Sunday, September 14, 2025

Lex Anteinternet: What's the meaning of Charlie Kirk? Sometimes the light's all shinin' on me. Other times I can barely see. Lately it occurs to me. What a long, strange trip it's been

Lex Anteinternet: What's the meaning of Charlie Kirk? Sometimes the...:

What's the meaning of Charlie Kirk? Sometimes the light's all shinin' on me. Other times I can barely see. Lately it occurs to me. What a long, strange trip it's been

This is not intended, I'd note, to be a hagiography of any kind for Charlie Kirk.  The populist far right is already trying to do that, as are some just on the right or conventional conservatives.  

And frankly, even though its a few days past, this story is already in a lot of the country's rear view mirrors, including Donald Trump's whose taken up babbling about his ballroom vandalization of the White House grounds when this topic comes up.

This is an analysis, or hopes to be, of what causes a figure like Kirk to exist, and then come into prominece.

Sometimes the light's all shinin' on me
Other times I can barely see
Lately it occurs to me
What a long, strange trip it's been

No doubt the caption to this article is an odd question.  People, after all, don't have to have meanings, even if their lives always do.

I think Kirk's did, however, and a good place to start in looking at it is this:

An interesting and thoughtful clip by Douthat on Kirk.



The first time I'd ever really heard of Kirk is when somebody I know worked to have him speak at UW.  I don't know that person well, but I do know that his political views have inclined towards Francoism, which he likely doesn't really understand.1   But that it's a clue about Charlie Kirk.

Kirk was born in 1993 in Chicago (Arlington Heights) Illinois and had an interest in politics young.  Chicago has always been a sort of frontier town, really, in spite of its location, and has been legendary throughout its history for being violent and a center of crime.  It was also a center of industry at one time, but by 1993 American industry wasn't even what it had been in 1973.  

Kirk was from middle class home where both of his parents worked.  His father was in the solidly middle class profession of architecture, and Chicago reportedly has some great architecture.  His mother was a mental health counsellor, interestingly enough.  He was (although by the time of his death, not really) a Presbyterian, which is one of the three big Protestant churches in the United States, and the only Calvinist one.  Traditionally, it's extremely unyielding, although much of it has changed enormously since the 1970s.2

Kirk dropped out of college early and was a right wing organizer and figure by 2016.  During that short time period he became a right wing speaker.  Bill Montgomery, a wealthy conservative figure, heard him give a speech at Benedictine University and then met with him and encouraged him to form Turning Point USA.3   Montgomery, who heard that speech when Kirk was 18, told him not to pursue a college degree.  He was an Evangelical Christian and an advocate of the Seven Mountains Mandate that  Christians should  take control of the seven societal “mountains” to establish God’s kingdom on Earth.

From 2016 on. . more or less. . .  Kirk espoused far right political views as well as real conservative views.  He was in the Evangelical camp of the Christian Nationalist movement.  He routinely attacked university educations as being left wing and Marxist.  He espoused conspiracy theories about COVID-19.  He's been middle of the road on LGBTQ matters but had evolved towards a religion based view of them by the time of his death.  He was a hard line opponent of abortion, stating that it a worse institution than the Holocaust.  He espoused a highly traditionalist view of women and the roles of men and women in marriage, which is a huge clue as to his underlying weltanschauung.  He credited urban gun violence as being due to African American women raising children as single mothers.  He advocated for completely stopping immigration into the U.S.  He was radically opposed to DEI.  He was pro Israeli and repeated Russian talking points about the Russo Ukrainian War.  He was critical of climate change concern, but had evolved from it being a fib into acknowledging that it was real, which is also a huge clue about his evolving weltanschauung.

Yesterday, we posted an item in which somebody compared him to Malcolm X.   That may be more true than many are ready to admit.

Kirk is a Millennial or Zillennial4 Rust Belt American male.

Eh?

There's been a lot written about the plight of American men in the post 1960s eras.  And, indeed, there should be.

We've discussed this before, but it seems to us that Americans were family centric prior to World War Two. The post war economic boom had the impact of depressing the age at which Americans married, and much of the family centric nature of American life remained, but it also started to erode family values at the same time. 

Prior to 1945, the vast majority of men married, but those who did not entered into occupations which supported bachelorhood, of which there were a number.  For the most part, nobody lived alone.  Women lived with their parents until they married, or if all hope of marriage was lost, with their parents until they died.  One of my mother's aunts who openly detested children did this, her only real option, other than religious life, as marriage meant children.  Men in contrast lived at home, or in boarding houses, or in bunkhouses or barracks, for example. My mother was a real exception in that she left home as a teenager to move to Western Canada at the urging of an uncle, who had employment for her, but that was after the Second World War when things had begun to change.  My father lived at home until he went to university, then in barracks in the Air Force, and then back at home again when he came home from the Service.  All of his siblings basically repeated a similar pattern.



Men were expected to provide for their families and were respected for doing so, or disdained if they did not.  Contrary to what is commonly believed, all the way into the 1960s there was pressure on married women not to work, which was regarded as an embarrassment to their husbands.  Prior to my birth, my mother worked, over the objection of my father, and she returned to work when I was probably about 10 or 12, again over the objection of my father.  They were both born, I should note, in the 1920s.

While its a delicate subject, something else that was a feature of pre 1953 American life was that sex outside of marriage was more than looked down upon.  It's common to pretend there was a double standard, and to some extent there was, with women being "ruined" by premarital sex and "boys being boys", but this is not anywhere near as true as widely claimed. Good statistical data from the late 1940s demonstrates that a vast majority of American men abstained from sex until marriage.  It was only after the assault of the false data Kinsey reports on men and sex (1948) and women and sex (1953) and Playboy magazine that this really began to change, although World War Two had a big impact on this as well.  The launch of the Baby Boomers into their adult years on the cusp of the 1960s began, however, to have a major impact on this as they rejected every convention in society.


