What Does Not Belong To You . . . You Cannot Give Away

Chaitanya Jyothi Museum Opening, 2000

RAMANAM
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen.

Countrymen,

ORBIS NON SUFFICIT
SOLUS DEUS SUFFICIT

With a clarifying caveat here and there, that list of sins looks to me like a list of virtues. To paraphrase a Reynolds trope: when darks cease breaking into countries and systems created by lights I will take lights’ handiwork as of questionable virtue.

That darks want what lights have made, to include their durability (for being humane) — aka supremacy — tells me lights’ artifacts are universally desirable and therefore reliably virtuous.

Colleges and universities, so many of them, have turned themselves over to residents who do not belong to them. Said residents are giving away what does not belong to them: the learned fundamenta — aka doctrines — of Christian civilization. This cannot go on for long. What one does not own one cannot give away, an indefatigable and irrefragable truth that.

Two millennia ago certain non-Romans began breaking into Roman civilization and onto Roman chairs of authority by murdering Romans while posing as leaders of Roman military formations. Their actions invited non-posing, non-Roman hordes to approach the Roman realm in the spirit of sacking her.

Neither the generals cum emperors nor the hordes they inspired to swarm in owned what they stole to bestow upon their minions. The families of Rome developed a unique response to this phenomenon: they went monastic and thereby preserved their learned civilization, which was then Greco-Roman-Christian. That act, and the underlying fact that the sackers did not own what they threw about, brought the sackers to heel.

Βασιλεία του Θεού
Kingdom of God

Update 1: David Blackmon: Declassification: Some Mid-day Fallout From Trump’s Memo to Barr

Concurrence:
1- Aussies elect patriotic PM,
2- Italians fire top spies,
3- British PM resigns,
4- POTUS orders exposure of treason conspiracy.
5- These are connected.

Update 2: Jean-Claude Juncker, 22MAY19: These populist, nationalists, stupid nationalists, they are in love with their own countries.

Update 3: Observed online:

Obama spied.
Comey lied.
Deep State tried.
Now they have no where to hide!

Update 4: The AI gods in the margin of my browser are enticing me towards a Columbia U MS in Negotiation and Conflict Resolution, obtained by labor expended partly online. Meanwhile, POTUS Trump declares a National Emergency regarding Info/Comms tech.

Both of these phenomena, and especially the latter, impress me as more salient with respect to The Divine [e]Comedy than polls. The former shows that the AI gods are fallible: I passed bamboozle-for-monetary extraction-via-high-education age many decades ago. Perhaps they read me as internally at war and verging on extinction, thus, qualifying for intervention by Columbia U’s finest faculty savants. I do not know, but I find the advert amusing aimed at a person of my description.

A well-known, well-attested — although not well-accepted — and ancient aphorism regarding uprightness in living runs to this effect: do what is right and what is right will guarantee what you do. AKA: polls be hanged.

Update 5: Stephen Fry, 13MAY19: I really will not allow the simple “OK” gesture to belong to the moronic dogwhistling catfishing foghorning frogmarching pigsticking dickwaving few who attempt to appropriate it for their own fatuous fantasies.

Update 6: 1- The mismatch is mostly cultural. STEM never has been a salient factor inside Black and Spanish-speaking American families. Probably never will be.

2- Beyond that, the mismatch is vocational. College/university never has been — and never will be — a calling for the large majority of citizens regardless of race or family. By definition — and like Theology, War, and Law — STEM is a rare and exclusive calling, and that not of race but of inner necessity, actual vocation, a private calling.

3- Bulking up STEM majors is a banker’s play, not an educator’s path. Better one bright light than a dozen dim ones. Brownings, Garands, Johnsons, von Brauns, and Feynmans step forward when needed. Such cannot be manufactured, much less mass-produced.

Update 7: Cynic is from the Greek kunikos. It means dog or more to the point like a dog. It was a self-styling and public-styling by certain mendicant philosophers who were honest regarding their version of deconstructionism, living in streets and countryside like dogs they did, relying on nothing in this world to be worth anything, including their bodies. Derrida and his minions have no such honesty or courage regarding their version of deconstructionism.

