful about it.
Now the non blood "step" is seeking to address it. The person is middle aged, and the other person is in early old age, as am I. The middle aged person is now outright refusing to accept the fix.
What the crap?
"They could have done that years ago. . .".
Dumbest excuse for being a difficult pain in the ass ever.
Same person has something much like this shorter term.
I've also had the occasion to observe a really angry person. The really angry person is obviously pretty intelligent, but also obviously very uneducated. It's a bad combination.
A lot of fairly intelligent, but uneducated, people like to use words that they don't know the meaning of, so they use them incorrectly. This person does that repeatedly. If you know what the words actually mean, it's really very sad.
It's also a bit sad to see how this works when the bloom is off the rose of righteous, if misguided, indignation. When lots of people have their pitchforks out, a person in this situation is sort of a leader. But real people, with family, jobs, children, move on. They have to. New things develop, olds things go by the wayside.
Watching somebody getting into a one sided yelling match while everyone else is just bored is sad, in an odd sort of way. You can tell they know that themselves. The spotlight moved on.
There's a lot of Twitter Twits raging about how pastors didn't preach on Charlie Kirk last week. As I've said before, why would they? And if they did, in a truly Christian fashion, what would they have said.
Mind you, I'm a Catholic, not a member of a do it yourself protestant church that is heavily invested in the American Civil Religion.
Truth be known, Americans always have been.
If you did preach on Kirk, the preaching probably would be awkward for all. You could simply make it:
We see today the horror of the Western world's perversion of our God given natures, and how that warps the mind and leaves it prey to evils of all kind. Let us keep that in mind in our society, as we address such lies as transgenderism.
But that's only one such ill that warps our nature. How did we get there? Allowing for mass societal infanticide, which Kirk complained about? Yes. But also making our reproductive organs chemical cesspools designed to destroy nature from the onset, and ignoring the injunction against divorce, warping marriage into a big party for "fulfillment" Those of you in the pews contracepting, or living with third or fourth "spouses", you are as much to blame for the death as transgenderism is.
So too those who now identify their religion with any political party. Our home is in the next world, not this one, and the Republican Party or Democratic Party are not an apostolic synod. If you are finding your politicians to be saints, you need to sit alone and pray for yourself.
Bear in mind also that our time will come like a thief in the night. We cannot rely on a future to repent, as we may not have that future. The sins we commit for any reason, including with our words, may find themselves still on our souls. Let us resolve to be right with God today.
Probably everyone would be mad
Which gets me to this.
Charlie Kirk, I'll fully accept, was Christian. He said some very Christian things, and some very non Christian things. He was a provocateur, and that's a dangerous thing for a person's soul.
As for the other two people mentioned here, I don't know about one, but I do know about the other, that being the first one. That person is a Christian but more or less a lazy American sort of Christian. They believe in God, have a grasp of Christ, and figure if you don't steal or shoot people, you are probably good with God and they don't want to know much more than that.
That describes most Americans, quite frankly.
That hasn't always been the case, however.
Those Christians who are all upset about Kirk not being mentioned from the pulpit are too heavily invested in the American Civil Religion. When the next world arrives for them, and it will soon, and they're not recognized, saying "I left my church as there was no preaching about Kirk" won't make up for not feeding the poor, letting people die in droves in Gaza, and the like. Presenting your "I'm a real read blooded (white) American card" isn't going to get you a free pass.
And, additionally, the pastors whom they want to preach on Kirk probably ought to instead preach instead on greed, divorce, shacking up, and other stuff that the American Civil Religion is pretty okay with.
And, also, here's something else.
I saw a Twitter Twit who was outraged as a transgendered person murdered his parents in Utah awhile back, and the news, he thought, had not paid any attention to it.
Well, I'm sure they did in Utah, but that's not a national news story. Part of our contemporary problems in this country are that we treat local stories as if they're of global importance, while ignoring global stories because they don't pertain to us.
Christians, mostly Catholics, are being murdered in droves in Africa. That is important. Why don't we hear about that?
Well, they're black, African, and Catholic. Ho hum. . .
But there's more to this, Outraged Twitter Twits. Charlie Kirk was murdered last week. Most Americans no longer care one bit.
That may be uncomfortable for those who are a member of the populist Sturmabteilung, but it's the truth. Charlie Kirk isn't going to become their Horst Wessel as most Americans just don't care. They're desensitized to killing, which is actually at a record low in any event, and by now most average Americans are sick of the right and the left and worried about groceries, while starting to watch the national opiate, football. Sydney Sweeney's cleavage falling out of her jeans jacket will have longer legs than this.
We aren't going to have a civil war. There's not going to be a lot more violence. And they'll be disappointed.
Speaking of crawling into one's self (you'll have to go back up to the top for the reference), I've seen that happening to somebody I know, whose husband I know better.
And frankly I sort of see this in a fair amount with younger Boomer and older Gen X women . . . women who bought the lie that careers will make them happy.
Frequently it plays out with the same script. Well educated middle class women of this vintage married well educated men. The men of the same generation were still part of the "you need to get a good job to support your family" culture, as we've seen before, but the women were part of the "a career will make you happy". What seems to have happened to a lot of them is that work didn't make them happy, no surprise, and at some point many, but not all, dropped out of it.
Kids grew up and moved on, if they had kids at all. Now they're getting to what would normally be retirement years and they feel cheated and lost.
The story for a lot of men isn't much different. I see it with professional men all the time. Earlier this week a lawyer in his 70s told me gleefully how he loves his job. Oh horseshit. There's just nothing left. The thing is, however, for women who bought off on this, there's really nothing left. Quite a few of them, however, are in pretty good economic situations due to a husband that worked for decades to support everyone, and who has kept on.
Anyhow, in this case, the spouse, probably of over 30 years, packed up and left basically with no warning.
She'd been seeing a counsellor, a profession that does so much damage to people it isn't funny. The counsellor had told her to work on herself, which is pretty close to instructing somebody to be a narcissist. She moved out, moved away, and is camping with her adult daughters. They're getting a "grey divorce".
The husband, whom in my view should have retired some years ago. There's some fault there. A lot of times when I see some old male lawyer keeping on keeping on, I really wonder what his relationship is at home.
All in all, I suspect, he worked too much, she got lonely, and wondered why life hadn't turned out like Cosmopolitan promised it was supposed to.
Well, it was never going to.
I'd also note that he was raised Catholic, while she was not, but he fits into the Catholic satellite category. That is, the lessons of the faith were just too inconvenient for him to apply. He, and his siblings, remain cultural Catholics, basically, but not practicing ones. It clearly tortures him as he knows better. Probably not that much should have been expected out of her, however, as she was never Catholic.
And so you have a couple living the 1970s version of the American Dream, which turns out to be a pretty shallow dream at that. Same with the folks mentioned above.
And the shallowness of that dream explains a lot about post Boomer generations abandoning it and returning to more foundational existential beliefs.
The State bar convention is going on. I never go it in person. I don't have the time, and I'm such an introvert that I don't want to go to the dinners and the like just on the random chance one of my lawyer friends might be there, but now you can attend some of it electronically. I did that yesterday as I needed the CLE credits.
I wish I hadn't.
The first CLE I attended I picked up as I needed the ethics credit. It was an hour of "mindfulness" which is usually a bunch of bullshit suggestions on how to deal with stress that you really can't implement in the real world. That's what it turned out to be, in part, but it descended into "this job really sucks" for an hour. All of the panelists, including a judge and a justice, had to have counselling at some point in their careers for work stress.
I hope some students were in the audience to see that. If even Wyoming Supreme Court justices say the practice is so bad they need psychological help to endure it, well that's pretty bad.
The last CLE of the day was the legislative panel. Usually I think of that as being new laws that are coming down the pipeline, which it partially was, but the first part started off as a plea from a lawyer/legislator for lawyers to run for office, noting how in Wyoming that's declined enormously. That turned into an outright dumping on the Wyoming Freedom Caucus, which needs to be dumped on. The last part of that session, however, dealt with the ongoing massive decline in civil practitioners putting in for judgeships. They just aren't doing it. They were urged to do it.
As noted, I wasn't there to ask a question, but if I had been, I'd have asked why should they, when Governor's have agendas and the current Governor is only really interested in appointing prosecutors. It's extremely obvious. The one before that would almost always pick a woman, if possible, and was very open about that. If you are a male civil practitioner, just forget it.
Justice Kautz, who is now the current AG, noted how being a judge, and particularly a justice, was a great job for a law nerd. The last panelist, a current Fed defender who was a private lawyer with a very wide practice, noted how he had put in many times and urged people to do so, even though it was disappointing if you did not make it.
It's disappointing for sure.
For me, hearing Justice Kautz talk was outright heartbreaking, as what he expressed made up the very reasons I wanted to be a judge and replied repeatedly, with no success. I never even got an interview, even though at one point I was being urged by judges and members of the judicial nominating committee to apply. I'm frankly bitter about it even while knowing that I should not be. It's hard not to come to the conclusion that the system has become a bit of a fraud, frankly, particularly now that the committee has been rounded out to include non lawyers in it. I've felt for some time that the Governor's office had an influence on who was picked, even though I have no inside knowledge on that sort of thing. It's just a feeling, and not a good one. When judges are picked which leave almost all the practitioners wondering what happened, it's not a good thing.
It leads to me listening to everything Justice Kautz said about the reasons he wanted to be a judge, and myself realizing I once felt those things, but I no longer do.
Back on the stress part of this, a lawyer I've known for a long time, but who is quite a bit younger than me, recently took a really neat vacation. He came back to the office and announced he's leaving the law. I was so surprised I called him. He revealed that being on vacation had taught him he didn't have to live a miserable life.
Sunday, February 23, 2025
Lex Anteinternet: What's wrong with the United States? The Protestant Work Ethic.
Lex Anteinternet: What's wrong with the United States? The Protesta...:
.png)
What's wrong with the United States? The Protestant Work Ethic.
Professor Galloway "on follow your passion".
His advice?
Don't.
More particularly, his advice is dedicated yourself relentlessly to something you are good at, and it will become your passion, in no small part as you'll make money at it.
There's plenty of evidence that's right. . . and just as much that it's wrong.
Professor Galloway is a Calvinist. He comes by it naturally as his father is from Scotland.
Oh, sure, you'll note that Galloway states he's an atheist. Well, like a lot of people who are something on an existential level, he doesn't know what he actual is. And what that is, is a Calvinist. Perhaps a cultural Calvinist, but a Calvinist.
And it was Calvin, not the Church of England, or the Lutherans, who gave us the Protestant Work Ethic.
Well, that's great, right?
Not so much.
John Calvin was as French radical Protestant reformer who was grim in his outlook and basically an asshole. One of his central core beliefs was double predestination, which held that from the moment of conception almost everyone was going to Hell.
Calvin taught that all men must work, even the wealthy, because to work was the will of God. Irrespective of their ultimate fate, which they could in no way impact, it was the unyielding duty of men (and I do men men) to toil here on Earth as part of God's plan to continue the creation of the Earth. Men were not, in his view, to become wealthy, I'd note, but were to reinvest the fruits of their labor over and over again, ad infinitum, or to the end of time.
Calvin held that using profits to help others rise from a lessor level of subsistence violated God's will since persons could only demonstrate that they were among the Elect through their own labor.
The Puritans were Calvinists, and so were the Presbyterians, the latter of which has generally slacked up on Calvinist theology a great deal. None the less, the impact of Calvinism on the US has been huge. It founded the thesis that you should work and work, well past the point where accumulation of wealth made any sense. When you look at people like Elon Must or Donald Trump who have vast sums of wealth but keep accumulating, you are seeing the Protestant work ethic at work.
You are also seeing it when you lay people off in droves. They're lessors, and their economic plight is existentially foreordained. If they were among the Elect, this wouldn't be happening to them.
Work is what it's all about.
You see that well expressed in Galloway's comments. Galloway is an opponent of Musk, but they have essentially the same view on work. Galloway presents in the grim Calvinist style. You must find productive and useful work and love it, as that's the ticket to everything.
It isn't.
Contrary to what Galloway things, for one things, there are plenty of people who have done well in their carers and know a lot about what they do and hate it. The legal profession is a poster child for this, but I've found it to be the case for medicine as well.
And women have become particularly the victim of this in recent years, diving hard into careers as, John Calvin has told them, this would affirm that they were part of the Elect, in the modified American social view, only to find that they are miserable.
And all this because Calvin was flat out wrong. His theology was wrong, and his understanding of human beings appallingly wrong.
The Catholic view has been much more nuanced than the Protestant one. Catholicism itself holds to a degree that we work, because we have to, work being one of the results of the Fall. It also hold, however, that we toil as part of a community and are never to put that aside. The accumulative nature of the Protestant Work Ethic is basically antithetical to Apostolic Christianity, although there are certainly Catholics, such as Bill Gates, who have become extremely wealthy. Largescale wealth, however, comes in Catholic theology with a heavy burden to everyone else. Unlike Calvinist, you can't really morally justify investing over and over while those less well off suffer in your presence. Indeed, that would be one of the four sins God hates.
Okay, so why is this a problem?
It's a massive problem in that deep in American culture is an anti human dedication to acquisition and toil, that's why. People are expected to work themselves to death and tolerate those among us who acquire vast wealth. Ultimately, the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, who often have simply benefitted from the circumstances of their birth takes from everyone else, makes millions miserable, and actually makes the economy less and less productive.
Society doesn't exist to generate wealth for those who can accumulate. Society exists for society. That means, at the end of the day, that some must be protected, for the good of us all, from their appetites, weather that appetite be for drugs, dissolute living, or avarice.
The fact that we have forgotten this is literally destroying the country.
.png)
Sunday, January 26, 2025
Lex Anteinternet: The American "Christian" Civil Religion meets real Christianity, and doesn't like it.
Lex Anteinternet: The American "Christian" Civil Religion meets real...:
Either result is really scary.
The American "Christian" Civil Religion meets real Christianity, and doesn't like it.
Episcopal Bishop Budde
You shall treat the alien who resides with you no differently than the natives born among you; have the same love for him as for yourself; for you too were once aliens in the land of Egypt.
Leviticus 19:33-34.
This comes out on a Sunday morning.
Faithful Catholics are going to Mass today, as required by the Church, or went last night. These are the readings for the day, which will also be read in some "main line" Protestant Churches that use the Catholic lectionary:
Reading 1
Nehemiah 8:2-4a, 5-6, 8-10
Ezra the priest brought the law before the assembly, which consisted of men, women, and those children old enough to understand.
Standing at one end of the open place that was before the Water Gate, he read out of the book from daybreak till midday, in the presence of the men, the women, and those children old enough to understand; and all the people listened attentively to the book of the law.
Ezra the scribe stood on a wooden platform that had been made for the occasion.
He opened the scroll so that all the people might see it— for he was standing higher up than any of the people —; and, as he opened it, all the people rose.
Ezra blessed the LORD, the great God, and all the people, their hands raised high, answered, "Amen, amen!" Then they bowed down and prostrated themselves before the LORD, their faces to the ground. Ezra read plainly from the book of the law of God, interpreting it so that all could understand what was read. Then Nehemiah, that is, His Excellency, and Ezra the priest-scribe and the Levites who were instructing the people said to all the people: "Today is holy to the LORD your God. Do not be sad, and do not weep"— for all the people were weeping as they heard the words of the law. He said further: "Go, eat rich foods and drink sweet drinks, and allot portions to those who had nothing prepared; for today is holy to our LORD. Do not be saddened this day, for rejoicing in the LORD must be your strength!"
Reading 2
1 Corinthians 12:12-30
Brothers and sisters: As a body is one though it has many parts, and all the parts of the body, though many, are one body, so also Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, slaves or free persons, and we were all given to drink of one Spirit.
Now the body is not a single part, but many. If a foot should say, "Because I am not a hand I do not belong to the body, "it does not for this reason belong any less to the body. Or if an ear should say, "Because I am not an eye I do not belong to the body, " it does not for this reason belong any less to the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole body were hearing, where would the sense of smell be? But as it is, God placed the parts, each one of them, in the body as he intended. If they were all one part, where would the body be? But as it is, there are many parts, yet one body. The eye cannot say to the hand, "I do not need you, " nor again the head to the feet, "I do not need you." Indeed, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are all the more necessary, and those parts of the body that we consider less honorable we surround with greater honor, and our less presentable parts are treated with greater propriety, whereas our more presentable parts do not need this.
But God has so constructed the body as to give greater honor to a part that is without it, so that there may be no division in the body, but that the parts may have the same concern for one another. If one part suffers, all the parts suffer with it; if one part is honored, all the parts share its joy.
Now you are Christ's body, and individually parts of it. Some people God has designated in the church to be, first, apostles; second, prophets; third, teachers; then, mighty deeds; then gifts of healing, assistance, administration, and varieties of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work mighty deeds? Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret?
Gospel
Luke 1:1-4; 4:14-21
Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning and ministers of the word have handed them down to us, I too have decided, after investigating everything accurately anew, to write it down in an orderly sequence for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may realize the certainty of the teachings you have received.
Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, and news of him spread throughout the whole region. He taught in their synagogues and was praised by all.
He came to Nazareth, where he had grown up, and went according to his custom into the synagogue on the sabbath day. He stood up to read and was handed a scroll of the prophet Isaiah. He unrolled the scroll and found the passage where it was written: The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring glad tidings to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, and to proclaim a year acceptable to the Lord. Rolling up the scroll, he handed it back to the attendant and sat down, and the eyes of all in the synagogue looked intently at him.
He said to them, "Today this Scripture passage is fulfilled in your hearing."
Faithful Orthodox using a different calendar will hear three readings as well, those being John 20:19-31, 1 Timothy 1:15-17 and Matthew 15:21-28.
Donald and Melania Trump, and their son Barron, aren't going to hear any readings today, as they're not going to Church. Melania is a non observant Catholic (her marriage to Donald Trump is invalid in the eyes of the Church) and Trump is from all observances non religious, in spite of Evangelicals having proclaimed him, with no evidence to support it, a man of God.
I find myself in a peculiar situation, in that as a Catholic who firmly believes that Episcopal holy orders are "completely null and utterly void", I'm rising to defend an Episcopal Bishop, and moreover one that I don't really know about in general.1
Moreover, as a Catholic who also believes that women may not be ordained to the priesthood, I'm rising to defend a female Episcopal cleric.
And in doing this, I'm recalling a homily delivered by a local young, highly orthodox, Catholic priest, that the being the "four things God hates homily".Let's start off by recalling that, highlighting the part that applies here:
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 their political battles this year might well think out their overall positions.
.png)
As I noted, two conservative items, and two liberal.
No murdering, no sodomy, no abusing immigrants, and no cheating people on their pay.
A homily nearly guaranteed to make everyone uncomfortable or angry.
Seems like everyone claiming to carry some sort of Christian banner in the deep Trump camp is only comfortable with one of those, now days.2
Bishop Budde directly addressed Donald Trump, and for that matter J. D. Vance. You may have read what she said, but invoking the Jimmy Akin Citation Rule, you'll let you hear it for yourself.
This is homily is profoundly Christian. There's nothing in it that any Christian can condemn. So why are people condemning it.
Well, because it is profoundly Christian. She asks for mercy for the different, downtrodden, and immigrants.
Gasp!
Donald Trump, who is trying to yank citizenship from the "natural born", is taking exception to a Christian cleric's plea for mercy for everyone his policies impact.3 4 Of course, he also ignored her comments about calling people names, accusing her of not being "smart", a frequent accusation by Trump (who might not be comfortable with his own smarts).
Well, this gets directly at the hypocrisy of some supporters of Trump who continually evoke religion, and particularly those who are in a certain evangelical camp.
For years now, we've been told by these people, including a fair number of clerics, that Trump, who has no discernable connection to any religion as an adult, doesn't seem to practice any religion, who is a serial polygamist with a horrific history towards women, and who is a member of the class that Christ warned less of a chance of getting to Heaven than a camel through an "eye of a needle", was a "Godly man".
This has been a complete fraud. There's no evidence that Trump is religious. He attended Church only fourteen times during his first term of office. He was confirmed a Presbyterian when he was young, a denomination he says he's no longer part of, but John Calvin would give him a dope slap for his personal conduct if he came back from the grave.5
What they really mean is they see him as somebody who going to restore and invoke a certain John Brown view of muscular evangelical Christianity. Their religion is heavily mixed with right wing politics, and they see themselves as leading a march out of a metaphorical immoral Kansas.6 Trump is just, in their view, a God sent vehicle to get this done.
Put another way, as I've mentioned before, they see Trump as a sort of Cyrus the Great.7 They don't care that he isn't a Christian, as he's going to back their "Christian values".
And their values, frankly, express a deficit of Christianity.
This is something we've seen before in the United States and it dates back, really, to the country being a protestant nation founded by migrating, and often dissenting, protestant sects. If you looked at the "Pilgrims", for example, they really weren't all that nice. Oliver Cromwell's Calvinism formed a background to a lot of the early religious history of the US, and Cromwell definitely wasn't nice. Indeed, he ended up being so hated in his own country that the location of his head remains a secret, something imposed to prevent people from digging it up in anger.
In the past, Southern "evangelicals" were often backers of segregation. Carrying forward to the current times, they see many of the descents from Christian moral standards, such as the intrusion of homosexuality into society in general and the pulpit in particular, as abominations. At the same time, however, they continue to see things that they've widely accommodated as not much of a problem, at least not openly. You aren't going to hear, for example, any evangelicals condemn divorce. Locally I know at least two people who "lived in sin" and were really active members of a major evangelical church. I've sort of known one person carrying the banner of Christian morality who is married to a divorced woman who is herself extremely right wing, which while common in the US, is something Christ specifically prohibited.
You really don't get the pick and choose option here.
The New Apostolic Reformation has embraced Trump in spades. They feel that he'll, to put it in an old fashioned fashion, drive the Sodomites from the land and restore and impose a Evangelical Christian order. A lot of them seem perfectly comfortable with policies that will hurt, at a human level, a group of people who are largely darked skinned, even if they don't hold personally racist views.
To be perfectly fair, a lot of American Catholics, completely dim on the nature of the New Apostolic Reformation, are going right along with this and supporting it, so we are far, far from being free of accusation here ourselves.7b
That fact in and of itself will have some infesting implications. The Episcopal Church is a "main line" Protestant religion that was once a major force in the country, but which accommodated itself to an ever growing list of things Christians have always considered sinful. In the 1930s the Anglican Communion remained so close to Christian tradition, and close the Apostolic Christian tradition at that, that it caused a king to resign his thrown over divorce. Now it doesn't worry much about divorce and is okay, in many places with homosexual "marriage". Hence the accusation of "woke" aimed at the Bishop, even though she did not say a single thing that could be regarded as being woke in her homily.
I note this as Hispanics have come into the country they have been attracted to protestant and quasi Christian faiths in some numbers. This isn't hugely surprising, even though the majority of Hispanics are cultural, if not practicing, Catholics, as these faiths seem more "American". It's notable that in the novel, but not the movie adaptation of it, The Godfather Michael Corleone figure was disappointed when his protestant wife converted to Catholicism and started raising the children in that faith, as he hoped that they'd be members of the more "American", at that time, Episcopal Church. Indeed, Catholics aspiring to be in the upper middle class in fact often did that until the 1960s, when Kennedy made being American and Catholic seemingly okay.8
In reality, it never actually became okay, as the Church will not accommodate itself to the culture of anyone nation, something that became increasingly obvious after 1973's Roe v. Wade decision.
It's been noted that Hispanics voted for Trump in large numbers this last election, a shift in political alignments that we predicated here quite awhile back. That reflects their cultural conservatism, which is to say that it reflects their cultural Catholicism.9 What they probably were not ready for is the degree of outright hatred a significant number of the Maga crowed have to anyone who isn't a White nominal protestant. This started to become evident when Anne Coulter, a serious Presbyterian told Vivek Ramaswamy recently that she'd vote for him, but he isn't white. Indeed, he's an Indian American Hindu. Ramaswamy got the message and bailed out of the doggy agency, realizing that there was no future for him there. He's going to run for the Governorship of Rust Belt Ohio where voters will likely inform him that he's not white, as its okay apparently to say that once again.
Indeed, there are a lot of under the breath mutterings about Usha Vance who isn't white, and who is a Hindu. Oh my.
Chances are good that the Trump interregnum will have an impact on the Evangelicals in a major way, starting with this. There isn't really a home in a lot of those churches for Christians who hail from a culture that didn't arise in Great Britain during the English Civil War. When the disaster of Trump blows up, it's going to take the wind out of the sails of a lot of things associated with his movement, and most likely a lot of Hispanics out of the pews.
To be a real Christian, of course, has always meant that you didn't have a home in the world, and it still does. It has also always meant that you'd be hated. People want to hear that they can get rich on Earth and that its a sign of approval from Heaven. They want to hear that some people don't really count, up to the point of their deaths, whether that be through neglect or judicial execution. They want to be told that unnatural sexual unions are hated by God, but shacking up and affairs, as long as the plumbing is correct, aren't really a big deal. They want to be told they can pay as little to their employees as they can get away with, and that's just God's plan. And they want to be told they can hate the stranger, even the infant ones, if they weren't born in the right place.
They want "Christian values", as long a they weren't the ones Christians were martyerd for, and they're easy to do. They're okay with the Sermon on the Mount, as long as it doesn't mean they really have to go to Church to hear it, and can stay home and watch football.
Now, does this apply to all Evangelicals? Certainly not, and not by a long shot. About 80% of white Evangelicals voted for Trump, but not all of them hold such views by any means. 58% of Catholics voted for Trump, that being a majority. A lot of that may be explained in both instances by Democrats hugging the bloody body of abortion, which should be a lesson to them and one which we warned here was a mistake to do. And quite frankly much of what has come about was due to the developments brought about by Obergefell, which we warned would occur.10
So, horrified by a moral decay that became obvious with Obergefell, but having accommodated itself to a flood of moral decay that came before that, the American Civil Religion turned to an irreligious man who has no capacity for deep thought at all and who started whining, but only after some of his backers whined first, that a "woke" minister was interjecting religion into politics.
Politics and morality are inseparable. And as morality's foundation is religion, religion and politics are necessarily related. We need religion as a guide. We need it because we are imperfect, and our government needs the church, because only those humble enough to admit they're sinners can bring to democracy the tolerance it requires in order to survive.
Ronald Reagan.
Footnotes:
1. The phrase is from Pope Leo XIII's encyclical Apostolicae Curae holding Anglican ordinations to be invalid.
I'm not hostile to Episcopalians, I'd note, I just agree that Pope Leo XIII was correct. Apparently a lot of Episcopalians have over the years as there's been efforts to convey validity by cross ordinations from other churches that can demonstrate Apostolic succession, something the Methodist have done as well. Some Anglican male priests do have valid holy orders, however, particularly if they were formerly Catholics.
2. Trump reinstated the death penal for certain Federal offenses. The Catholic Church generally takes the view that its obsolete and while the state is allowed to impose it under certain conditions, those conditions no longer exist in the modern world.
3. This is clearly a legally deficient argument and has been stayed by a court.
4. Of interest, already there's been arguments that Trump's proclamation also deprives Native Americans of citizenship, a nasty shocking proposition. This because Trump's AG office holds the view that birthright means "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US.
Of interest, if that's correct, Ted Cruz is not a U.S. citizen. He was born in Canada.
5. Presbyterians do allow for divorce, as a last resort, in cases of adultery, which Trump has experience with, or abandonment.
6. Catholics that have been backing this best fear, as this camp is traditionally highly hostile to Catholicism, and many of its members wouldn't regard Catholics as Christians at all, even though Catholics are the original Christians.
7. This analogy really fails. Cyrus the Great wasn't a bad man, in the context of his times and station. He wasn't Jewish, and of course he lived well before the time of Christ, but he was charged with freeing the captive Jews under his dominion.
That's why some Evangelical Christians see Trump as a Cyrus. Cyrus enormously benefitted the Jew, but he wasn't Jewish. So, to those in the New Apostolic Reformation, Trump will be a Cyrus who lets them bring forth a new Evangelical Protestant nation.
Well, Cyrus would regard Trump as a pussy. Moreover, Trump is just making us look like clowns and stands a much better chance of tainting Evangelical Christianity irredeemably.
7b. Having said that,yanking the citizenship of the native born was the topic of an address by Catholic Cardinal Cupich.
Blog Mirror: Remarks of Cardinal Blase Cupich, archbishop of Chicago, regarding immigration at the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico City
He's not alone in this. Other US Catholic bishops have made statements on this issue, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops condemned Trump's actions on immigration as well.
The Church does not maintain there should be "open borders", as some on the far left do. Rather, it holds that immigration should be governed by four principles:
First Principle: People have the right to migrate to sustain their lives and the lives of their families.
Second Principle: A country has the right to regulate its borders and to control immigration.
Third Principle: A country must regulate its borders with justice and mercy.
8. There was also a trend like this that followed World War Two with some returning US servicemen joining the (ironically) Lutheran Church as well as the Episcopal Church which seemed more American and local.
While widely missed, there's a counter trend today with young conservatives and traditionalist joining the Catholic and Orthodox churches, and some very devout Evangelicals joining the Orthodox Church after being exposed to the early history of the Church.
9. I've already seen one video clip by a Hispanic Trump voter horrified over the deportations, claiming he promised to do no such thing.
No he didn't. But this is an interesting example of how people convince themselves a politician holds their own views because he holds some views that they like.
10. We specifically stated: These justices have perhaps assumed too much if they've assumed that they can now act so far that Marshall would be horrified, and I'd be surprised if, long term, this decision doesn't either mark the beginning of a Cesarian court and a retreat of American democracy, or the point at which the roles of the Court began to massively erode in favor of a more Athenian democracy.
Either result is really scary.
Related threads:
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
The Agrarian's Lament: Now, more than ever, it's time for an Agrarian/Distributist remake of this country.
The Agrarian's Lament: Now, more than ever, it's time for an Agrarian/Dis... : Now, more than ever, it's time for an Agrarian/D...
-
Lex Anteinternet: A deeply sick society. : A deeply sick society. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We ... -
Lex Anteinternet: Things in the air. Some observations with varying... : Things in the air. Some observations with varying degrees of intro...
-
Lex Anteinternet: Mid Week at Work. Three Mirrors. : Mid Week at Work. Three Mirrors. This blog, as we occasionally note has the intent ...