By the time I graduated from high school in 1981 things had started to change but not as much as supposed.  Girls in high school when I was there were expected not to says yes to sex, and indeed the bank The Knack made a point of it with their 1979 song Good Girls Don't as the J. Geils Band did in 1981 with Centerfold.  Boys were still expected to get a "good paying job" so they could "provide for a family".

Nonetheless, the bulldozer of the Baby Boom generation had already had a heavy impact on the culture and converted much of the family centric nature of it to being money centric. This was also starting to show itself in spades by the late 1970s and very much did in the 1980s.  Sexual morality began to erode like crazy in the mid to late 80s, following the path the Boomers had set it on in the 60s, and the expectation that everyone should be a consumer. . . of good and people, took over.  On the latter, things were so bad by the late 1980s that I can recall an instance in the late 1980s when a guy I knew who was fairly religiously devout was asked out on date by a girl he barely knew, and went, and the next day her friends were all asking her if they'd had sex on the date, with it being the expectation that they had.  Having said that, even that late "getting a girl pregnant" meant marriage, usually, or it meant the girl dropping out of sight for a while until the baby was born, and then reemerging as if nothing had happened.

Or, after 1973, it meant an abortion.

Divorce was pretty uncommon prior to 1945 as well. The first no fault divorces came into law in 1947 in the US, probably as a result of hasty marriages contracted during World War Two.  They spread relatively slowly and Wyoming didn't adopt a variant (its not truly no fault divorce) until the 1970s.  Actually getting divorced was regarded as shameful into the 1970s.  It was so shameful in the early 20th Century that my great grandparents outright disowned a son who had obtained a divorce from his spouse, although they later reconciled (he moved to the US, years later I was contacted by his son from a later marriage).  When I was a child, knowing somebody who lived in a family in which the parents were divorced was really unusual.

So what, you ask?

Well this.

By the time I graduated from law school in 1990 things had already changed a great deal in the US, but the bare bones of the older culture were still there.  It was possible, although it would soon turn disastrous, to get a job without a college education that paid okay, but not to the extent that it had been in 1970.  Men and women were still expected to get married and remain married, and anticipated doing so.  As the song said, it was still the case that "Good Girls Don't".  Homosexuality existed, but it was concentrated in cities or closeted, the latter often to such an extent that those who were homosexuals didn't really ever acknowledge it to themselves.

However, at the same time, the generation graduating into the 1980s started to have to obtain university degrees in much increased numbers.  Lots of people I went to university with were "first time" attendees, and that was because they had no other choice.  And by the 1990s divorce had become common, as well as shacking up, premarital sex, and bearing children out of wedlock.

Also at some point in the 1980s it became outright necessary for a married woman to have a job in order to help "make ends meet".  Only the spouses of professionals really had any other option.  In a radical reversal of things, male spouses of professionals started to elect for that option by the early 2000s, which would have been regarded as outright shameful before.

Well, if things got rough, and they did, for Generation Jones, it was worse for Gen X and Y.

Generation Jones suffered eroding economic opportunities, while at the same time a cultural drift that not only got started in the 1960 continued to erode the culture, a new culture was outright forced upon Gen X and Gen Y.  That peaked with Obergefell v. Hodges, which was a watershed, as I predicted that it would be.  It broke the dam.

The flood that resulted caused a limping wounded cultural remanent to lash out, just the upper economic edge of the WASP class started to foist the result of Obergefell on a resistant society.  An upper class erudite conservatism epitomized by William F. Buckley and George F. Will, which secretly had always expected to be out of power, yielded by force to a populist conservatism first defined by the Tea Party but then refined post Obergefell by Trump's MAGA movement, which Trump, a salesman, used, even if his personal life looked more like something out of Studio 54.

And then you have the generational, and Rust Belt, aspect of it.

Men Kirk's age, particularly men Kirk's age from certain regions, came into a world that they felt was particularly stacked against men. There was no way that they could get what they hoped for, which they imagined to be the life of the 1950s they believed their grandparents had.


Rust Belt men came of age not only with this concept in their minds, but a history of racial strife that dated back to the Great Migration which had seen African Americans leave the South in large numbers from 1910 to 1970 as they sought to improve their lives.  Internal migrants, while their economic condition improved, they did not escape racism and found themselves living segregated, urban, lives.  Chicago was a city particularly impacted by this.

The Arthur family arriving at Chicago's Polk Street Depot, August 30, 1920.

It wasn't the only one, however.  The Rust Belt in general did, to include such cities as Detroit and Omaha.  African American communities formed in all of them, and in each racial strife featured.

The atmosphere of the Great Migration came to be part of the Rust Belt culture.  Blue collar, and even middle class, whites grew up not believing that they were not racist, like white Southerners, but to speak to them they clearly were, and this often remains the case today.  Blacks were definitely "others" with a different culture, and one that was often rendered into a cliche.  Displaced Rust Belt whites in the West often baffled locals with racial references that made very little sense to locals (I was once asked where the "brothers play basketball", for instance).  Some relocating Rust Belt whites felt free to tell locals that they were relocating specifically to be in a region with few blacks, leaving locals completely out to sea on how to react.

While these tensions existed throughout the entire migration period, once the region slid into economic decay starting in the 1970s tensions of every kind became worse.  By 1993, when Kirk was born, lots of Rust Belt Americans believed that their economic plight was due to minorities who were not real Americans and an educated WASP class that had exported jobs overseas.

Mixed into the background of the moral decay that started with the Baby Boomers in the 1960s had been around long enough by the 1990s that the glamour of evil was really wearing off, particularly the attraction to sexual sin.  Oddly enough, people who had lived the life of 70s largess, like Donald Trump, were regarded, save for Trump, as having engaged in moral redress.  The problem at the same time was that the culture had been so badly damaged over a thirty year period that restoring it was difficult, as the map was partially lost.  Various movements very much sprung up to do it, however, including ones that were based in religious conservatism in various religions.

National Conservatism and Christian Nationalism was a bit of a synthesis of these trends, on the upper end.  On the lower end, was MAGA.

And that gave an opportunity for a flamethrower like Kirk, which is not to say that he was not genuine in his beliefs.  On the younger end, he pretty well defined what populist Rust Belt conservative whites believed.  He was an economic nationalist, a populist, an Evangelical Christian, and xenophobic.

Malcolm X.

As noted above, I think there's reason to believe that he was following sort of the same path as Malcolm X, although both of them would find the suggestion to be insulting.  He may have been further down that path than Malcolm was.  Contrary to the way we tend to remember him, Malcolm X was a deeply conservative man.  He was very religious after converting first to the Nation of Islam, then actual Islam.  He was a Black Nationalist, which isn't all that much different, oddly enough, than being a White Nationalist.  He was an ardent opponent of gun control who was gunned down, just like Kirk.  He was an evolving figure, murdered young, which is true of Kirk as well.  He said outrageous things for effect, which Kirk did as well.

Kirk was clearly moving, and indeed had moved, from Evangelical Christianity into Catholicism, with their being a deep intellectual gap between the two.  Cardinal Newman had stated that to know history was to be Catholic, but it's also true that to convert to Catholicism, in some people, is to become deeply knowledgeable about history.  Kirk's statements about the Church would suggest that he was headed into the Traditionalist wing of the Church, which has seen a lot of entries by those who might loosely be regarded as fellow travelers of Kirk, such as J. D. Vance, Eva Vlaardingerbroek, and Tammy Peterson.  Indeed, as noted here last week, there's been a wave of conversion to Catholicism in recent years and with this year the Catholic Church will bring in more converts than it will lose to those leaving the faith.  The same is happening in France, where the majority of converts are young students.  Catholic conversions are on the rise in England and Scotland as well, with more Catholics attending Sunday services than Anglicans.  In Ireland, which suffered as a result of an abuse crisis, the country seems to be shaking off the negative impacts of a "special relationship" imposed on the Church and on the country by DeValera and the Church is reviving again.


All of this is really interesting in regard to the long strange trip the culture has been on since 1945.  Maybe it offers some hope that the redneck Sweet Home Alabama nature of the populist movement, and the fascistic aspect of the National Conservative movement, may be starting to retreat, while a focus on the interior may have begun.

Who do you trust?
Why in the world don’t you tell me who you trust?
Yeaah! You got your lawyer he will give a way
Why don’t you tell me who you trust
Why you lost your trust in bible
You better get on your knees and pray

Maybe all of this is expecting too much, but there are some interesting things going on, and Kirk seems to have been part of them.  His being murdered cuts that short for him, and perhaps that's the greatest tragedy of all, as it was for Malcolm X.  Their own lives were cut short, but also the impact of their anticipated longer lives upon the group they represent.  

Or maybe I'm all wet.

One thing I've noted here is that I didn't know much about Kirk prior to his assassination, and frankly I wouldn't have paid much attention to him.  I had him in the same class as Joe Rogan, who I think is simply a right wing yapper.



Indeed, there's some reason to regard Kirk as being sort of a latter day Charles Coughlin in a world filled with latter day Charles Coughlin, with Caughlin perhaps being notable that when silenced by Church authorities, he actually shut up.  No such authority, of course, exists that pertains to Kirk, or Rogan, so they don't have to shut up, but as their occupation seems to be based on public attention, they can't really afford to.  The best example of that is Tucker Carlson, who has gone from being a conservative media figure to being a  Russia backing nutjob.

Would Kirk have been like that?

I guess a lot of that depends upon how you take his comments, a section of which I set out above. Some of them, in spite of the media latching on to them, are fairly conventional, and Christian, points of view, such as those on abortion.  Others flirt with racism, including I'd note at least one about Dr. Martin Luther King, whom some are now oddly associating him with.  Would he have abandoned the one set and continued to develop the other?  Now we will not know.

What we do know is this.

Attention spans in American politics are short.  The Doddling Fool in the White House had already moved on from Kirk's death, which he was outraged about the day prior, to his pet project, a ballroom, as he noted twice in press questions about the death of Kirk:
. . . was in the midst of, you know, building a great—for 150 years they’ve wanted a ballroom at the White House, right? They don’t have a ballroom, they have to use tents on the lawn for President Xi when he comes over; if it rains it’s a wipeout, and so I was with architects that were design[ing]—it’s gonna be incredible,

Donald Trump. 

How are you holding up over the last three and a half days?

I think very good.  And by the way, right there you see all the trucks; they just started construction of the new ballroom for the White House. Which is something they’ve been trying to get as you know for about 150 years, and it’s gonna be a beauty, it’ll be an absolutely magnificent structure.

And I just see all the trucks, they just started, so it’ll get done uh very nicely and it’ll be one of the best anywhere in the world, actually,” the president went on.

Donald Trump 

Kirk may soon be yesterday's news, in spite of a dedicated Republican effort to canonize him.

And that may, interestingly enough, turn out to be the ultimate meaning of Kirk's life.  Like Coughlin, he may end up an historical footnote in a later history about a narcissist demented President.  Less remembered than Robert Kennedy, who isn't really remembered that much.

That is what will happen if the National Conservatives and Christian Nationalist, of which Kirk was part, do not succeed in remaking the society by next November, or by 2028 at the latest.  No matter how Kirk would have evolved, their time is limited.  Kirk's death, given his articulate nature and youth, probably acts to hasten the expiration of that passing time, in spite of MAGA's efforts to canonize him.  And, if we assume he would have evolved, it deprives the movements of a figure that could have helped move it along, which the Reno's and Dineen's of the movement cannot, and know that they cannot.

Footnotes:

1.  That story was broken by The Laramie Reporter, whom we link in here, as his net feed was interesting as he was working for Harriet Hageman.  It cost him the job.

2.  "Kirk" is a Scottish name meaning "church", and Presbyterianism is heavily associated with the Scots, who adopted it during the reformation, which is to say it was at least partially foisted upon them during the Reformation.  It's massively different in theology from the Church of England and traditionally is Calvinistic.

All of this is interesting as to Kirk's mindset, as traditional Presbyterianism would have contributed to his unyielding view, and traditional Presbyterians remain extremely religiously conservative.  However, the religion has basically split and some portions of it today are hard to distinguish in view from the liberal end of the Episcopal Church, which also may have influenced how Kirk viewed societal drifts with alarm.

4.  Zillenials, long Generation Jones, are a microgeneration born between two others, whose generational characteristics are unique.  Kirk was born between the Millennials and Gen. X.

Related Threads:






A lamentation. The modern world.*






Et Ux*: A legal and societal history of marriage





The End of the Reformation I. Christian Nationalism becomes a local debate. . .





Additional Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,  , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , y, , , , , , , , , , , , , 

Thursday, August 28, 2025

Lex Anteinternet: A deeply sick society.

Lex Anteinternet: A deeply sick society.

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.

Let's start with a couple of basics.

You were born a man, or a woman.  We all were, and you can't change that.  If you are a man, no amount of surgery or drugs is going to make you bear life and bear all the consequences of the same, from hormonal storms on a monthly basis, to monthly blood loss, to a massive change of life, mid life.

Thinking that you can, and even wanting to makes you deeply mentally ill.

And a society that tolerates that attempt, is deeply sick.

An account I follow on Twitter notes the following:

22 years old Was 17 years old when Covid hitI wonder when he started going down the trans path

It's worth asking that question, and we'll touch on it in a moment. 

Part I.

Robert Westman,1 who tried to be Robin Westman, but failed.  The photo alone shows you can't choose to be a woman if you are man, and that he was accordingly deeply mentally ill.  "You don’t need a weatherman. To know which way the wind blows"  Subterranean Homesick Blues by Bob Dylan.

Robert Westman, mentally ill young man, raged against the reality of life that had tolerated his perverted molestation of himself and lashed out against the existential nature that doomed his molestation to complete failure, and a deeply sick society now will wonder why.  Moreover, even his final act shows how deeply he failed in his effort. Women nearly never resort to mass violence in frustration.

That's a male thing.

And so we start, again by finding myself linking back to some old threads on this blog, unfortunately.  This was the first time I tackled this topic. 

Lex Anteinternet: Peculiarized violence and American society. Looki...: Because of the horrific senseless tragedy in Newton Connecticut, every pundit and commentator in the US is writing on the topic of what cau...

And I did again here:

Lex Anteinternet: You Heard It Here First: Peculiarized violence an...: (Note.  This is a post I thought I'd posted back in November.  Apparently not, I found it in my drafts, incomplete.  So I'm posting...

The first time was intended to be the magnum opus on this, and indeed it likely still is.  It's still worth reading:

Peculiarized violence and American society. Looking at root causes, and not instrumentalities.

And on that, I'm going right to this:

Who does these things?






And also this:

Maybe the standard was destroyed





Early in the nation's history the country was almost uniformly Protestant, although there was more than one Protestant church that was present in the country, and the doctrinal differences between them were in some instances quite pronounced.  It would be false to claim that they all had the same theological concepts, and indeed some of them had radically different theologies.  Indeed, even those several Protestant faiths that were present in North America had acted to strongly repress each other here, on occasion, and had been involved in some instances in open warfare in the British Isles..  Catholics, and Jews, were largely absent from the early history of the country, except with Catholics nervously present in some very concentrated regions.  The Catholic presence in the country really became pronounced first in the 1840s, as a result of the revolutions in Europe and the Irish Famine.  This actually created huge concern amongst the Protestant sections of the county, who were often very anti Catholic.  This started to wane during the Civil War, however.  Jewish immigrants came in throughout the 19th Century, some from Europe in chief, but many from Imperial Russia, where they sought to escape Russian programs.


This was so much the case that everyone, even members of non-Christian faiths, and even those who were members of no faiths at all, recognized what the standards were.  Interestingly, up until quite recently, people who chose to ignore those standards, and in any one era there are plenty of people who do, often recognized that they were breaching the standard and sometimes even that doing so was wrong.  To use a non-violent example, people generally recognized that cheating on a spouse was wrong, even if they did it.  Most people were a little queasy about divorce even if they divorced and remarried.  Nearly everyone regarded cohabitation out of wedlock as morally wrong, even if they did not attend a church.  Sex outside of marriage was generally regarded as wrong, and indeed even the entertainment industry used that fact as part of the risque allure when they depicted that scenario.

The point of this isn't to suggest that various topics regarding marriage and non marriage are somehow related to this topic. Rather, the point is to show that there was more of a concept of such things at work in society, and that's just an easy one to pick up on, as the changes in regards to it have been quite pronounced.  But, if the argument isn't to be extremely strained and fall flat, other examples would have to be given.  So, what we'd generally note is that there were a set of behavior and social standards that existed, and they generally seem to have a root in the "Protestant" ethic.  I'll note here that I'm not claiming this as a personal heritage of mine, as I'm not a Protestant. Simply, rather, it's been widely noted that this ethic has a long running history in the US, and North American in general, and has impacted the nation's view on many things.  These include, I'd note, the need to work and the value of work, and the relationship of the individual to society, all of which have greatly changed in recent decades. Again, I'm not seeking to campaign on this, merely observing that it seems to have happened. This is not a "Tea Party" argument, or direction towards one political thesis or another.


Starting in the 1960s, however, American society really began to break a global set of standards down.  The concept of "tolerance" came in. Tolerance means to tolerate, not to accept, but over time the two became confused, and it became the American ideal to accept everything.  Even people with strong moral beliefs were told that they must accept behavior that was previously regarded as morally wrong, or even illegal in some places. There are many present examples of this that a person could point to.  The point here is not that toleration is bad, but rather that confusing tolerance with acceptance, and following that a feeling that acceptance must be mute, probably isn't good.  Toleration sort of presupposes the existence of a general standard, or at least that people can debate it.  If they can't openly debate it, that' probably is not a good thing.  If self declared standards must be accepted, rather than subject to debate, all standards become fairly meaningless as a result.

The overall negative effect this has on a society would also be a major treatise in its own right and I'm not qualified to write it..  Most cultures do not experience this, as most are not as diverse as ours. Whether any society can in fact endure an existence without standards is open to question,  and the very few previous examples that creep up on that topic are not happy ones.  It is clear that most people do in fact continue to retain  bits and pieces of the old standard, and perhaps most people are very highly analogous to our predecessors who lived in eras when standards were very generally held, and there were decades of American history that were just like that.  But for some people, who are otherwise self-focused, and with problems relating to other people, the weak nature of the standard is now potentially a problem.  Unable to relate, and in a society that teaches that there are no standards, they only standards they have are self learned, in a self isolation.

No place to go, and the lessons of the basement and entertainment.







Most of the men who entered these careers were average men, the same guys who take up most jobs today in any one field, but a few of them were not.  There were always a certain percentage of highly intelligent people with bad social skills who were not capable of relating to others who could find meaningful productive work where their talents for detail were applied in a meaningful way.  There were also places for individuals like that on farms and fields.  And in retail, indeed in retail shops they owned themselves.  Even as a kid I can remember a few retail shops owned by people who had next to no social skills, but who were talented in detail work.  The Army and Navy also took a percentage of people who otherwise just couldn't get along, often allowing them to have a career path, even if just at the entry level, which allowed them to retire in 20 or 30 years.

So what do they do with their time?

As noted, there was once an era when even the severely socially disabled generally worked.  People didn't know not to encourage them to work and having to work was presumed as a given.  Not all work is pleasant by any means, but the irony of this is that many of these people were well suited for fairly meaningful work.  Some men silently operated machine tools day after day in a setting that required a lot of intelligence, but not very much interaction.  Others worked in labs. Some on rail lines, and so on. This isn't to say that everyone who had these jobs fit into this category, which would be absolutely false.  But my guess is that some did.  And some ended up as career privates in the Army, a category that no longer exists, or similar such roles.  They had meaningful work, and that work was a career and a focus.





Visual images seem to be different to us, as a species.  This seems, therefore, to dull us to what we see, or to actually encourage us to excess.  It's been interesting to note, in this context, how sex and violence have had to be increasingly graphic in their portrayals in order to even get noticed by their viewers.  In terms of films, even violent situations were not very graphically portrayed in film up until the 1960s. The first film to really graphically portray, indeed exaggerate, violence was Sam Peckinpah's The Wild Bunch.  Peckinpah used violence in that film to attempt to expose Americans to what he perceived, at that time, as a warped love of criminal violence and criminals, but the nature of our perception largely defeated his intent.  At the time, the film was criticized for being so violent, but now the violence is celebrated.  In that way, Peckinpah ended up becoming the unwitting and unwilling equivalent, in regard to violence, to what Hugh Hefner became intentionally in terms of pornography.  Ever since, violence has become more and more graphic and extreme, just to get our attention.  Likewise, Hefner's entry into glamorizing and mainstreaming pornography starting in the 1950s ended up creating a situation in which what would have been regarded as pornography at that time is now fairly routine in all sorts of common portrayals.




This, I would note, rolls us back around to the analysis that this sort of violence and the Arab suicide bomber are committed by the same type of people.  Youth unemployment in the Middle East is massive.  Those societies have a set of standards, to be sure, but they're under internal attack, with one group arguing for standards that only apply to the group itself.  And violence has been massively glamorized in the region, with the promised reward for it being highly sensual in nature.  In other words, out of a population of unemployed young men, with no prospects, and very little in the way of learned standards, recruiting those with narcissistic violent tendencies should not be very difficult.  The difference between there and here is that there, those with a political agenda can recruit these disaffected misguided youths with promises of the reward of 70 virgins, while here we're recruiting them through bombardment by violent entertainment. 

All of that is still valid, and in particular, I think, we need to consider again:





Most of the men who entered these careers were average men, the same guys who take up most jobs today in any one field, but a few of them were not.  There were always a certain percentage of highly intelligent people with bad social skills who were not capable of relating to others who could find meaningful productive work where their talents for detail were applied in a meaningful way.  There were also places for individuals like that on farms and fields.  And in retail, indeed in retail shops they owned themselves.  Even as a kid I can remember a few retail shops owned by people who had next to no social skills, but who were talented in detail work.  The Army and Navy also took a percentage of people who otherwise just couldn't get along, often allowing them to have a career path, even if just at the entry level, which allowed them to retire in 20 or 30 years.

Over the coming days and weeks pundits will ponder this event, and mostly spout out blather.  The explanation here may have deeply disturbing aspects to it, but the underlying root of it is not that complicated.  Robert Westman fell into the trap that ensnares some of the young in our society and hoped to completely change his nature by changing the outward morphology of his nature.  He was mentally ill.

A just society treats compassionately the mentally ill.

We do not live in a just society.

By and large, we just turn the mentally ill out into the street to allow their afflictions to grow worse until those afflictions kill them. Go to any big city and you'll see the deranged and deeply addicted out in the street.  This is not a kindness.

Gender Dysphoria is a different type of mental illness, but that's what it is.2

And its deeply delusional.