The original Friars Minor could also be called cynics in the Greek sense of living by begging and in rags. But they did not parade around naked, as classical cynics did, and did value things of this world so long as they expressed love. They rebuilt sanctuaries, after all, and sang to birds, something ancient cynics — and Derrida and minions — would not think of doing.

When radical detachment — something else Derrida and minions would not do — unites with knowledge that corporeality is the end of the ways of God (Oetinger), humanity gets a band of beloved Little Brothers rather than clusters of tiresome cynics. Mitt Romney is an incomplete cynic: he wants to eat his pie and have it too. Poor fellow.

Update 8: If they do not get that far, answer those questions fully and truthfully, justice will not have been served by Barr’s investigation and other means will be pressed.

Everyone knows The Fraud (Obama) knew. Very many know how much he knew. Not a few know when he knew. So really, those questions are not at issue. The question at issue is: will The Fraud be found guilty on all charges allowed by law, and punished, personally, to the fullest extent allowed by law and commended by reason, and when?

That, I submit, is the question. It is not a what or a how question. It is a whether and when question. Will justice be meted out to the senior perverter of it this time, in this fetid affair? And when? No one doubts that it should be and can be. Will it be — and when — is the question on everyone’s mind.

Update 9:

Joe_NS
A respected anthropologist — Gregory Bateson, I think — once observed that the most important difference between men and women as regards social relations is that women are moralizers and men are pragmatic. That makes a lot of sense. In a serious dispute, say between two nations, men often cannot afford the luxury of holding too resolutely to what even they may believe is the high ground, because when it comes to blows they will generally be the ones taking them. That’s the reason, evolutionarily speaking, I suspect, that among the beasts conflict between males is often noisy playacting designed to overawe the opponent and get him to abandon the fight before the fur flies. When a species has no surgeons, a merely injured male can soon become a dead male. Negotiation is obviously preferable.

Humans are mammals and share the general tendency, meaning that men, counter to what you might believe, are much more inclined to negotiate serious, consequential differences than women are, to settle with a handshake what cannot be worked out in principle and leave it at that. On the other hand, women in positions of authority might be more inclined to reject compromise and to resort to histrionics about the absolute requirement to do what is right or good, often becoming outright harpies—it’s then called nagging,* by the way — if denied their desiderata, planting their feet and obstinately digging in. Most of the time, the blows are not going to fall on them. The anthropologist went on to observe that the difference was an important reason most societies with any history to them were patriarchies. Had they been matriarchies, they would have warred themselves into extinction long ago (the fighting would still have been carried on by the men, though).

I mention those things only because I really do wonder what they imply about the Russia-collusion controversy. How many of the protagonists driving it were nagging women who simply would not back down regardless of the evidence? Susan Rice, Loretta Lynch, Sally Yates, Valerie Jarrett, Lisa Page, Nellie Ohr (NB: gender not established), Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton herself — All exhibit in neon the classic Hell hath no fury behaviors long ascribed, with some justice, to women. And what about Masie Hirono? Not unrelated I think, James Comey is said to be a minor miracle of uxorious self-abasement; and of course, that Barack Obama is a man in any important sense of the word is very much an open question. Throw in the hyper-hysterical femmes of the media — Nicolle Wallace, Mika Brzezinski, Joy Behar, Michelle Wolf, Jussie Smollett, Don Lemon — I jest, I jest — almost too many to recall at the moment, and I am left to wonder if what we have been witnessing has actually been pretty routine bitchiness in action at the level of national politics.

Toxic femininity, anyone?
____________
*Virtue signaling polls better, though.

DRG to Joe_NS
Well, closer look would show it was then and and is today women, so-called, of a specific kind: bull dykes.

Still, point taken.

Who runs the HR shops that spread incompetence and terror in organizations? Who runs the activist groups? Who agitated the sodomizing of Libya? Who, as peace officers, are most likely to fire their weapons? Who controls diversity and inclusion shops in academe? Who demands men leave the planet?

I do not blame these so-called women. I blame the men to allow themselves to be buffaloed by them.

No woman ever demanded a world without men.

Update 10: Margaret Thatcher: The people are the true gentlemen and deal with others for what they are, not for who their father was.

Update 11: Myron Ebell and Steven J. Milloy: Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions