Chaitanya Jyothi Museum Opening, 2000
RAMANAM
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen.
Countrymen,
ORBIS NON SUFFICIT
SOLUS DEUS SUFFICIT
Yet POTUS Trump is a boor and, according to David Bernstein, who gets a platform at Instapundit and Volokh Conspiracy, a congenital liar.
Reynolds won’t say so up front, but he agrees with Bernstein in that particular. Reynolds is a #NeverTrump-er, just as he was a closet Obama supporter in 2007/8. Ditto the Reason crowd of libertarians.
Never think a libertarian is a conservative. Nor a conservative a libertarian. Most lawyers are for lawyers (money, sex), not for the USA. Discern for Americans and then remark and vote for them.
. . . who will deprive women control over their own bodies.
Always they say it is about that. I do not buy it, not per se. It is about womb-hood in the sense of maintaining free runs for hysteria. It is not about abortion per se.
It is about women having untrammeled opportunities to oppress men, to enjoy their suffering from vicious treatment meted out to them by women. Thus, the provision that a man cannot stop a woman from aborting his child. That tears a man up permanently — not to mention the child — and many women know it, love it, want chance after chance to do it.
I do not blame such women. I blame their mothers. They were not well brought up.
Dave V to David R. Graham:
The fact that a woman is pregnant and doesn’t want to be shows that she is not very good at controlling her own body.
David R. Graham to DaveV:
How true, how true!
Gail, thank you for your historical remembrances. I look forward to them. On this one, however, you tweak one of my pet peeves, ever so lightly.
To wit: epochs open and close but civilizations do not. Civilizations adapt to (digest, which includes elimination) circumstances and never lose their inner core, their unique nature from their founding. Rome is an excellent example. We remain a Latinate civilization, to include your profession [attorney], but also so many others, including my own, theology. Also military, architecture, engineering, etc. All Roman and Greco-Roman with bits of Hindu and Hebrew digested in.
Again, the Eastern Empire’s center (today’s European Turkey) is surging from her Greek Church roots, with help from Russia, who today eyes restoration of Constantinople.
Epochs open and close, civilizations form — always from a religion — and adapt (digest, which includes elimination), then reform from originals and then adapt, etc. In other words, epochs are phases or periods of civilizations, subordinate to civilizations, not their controllers.
Paul Tillich observed accurately: Culture is the form of religion and religion is the substance of culture.
John Shepherd to David R. Graham:
The Roman Empire did not fall until Ottoman Turkey collapsed. The Ottomans inherited the Byzantine Empire when Constantinople fell.
David R. Graham to John Shepherd:
True. Also true is that Moscow/Russia came to see herself as the Third Rome, after Constantinople (Second) and Rome (First). And by Rome Russia meant Christianity Central. This is how Putin today and his associates think. It forms their foreign policy, echoing Catherine the Great (not The Soviet!).
Here is Lavrov to that effect.
IndeBehemoth to David R. Graham:
The title Czar/Tsar comes from the word Caesar.
David R. Graham to IndeBehemoth:
Yup, thus Third Rome. Also the source of Russian sense of being European leadership, i.e., sense of being morally superior to decadent Europe, from deeper fidelity to Christianity. Soviets picked up the Decadent label for Europe from the Russian Church.
Points our brainiac foreign policy establishment overlook — and constantly get blind-sided by in consequence — because they pride themselves on being pragmatic, scientific, aka post-Christian. Snort!
A productive study for some brainiac who climbs down from hubris one day would be a taxonomy of Christian relics the Russian Church has claimed and/or does claim to possess. For the record, I am a theologian but a Latin Church one, not a Greek Church one.
Craig, your apparent antipathy to Teilhard is misguided. Jesuits hated Teilhard. They still do. They sent him to China to get rid of him. Would not let him live in community when he returned. Forbid him from publishing. He lived his last years at Wenner-Grenn in NYC. Jesuits buried him as an outcast. He passed away suddenly on an Easter Sunday after saying Mass at St. Patrick’s Cathedral, NYC, IIRC.