To put it bluntly to the point of being crude, no man, no matter what they attempt to do, is going to bear children and have the risk of bearing children, bleed monthly, and be subject to the hormonal storms that real women are subject to.  And, frankly, men generally become subject to some, if varying, degrees of drives that are constant and relenting, and never abate.3 

No woman, no matter what she attempts to do, is going to hit a certain age in their teens have their minds turn to women almost constantly, as men do, in a way that women do not understand, and frankly do not experience the opposite of themselves. 

Indeed, no man really wants to be a woman, or vice versa.  What those engaging in an attempt to pass through a gender barrier seek is something else, and what that more often than not in the case of men likely is to drop out of the heavy male burdens in an age in which it increasingly difficult to meet them.  In spite of everything in the modern world, women remain conceived of as more protected, and therefore not as subject to failure for not meeting societal expectations.

Being a man has never been easy.

In the days of my youth, I was told what it means to be a man

And now I've reached that age

I've tried to do all those things the best I can

No matter how I try, I find my way into the same old jam

Good Times, Bad Times, by Led Zeppelin.

I don't think lectures on what it means to be a man occur anymore.  I  know that I've never delivered one, but I didn't need one to be delivered either.  The examples were clearly around me, including all the duties that entailed.  We knew, growing up, that good men didn't abandon their families, and provided for their families, and were expected to protect women to the point of their own deaths.  Women weren't expected to protect men, at all.

Some men have always sought to escape their obligations, of course, and we all know or new those who did.  Most aged into disrepute over time.  Others got their acts together.  

You can’t be a man at night if you are a boy all day long.

Rev. Wellington Boone.

And some have always descended into madness.  But society didn't tolerate it, and it shouldn't have to.

So what do we know about Westman?

Not that much, but what we do know is revealing:

  • He killed himself after his cowardly murders.
  • He'd developed an inclination towards violence.4
  • He once attended the Catholic school whose students he attacked,  leaving in 2017 at the end of Middle School.
  • He started identifying as a female in 2019, age 17, and his mother signed the petition to change his name.5
  • After middle school attended a charter school and then the all-boys school, Saint Thomas Academy, which is a Catholic military school. 6
  • An uncle said he barely knew him.7
  • His parents were divorced when he was 13.
  • He worked at a cannabis dispensary, but was a poor employee.8

What can we tell from this?

Maybe nothing at all, but the keys are that in spite of they're being Catholic, his parents divorced, and his mother thereafter tolerated to some degree his drift into delusion, while at the same time there's evidence they were trying to correct it.  After school, he drifted into drugs, which is what marijuana is.

Blame the parents?  Well, that would be too simple.  But societal tolerance of divorce and transgender delusion is fostering all sorts of societal ills.

It's notable that he struck out at a childhood school.  That may be all the more his violence relates, but probably not.  His mother had worked there.  He was likely striking out at her too.  And he was striking out an institution that doesn't accept that you can change your existential nature, because you cannot.  He likely was fully aware of that, which is why he acted out with rage at it, and then killed himself.

There may, frankly, be an added element to this, although only recently have people in the secular world, such as Ezra Klein, began to discuss it.  Westman may have been possessed.

Members of the American Civil Religion don't like to discuss this at all, and frankly many conventional Christians do not either.  Atheist and near atheist won't acknowledge it all, of course.  But Westman's flirting with perverting nature may have frankly lead him into a really dark place, and not just in the conventional sense.

Part 2. What should we do?


Well, what will be done is nothing.  Something should, however, be done.

The topic of gun control will come up, which brings us back to this:

You Heard It Here First: Peculiarized violence and American society. It Wasn't The Guns That Changed, We Changed (a post that does and doesn't go where you think it is)

We're going to hear, from more educated quarters defending the Second Amendment, that firearms have not really changed all that much over the years, society has. This is completely true.

But we're at the point now that we need to acknowledge that society has changed.  And that means a real effort to keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill needs to be undertaken.

When the Constitution was written, Americans were overwhelmingly rural.  Agrarianism was the norm everywhere.  People generally lived in a family dwelling that included everyone from infants to the elderly.  Normally the entire community in which a person lived was of one religion, and everyone participated in religious life to some degree.  Even communities that had more than one religion represented, still had everyone being members of a faith.  Divorce was not at all common, and in certain communities not tolerated whatsoever.9 

Westman was mentally ill.  Transgenderism is a mental illness. He was a drug user.  Cannabis is a drug.

In 1789 the mentally ill, if incapable of functioning, would have been taken care of at home by their families.  Transgenderism would not have been conceived of and not tolerated.  Alcohol was in heavy use.  Marijuana was not.  The plethora of narcotics now in circulation were not conceived of.

Yes, this will sound extreme. Am I saying that because a tiny number of transgendered might resort to violence they shouldn't own guns?  Yes, maybe in a society that simply chooses to tolerate mental illness, that's what I'm saying, although it also strikes me that the people who have gone down this deluded path might be amongst those most needing firearms for self protection. So, not really.  I am saying that attention needs to be focused on their mental state.

Am I saying that marijuana users shouldn't own guns?  Yes, that is also what I'm saying, along with other chronic users of drugs, legal and illegal.

And as we choose to simply ignore mental illness, perhaps the time has come to see if a would be gun owners is mentally stable and societally responsible before allowing them to own guns.  People in chronic debt, with violent behavior, with unacknowledged children in need shouldn't be owning firearms.

Of note, at the time the Second Amendment was written, none of these things was easily tolerated.

Part 3. Getting more extreme.


Knowing that none of this will occur, I'll go there anyhow.

Societal tolerance of some species of mental illness should just end. There shouldn't be homeless drug addicts on the street and gender reassignment surgery and drugs should be flat out illegal.

For that matter, in the nature of extreme, plastic surgery for cosmetic reasons should be banned.  Your nose and boobs are fine the way they are, leave them alone.

No fault divorce should end, and for that matter people who have children should be deemed married by the state, with all the duties that implies.  Multiple children by multiple partners should be regarded as engaging in polygamy, which should still be regarded as illegal.

Love between man and woman cannot be built without sacrifices and self-denial. It is the duty of every man to uphold the dignity of every woman.

St. John Paul II.

Yes, that's rough.

Life is tough for all of us.  Ignoring that fact makes it harder on all of  us.

Part 4. Doesn't this all play into Dementia Don and his Sycophantic Twatwaffles?

Unfortunately, it does.  I fear that this may prove to be the Trump Administration's Reichstag moment.

Indeed, this event is like a gift to people like Stephen Miller who will now assert that this came about due to the liberal policies of Minneapolis, and moreover, as proof that outright attacks on transgendered are needed, the same way the Nazis asserted that dictatorship was necessary in Germany after the Reichstag fire.

Isn't that what' I'm stating?

I am not.

I think we need to address mental illness as a mental illness, and do what we can to treat it.  And rather obviously, what I've stated above doesn't square with Second Amendment hardcore advocates.

And as part of that, we need to get back to acknowledging that the mentally ill are mentally ill, rather than "tolerating" it.  

And we need to quite tolerating "personal freedom" over societal protection, right down to the relationship level.  A married couple produced this kid.  Once they did that, they were in it, and the marriage, for life.  That included the duty not to make dumb ass decisions for their child, like changing Robert's name to Robin.

Part 5.  What will happen?

Absolutely nothing.

People on the right will argue its not the guns, it's the sick society.  People on the left will argue that the society isn't sick, except for the guns, and the guns are all of the problem.

Nothing, therefore, will occur.

Well, maybe.

If anything occurs, it'll be that Dementia Don will use it as an excuse to send the National Guard into Minneapolis.

Footnotes

1.  His name was Robert, not "Robin". The free use of female names for men afflicted by this condition and the press use of "she" for what is properly he, is part of the problem.

2  By gender confusion, I"m referring to Gender Dysphoria, or whatever people are calling it, not homosexuality.  Homosexuals don't fit into this discussion at all.  For one thing, homosexuals are not confused about what gender they are.

3.  This does not advocate for license, although some men argue that it does.  Inclinations are not a pass for immorality.

Anyhow, I'd note that even honest men in cebate professions acknowledge this.  Fr. Joseph Krupp, the podcaster, frequently notes having a crush, for example, on Rachel Weisz.

4.  Again, some women grow violent, but its a minority and, when it occurs, tends to be accompanied by something else.  There are exceptions.

5. I don't know all of the details of his personal life, of course, but that was inexcusable on his mother's part.  I'll note, however, that by this time his parents were divorced and no woman is capable of raising children completely on her own.  Again, I don't know what was going on, but this screams either extreme "progressive" views, or a mostly absent father, or extreme fatigue.

6.  I didn't even know that there were Catholic military schools.  

Military schools have always been institutions for troubled boys, and this suggests that there was an attempt to put him in a masculine atmosphere and hopefully straighten him out. The school had both a religious base and a military nature.  Both of his parents must have participated in this.

7. The modern world fully at work.  People move for work, careers, etc., with the result that nuclear families basically explode, nuclear bomb style.  People more and more are raised in families that are the immediate parental unit, or just one parent, that start to disintegrate the moment children turn 18.  This is not natural, and is part of the problem.

8.  I don't know of course, but I'd guess that in order to be a poor employee at a cannabis dispensary, you have to be a really poor employee. There are bars with bartenders who don't drink, but I bet there aren't any dispensaries with employees that aren't using.

The impacts of marijuana use are very poorly understood, but as it becomes more and more legal, that there are negative psychological impacts for long term and chronic use is pretty clear.

9.  Contrary to widespread belief, not only Catholicism prohibits divorce.  The Anglican Communion does not either, and at that time particularly did not tolerate it.  Divorce occurred, but it was not common.

Also, and we've touched on it before, the United States at the time of its founding was a Christian nation.  It was a Protestant Christian nation, but a Christian nation.  Protestants of the 19th Century would not recognize many Protestant denominations today at all, even if they are theoretically the same.  A 1790s Episcopalian, for example, would be horrified by many Episcopalian congregations today.  In contrast, a Catholic or Orthodox person would find the churches pretty recognizable, save for the languages used for services.

Thursday, August 21, 2025

Lex Anteinternet: Mid Week at Work. Three Mirrors.

Lex Anteinternet: Mid Week at Work. Three Mirrors.:  

Mid Week at Work. Three Mirrors.

 This blog, as we occasionally note has the intent . . . to try to explore and learn a few things about the practice of law prior to the current era. That is, prior to the internet, prior to easy roads, and the like. How did it work, how regional was it, how did lawyers perceive their roles, and how were they perceived?

Well, okay, clearly its strayed way beyond that, but it's retained that purpose and is focused on the period from around 1900 until around 1920, which makes a lot other things, indeed most things, off topic.

But this past week there were a collection of things we ran across that really do sort of focus in on that a bit, and given us an example of how things have changed.

Taking them in no particular order, we have the story of baseball player Tommy Brown, about whom we noted:


Seventeen year old Tommy Brown became the youngest player in Major League Baseball to hit a home run.  Brown had joined the Dodgers at age 16.

Brown provides a good glimpse into mid 20th Century America.  Nobody would think it a good thing for a 16 year old to become a professional baseball player now.  Moreover, the next year, when Brown was 18, he was conscripted into the Army, something that likely wouldn't happen now even if conscription existed.  He returned to professional baseball after his service, and played until 1953 and thereafter worked in a Ford plant until he retired, dying this year at age 97.  Clearly baseball, which was America's biggest sport at the time, didn't pay the sort of huge sums it does now.