You are right that Jesus — and Paul, Fathers, and Reformers — called sin sin, e.g., unnatural (non-productive) acts. They did not plead for understanding sin, to include that one.
Jesuits today tolerate such acts, no doubt including amongst themselves, plead for understanding, compassion, along with ideologies propounding totalitarian government.
But Teilhard did not. Nor does his corporal theological monism, which works from the three (trinity) phenomena of evolution, involution, and devolution, which are comparable, in Vedic literature, to creation, preservation, and destruction (consummation).
Teilhard observed in the geological record an eschatological theology which is unique and Christian, to include, therefore, Biblical. Global Warming ideology can be eisegeted from Teilhard’s discussion of Noospheric heating, but he was noting spiritual heating, i.e., uniting, from compression of humans, as occurs first geologically, not physical heating from burning hydrocarbons, as occurs, at a distances from priuses, atmospherically. Global Warming ideology cannot be exegeted from Teilhard’s labors or language.
Craig S Haberthy David R. Graham:
Oh no, its not apparent, its confirmed. I referenced Teilhard because he was in that timeline when The Jesuits, as detailed in Malachi Martin’s book with the same name, went south with heterodox, liberal, and modernism, all which have been condemned by the church. Jesuit Arrupe is of the same misguided heretical beliefs. Would love to see the order suspended, as has already occurred in their history until the likes of St Robert Bellarmine and Cornelius de Lapide return to take the reigns and become “soldiers of the Pope”; their original calling by St Ignatius of Loyola.
David R. Graham to Craig S Haberthy:
Have you read Teilhard, himself? Read his history, not just Jesuit history of his timeline? They are profoundly different.
vortex100 to Craig S Haberthy:
And Jesus did not mention homosexuality even once. The Gospels were blank on the subject. Global warming was also not mentioned, by the way.
Redyooper to vortex100:
But the New Testament–which is as much a part of Christian theology as the Gospels–were not blank. Read Romans Romans 1:27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, and 1 Timothy 1:10. You are right, of course, about global warming–or whatever they’re calling it this week.
vortex100 to Redyooper:
Nope, just sticking with the Gospels. That other stuff is like a comment section after the main news story. I tend to ignore it. It’s mostly opinion and likely wrong or out of context.
GaryLockhart to vortex100:
And Jesus did not mention homosexuality even once.
That you know of. Chapters 20 and 21 of the Gospel of John make it clear that much of what Christ said and did is not recorded in Scripture. However, you want us to believe that Christ made it unambiguously clear that fornication and adultery were sins but He would condone homosexual acts. If so, you need to be drug tested.
The Gospels were blank on the subject.
St. Paul wasn’t and we all know that the New Testament isn’t limited to the four Gospels.
David R. Graham to vortex100:
White-washed tombs was a First Century euphemism for who today describe themselves as queers. Remember Jesus employing that metaphor, and to whom He applied it?
vortex100 to David R. Graham:
Seriously? That is quite a stretch you are making to scripture. White-washed tombs? Give me a break.
David R. Graham to vortex100:
Good idea. Take a break and try to become familiar with First Century vernacular.
Craig S Haberthy to vortex100:
Oh boy! Neither was the word trinity, so are you willing to deny that? Sacred Scripture and Tradition (2nd Thessalonians 2:14
Redyooper to Craig S Haberthy:
Always fun to debate a libbie who pretends to have knowledge of Christianity.
I think you might find this very humorous. In Pittsburgh we have a specific term fro someone who is a psychopathic, dogmatic, aggressive narcissist. We call them a jagoff, not to be confused with jackoff. Here are the official (in our collective minds) definitions of a Jagoff.
Official Pittsburgh Jagoff Dictums
1. Argumentative
2. Defends points of view that are non-defensible
3. Is never ashamed, shameless
4. Can be a perfectly normal looking person
5. Enjoys the discomfort of others
6. Doesn’t care about another’s point of view
7. Assumes that everybody else is less intelligent
8. Lives in a constant state of denial
9. Always goes back on their word
10. Always speaks with authority even when they know nothing about the subject
11. Always puts the blame on others
12. If they don’t know the answer, they will make it up with conviction
13. Lives in a completely illusory world.
14. Mostly have sex with themselves.
15. Can be male or female.
How about *The Rebalancing*? Gramsci’s legions’ march — led by lawyers, by the way, and by envious, ambitious females, lawyers and not — has been arrested by the common sense and patriotism of the generality and not a few leaders. Now the desire to enslave, which is the legions’ engine, is being pushed back through the institutions, to be thrown out the doors by which it entered. This is how the institutions *Rebalance* themselves. Goodbye PLA and KGB and all the rights organizations they spawned around the world. Goodbye also CAIR and the Salafist/Shiite Jihad in general, all kinetic rights organizations.
Deflating the Red Dragon is the key to deflating the American Left. The latter, like a typhoon, draws its energy from the warm, turgid waters of the former. Think Krugman, Friedman, NYT. Without China stirring their anti-Christian animus (they lost The Soviet already), they are impotent. Deflate the Red Dragon (China) and win the midterms and beyond. That is how to avert the crisis that threatens to overwhelm humanity.
The best thing about being a principled conservative is you always have a rationale for cowardice and a justification for political impotence.
It’s the clarity.
Valid, true thoughts and insights can be stated with clarity. Invalid, untrue thoughts and insights cannot be stated with clarity.
So, if you can be clear, you are being valid and true.
Ultimately, that is what men and women want: clear statements of truth. Whether PC or not, popular or not, is never an issue. Everyone knows the unpopular is unpopular and that on that account alone it probably is not true.
If you can’t be clear, you have not yet reached the truth, so you must keep digging until you reach it . . . and can clearly report it out.
That is the only way to earn respect in this world.
I think Sundance is in the ballpark here with his focus on POTUS Trump’s instinctive — and totally patriotic — foreign policy non-interventionism. Dovetails with a segment Steyn did on Rush yesterday regarding POTUS Trump’s asking generals/WH staff when we are going to win in Afghanistan. Steyn tied that to a US Sergeant Major (Cavalry) recently murdered by an Afghan policeman and to Woodward and twitterers using the “When do we win?” meeting to call Trump a dangerous moron.
Foreign non-interventionism is in that ball park Steyn discussed. I think that is probably the actual context of this notorious op-ed: internal WH/DOD/State/CIA/DOJ shouting matches over diddling in and around everyone and everywhere on the globe (lots of money available for that, too bad about the expendable American military blood lost and the grief caused in USA and overseas from the go-no-where fighting — but lots of people get rich from it), or, taking care of Americans first and only going into wars if some idiot attacks our sovereignty — and then sending them promptly to Valhalla and their friends to the surrender-signing table . . . at the point of a gun.
How I wish General of the Army MacArthur were here to advise POTUS Trump! The latter is, finally, uncovering the answer to the question dating from the 1940s, “Who lost China?” Hint: Dean Rusk near the apex of a very deep, very broad pyramid of sentiment against American sovereignty.
That this is coincident with the death of John McCain also I think is indicative of the end of an epoch of control of the mechanisms of government and education by silk-suited, sweet-tongued traitors posing, for votes and awards, as learned benefactors. Their fathers had called The Rev. Dr. Paul Tillich a dangerous man, and for the same reason they ridiculed General of the Army Douglas MacArthur with the same phrase. They despise patriotism.
Βασιλεία του Θεού
Kingdom of God
Update 1: Michael Ledeen:Anonymous Speaks [a careful, true, broad look inside The Deep State]
Update 2: Relax. Trudeau is busily solving our most urgent energy crisis: Gender
Update 3: Abortion at the Core of Both Left and Right
Update 4: In 1965 Life Magazine Showed That Life Begins At Conception
AUM NAMAH SHIVAYA