Tommy "Buckshot" Brown as born on December 6, 1927 and January 15, 2025, and gives us a really good glimpse of the world of the late 1930s and 1940s.  He'd dropped out of school at age 12 in 1939 and went to work with his uncle as a dockworker.  Being a longshoreman is a notoriously dangerous job and frankly the occupation was heavily influenced by the mob at the time.  There's no earthly way that you could be hired as a longshoreman at age 12 now, nor should there be.  But life was like that then.  My father's father, who was born in 1907, I think, went to work at age 13.  

People did that.

If you are a longshoreman at age 12, you are a 12 year old adult.

He must have been a good baseball player to be hired on in the Majors at age 16.  If that happened now, you'd have to be one of the greatest players alive in the game. But this was during World War Two, and baseball was scraping.

It was scraping as the military was.  The service had taken pretty much all the able bodied men who weren't in a critical war industry.  We don't like to think this about "the Greatest Generation" now, but by 1944 and 1945, the Army was inducting me who were only marginally capable of being soldiers in normal times.  Men who were legally blind in one eye and who were psychotic were being taken in, and I'm not exaggerating.  The recent incident we reported here of a soldier going mad and killing Japanese POWs makes sense in this context.  It's relatively hard to get into the Army now.  After World War Two men inducted were in good physical and mental shape.  By the last days of the Second World War not all were and we knew it.

Brown's story also tells us a lot about what economic life was like mid century.  Obviously, baseball didn't make Brown rich, and there was no post baseball career associated with sports.  He went to work in a factory.

Going to work in a factory, in the 50s, was a pretty solid American job, and another story we touched on relates to this.

The US War Production Board removed most of its controls over manufacturing activity, setting the stage for a post war economic boom.

The US standard of living had actually increased during the war, which is not entirely surprising given that the US economy had effectively stagnated in 1929, and the US was the only major industrial power other than Canada whose industrial base hadn't been severely damaged during the war.  Ever since the war, Americans have been proud of the economics of the post war era, failing to appreciate that if every major city on two continents is bombed or otherwise destroyed, and yours aren't, your going to succeed.

Having said that, the Truman Administration's rapid normalization of the economy was very smart.  The British failed to do that to their detriment.

Americans of our age, and indeed since the 1950s, have really convinced themselves that American Ingenuity and native smartness caused us to have the best economy in the world in the third quarter of the 20th Century, and that if only we returned to the conditions of the 50s, we would again.

Well, the conditions of the 1950s were a lot like the conditions of the post war 1940s.  Every major city in the world, save for American and Canadian ones, had been damaged, and many had been bombed flat.   It's not as if Stuttgart, Stalingrad, or Osaka were in good shape.  We would have had to nearly intentionally mess up not to be the world's dominant economy and that went on all the way into the 1970s.  The UK did not really recover from World War Two, in part due to bad economic decisions, until the 1960s.  West Germany, ironically, recovered much quicker, but in no small part due to the return of refugee German economists who intentionally ignored American economic advice.  Japan emerged from the devastation in the 70s.  Italy really started to in the 60s.  

Many of these countries, when they did, emerged with brand new economies as things were brand new.  Japan is a good example, but then so is Italy, which had been a shockingly backwater dump until the mid 50s.

Russia, arguably, has never recovered, helping to explain its national paranoia.

The thing is, however, that the myth as been hugely damaging to Americans, who imagine that if we were only whiter and had "less regulation", etc., we'd be back in 1955.  It's not going to happen, and we can't tariff our way back to the Eisenhower Era.

Of course, a lot of that post war era wasn't all that nifty. We had the Cold War, for example, and we often dealt with significant inflation, in no small part to inflate our way out of enormous Cold War defense budgets. . .which is probably a warning of what's to come when we realize we have to do something about the national debt.

Finally, we had posted on women and careers.  Well, sort of.  Anyhow, right after that we saw a Twitter post in which a young woman who posted on TikTok was being discussed for say:

I'm just so tired of living and working and doing this every single day, and having nothing — I don't know how I'm gonna get childcare when I have to work 40 hours a week because I can't even afford to feed my family as is.  I'm having medical problems. I can't even get into the doctor because X rays and MRIs are 500, let alone a colonoscopy and endoscopy that I need. Like, I can't afford anything. My doctors cancel my appointments.
This world is just not meant to be like this, we need to make change for us, for each other. Please.

She's right.

This was under the heading, on her post, of "This world is a scam".

The world?  Well, that's a little too broad.  But the modernized industrialized Protestant work ethic world of the West?  You bet.

Interestingly, one of the things she took flak for was buying some sort of baby bottle washer.  It's been a long time since there were infants here, but when there were, I recall we tended to use sort of a disposable system, not real bottles.  Having said that, I looked bottles up, and I can recall that we had some of the ones that are still offered, so I'm likely wrong.  Anyhow, washing bottles is no doubt a pain.

The irate people, who are probably generally irate simply because she had children, and therefore is not fully lashed to the deck of the economic fraud everyone is participating in, seemed to think that this therefore meant she was rich.  Not hardly.

FWIW, I looked up baby bottle washers too, and they really aren't that expensive.  They no doubt probably save time.  Time is money and of course we need to get those wimmen's out in the workplace where they can serve the machine.

Women only entered the workplace at this level in the first place after domestic machinery freed, or seperated, their labor from the house, where it had previously been necessary.  You don't see women being criticized because their house contains a vacuum cleaner, or a dishwasher, even though this is not intrinsically different.  

Indeed, this tends to be the one area where the right and the left are in agreement, and will yell about how society needs more baby warehouses, um daycares.  The left, of course, goes further and discourages having children at all, and would indeed expand infanticide if it could, one of the issues that gave rise to the culture was and the populist revolve that we're still in.  

At any rate, she's right.  The world is not meant to be like this. We made this horror, and others.  We can fix it.

Lex Anteinternet: The Making of the Christian Man By Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap.

Lex Anteinternet: The Making of the Christian Man By Charles J. Chap... :   The Making of the Christian Man By Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap...