Recent exchanges have focused on organized conspiracies that seem to control world outcomes in a concerted fashion. I think it's worth some level of discussion, and I'll promise up front that I'll remain open-minded and I will not be derisive.

So I'd like to ask if you can see a historical era when this conspiracy (or conspiracies) were not in control and in what sense average mankind was not victimized by an organized elite?

I tend to see the evolution elites in much the same way that Francis Fukuyama postulates in The Origins of Political Order (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origins_of_Political_Order). It's persuasive theory, to me at least. In a nutshell, elites emerged as a class after human societies could produce surpluses of foodstuffs. He describes this mechanism of how, exactly, the class separated itself--the strongman/chief granted special "rights" or authority to a group of close associates to take by force if necessary, surpluses, ostensibly for the betterment of the entire society. Priesthoods soon evolved, along with the surpluses. There could be supernumerary social roles, where there never could be before the surpluses.

So I tend to work from this point of departure.

So that's where I'm coming from: it started in prehistory, with surpluses. The more aggressive/charismatic/forceful seized resources from the less aggressive, aided by a select group. To me, it looks like nothing has changed, except in scope and sophistication. Simply put, it's a form of predation.

When was it any different? If there was such a time, was it a stable period, or was it in an expansionary phase, when there was little or no established social order? Clearly, during a frontier phase, when one group displaces another, it's too chaotic for a large group conspiracy to function. They can emerge relatively quickly as soon as a minimal degree of stability sets in, along with a stable population, but not before.

What is the scope of the supposed conspiracy? For example, does it include mainland China? Do you suppose that the Chinese would accept either the supremacy, or even the equality, of the Rothschilds, because I know a fair number of people from mainland China, and if one thing come thru loud and clear, subtly and overtly, is that they have NO DOUBT that the Han Chinese are the most competent, capable, and gifted group of humans alive today. They are unburdened by externally assigned guilt are are very hard to manipulate short of physical threat. In my limited experience, they would not welcome lasting collusion with a bunch of Levantines, or anyone else, for that matter.

So does the conspiracy control the Chinese, or does it include them?

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So you'd see this kind of thing developing more or less concurrently with settlements and towns & cities, rather than a pastoral-agricultural semi-nomadic scenario?

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So you'd see this kind of thing developing more or
> less concurrently with settlements and towns &
> cities, rather than a pastoral-agricultural
> semi-nomadic scenario?


The key to its emergence is surpluses. Significant surplus (it needs to be enough to make it worthwhile to take) are less possible with nomadic existence but not impossible.

Settlements permit storage of surplus and hence are more conducive to this kind of class predation.

I mean, everything is possible, but politically sustainable predation, i.e., is not so much as to induce organized opposition, is easier with larger surpluses.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It has always been there in one form or another. Survival of the fittest. I tend to agree with Dale's Christian faith perspective that it is very ancient. Greed. Grasping after what can be had. And if it turns into excessive obsession, it becomes a darkness of the soul.

Surplus yes, basically. The acquisition of wealth. But when direct bartering was replaced with money changing as a go-between in trade, and banking of profits, the acquisition of enormous fortunes became much more convenient and easy to handle (than vast volumes of material surplus) for the shrewd and cunning. And with all that money, of course, came increased power and influence.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 8 Aug 21 | 05:19PM by Knygatin.

And lending money to interest rate, was the key to acquiring astronomical fortunes. I don't know when that started. But I believe Jesus kicked some individuals out of the temple who were attempting it.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And lending money to interest rate, was the key to
> acquiring astronomical fortunes. I don't know when
> that started. But I believe Jesus kicked some
> individuals out of the temple who were attempting
> it.


I was thinking about starting a thread to form a list of people who got in trouble for being wise guys or smart alecs. People who were either killed or imprisoned for questioning the status quo effectively.

I was going to prime the pump by putting on Socrates, Jesus, Galileo, etc.

It seems like if you can only ineffectively question existing dogma, you get slapped around a bit or laughed off; you're simply a deplorable. But the instant you gain some traction and make the entrenched authorities look bad, you're really in for it.

I guess Solzhenitsyn could be added to the list.

Have any suggestions?

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

St. Stephen the Protomartyr...

Hypatia is often mentioned as a Neoplatonist killed by a Christian mob.

Various guys before Luther got in trouble with the papal authorities, e.g. John Hus...

The Edict of Worms made Luther an outlaw, i.e. anyone could kill him with impunity.... There were the Oxford Martyrs including Hugh Latimer, Nicholas Ridley, Thomas Cranmer... Michael Servetus was burned at the stake for heresy in Protestant Geneva...

Then there were John Bunyan and Richard Baxter (a contemporary of Bunyan's who was tried by the notorious Judge Jeffreys) who were imprisoned...

So many.


[bmcr.brynmawr.edu]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 8 Aug 21 | 08:38PM by Dale Nelson.

Still thinking about Sawfish's topic.

In the United States, surely the Supreme Court ruling on abortion (Roe v. Wade) of 1973 marked a turning point and not for the better. Nobody wants ED to get into an acrimonious debate about abortion, and to start one is not my purpose. But consider:

1.For elective abortion not to involve premeditated murder, it must be understood that what's aborted is not a human being. No one (to my knowledge) has succeeded in demonstrating this so as to convince any reasonable, fair-minded person. The "solution" has been to see reality as "socially constructed" (though "the social construction of reality" was a term that became widespread only after 1973). If reality is "socially constructed," then there is no reality, certainly no ethical, moral, spiritual reality, that we need to discern and then, perhaps only through arduous effort, conform ourselves to. Rather, the agenda now becomes the affirmation of various communities' notions of reality. This is often put in terms of hearing or listening to the "voices" of people of color, members of sexual minorities so-called, etc. The idea is that, since reality is just a social construction, the only fair "reality" is that which is most inclusive. So those "voices" must be heard, while, since they have already been heard, the voices of men, especially sexually normal men, especially sexually normal white men, especially sexually normal white Christian men, must be silent.

2.Roe v. Wade was a massively significant moment in the story of the assumption by non-legislative powers of national control. It is a landmark in the movement of "America" rather than "the United States" as the nature of this North American nation. The correct way for "abortion rights" to be secured should have been a state-by-state matter. If it had, undoubtedly elective abortion would have become legal in some states (e.g. New York) while it might have remained illegal in others. But the people would have felt that the laws reflected their ownership, in their states, of the legislative process. Instead the Court ruled by fiat that there was a Constitutional right to elective abortion, bypassing state legislatures. Likewise, we have seen the rise of the "imperial presidency," as if the Roman republic was giving way to something more like Imperial Rome of the Caesars. Increasingly people on the left and on the right feel that the president exceeds his Constitutional powers, though the matter is expressed in partisan terms. Well, I suspect that the relative impotence of Congress was demonstrated with Roe v. Wade.

FWIW:

[www.senate.gov]

Can you imagine an alternate history in which Congress had zealously insisted on its sole right to declare war and had refused to pay for, well, wars of any other sort?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 17 Aug 21 | 09:21AM by Dale Nelson.

Dale, this is a terrific response. I'm not saying that because I agree with it entirely, but because of the expressed thought processes.

For what it's worth, I see nothing at all the matter with the thought process, and where we differ is in the nature of some of the conclusions.

Responses, below:


Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Still thinking about Sawfish's topic.
>
> In the United States, surely the Supreme Court
> ruling on abortion (Roe v. Wade) of 1973 marked a
> turning point and not for the better. Nobody
> wants ED to get into an acrimonious debate about
> abortion, and to start one is not my purpose. But
> consider:
>
> 1.For elective abortion not to involve
> premeditated murder, it must be understood that
> what's aborted is not a human being.

To remain morally consistent to stated national goals and values, yes.

But so would capital punishment be considered. So what we've got, if one supports capital punishment, is that the unborn is being executed simply for existing, where a convicted capital criminal is being executed for actions s/he took in life.

> No one (to
> my knowledge) has succeeded in demonstrating this
> so as to convince any reasonable, fair-minded
> person.

Those favoring unrestricted abortion, available on demand, at no cost, everywhere, never seem to explicitly state that they do not see the unborn as non-human, and if true (that they see the unborn as human), they favor no rights, none, for the unborn without the consent of the mother. The mother, therefore, has total control of the unborn's fate.

They also then must see humanity as composed of different classes of individual based on external criteria, such as age, etc.

If not true, then they do not see the unborn as human; it is simply a sort of tumor.

Plug in "master" for "mother" and "slave" for "unborn", and see what you come up with. That's the kind of person we're dealing with, except that they'd deny it.

> The "solution" has been to see reality as
> "socially constructed" (though "the social
> construction of reality" was a term that became
> widespread only after 1973). If reality is
> "socially constructed," then there is no reality,
> certainly no ethical, moral, spiritual reality,
> that we need to discern and then, perhaps only
> through arduous effort, conform ourselves to.
> Rather, the agenda now becomes the affirmation of
> various communities' notions of reality.

Yes.

Now don't banish me for saying this, but I currently think that this view (social constructed reality) is how mankind lives. I think they've always lived like this, and the principal difference being precisely *what* are the current beliefs of the vast majority of any given society at any given time.

So I'm saying that in an extremely simple case, the majority may strongly believe (i.e., "socially construct") that every member of society *must* conform to all traditional customs on pain of death.

A less absolutist example is fundamental Islam.

Similarly, at another time (era), the same society might believe (socially construct) that the individual is free of any social obligation while in pursuit of self-satisfaction.

Within my lifetime, the US has moved substantially in the latter direction.

But I see both as social constructs, with no overarching authority governing the environment other than physics.

So...

"Reality is that thing that does not go away when you stop believing in it."

> This is
> often put in terms of hearing or listening to the
> "voices" of people of color, members of sexual
> minorities so-called, etc.

It is currently, but the opposite could be true and you'd still have a social construct of reality.

> The idea is that,
> since reality is just a social construction, the
> only fair "reality" is that which is most
> inclusive.

The key word, I'm sure you are aware, is "fair". This is highly subjective and varies over place and time.

> So those "voices" must be heard,
> while, since they have already been heard, the
> voices of men, especially sexually normal men,
> especially sexually normal white men, especially
> sexually normal white Christian men, must be
> silent.

Yes. This is a social construct.

But in my view, there is only social constructs, which is all we'll ever know, and there's physical reality, as I described above. Some social constructs are prepared to selectively deny all evidence of physical reality, while others attempt to make it a central part of the construct--although they will never know physical reality in its entirety.

I'm saying that a society that values poetic consciousness over sociological consciousness, and the opposite, are both social constructs, while falling into an active volcano is not.

Let me now say, gulp!--that I see all moralities as social constructs. This is because I am stained by the original sin of post-modernism.


>
> 2.Roe v. Wade was a massively significant moment
> in the story of the assumption by non-legislative
> powers of national control.

I want to plant the idea at this point that unrestricted voting may not be a *good thing*--in fact, I can't see how it could be construed as anything but socially destabilizing.

There, I've said it, and already I can see the lynch mob forming up down the street.

It's been great knowing you all at ED!

;^)

> It is a landmark in
> the movement of "America" rather than "the United
> States" as the nature of this North American
> nation.

Yes. Federalism vs state control.

> The correct way for "abortion rights" to
> be secured should have been a state-by-state
> matter.


YES!!!

YES!!!

Logically correct. There is no mention or implication of a right to terminate pregnancies in the constitution, which means that this would fall to the state level.

I've read Roe v Wade at least three times in its entirety. This is the conclusion I also came to.


> If it had, undoubtedly elective abortion
> would have become legal in some states (e.g. New
> York) while it might have remained illegal in
> others. But the people would have felt that the
> laws reflected their ownership, in their states,
> of the legislative process.

Yes, and an important conclusion I came to a while back was that local ownership/control creates the most satisfying day-to-day living experience.

The down side is that those who feel in opposition to the will of the general populace, as stated either by direct ballot or elected representative, will probably be better off moving to a locale where the populace is in concert with their preferences.

I didn't come to this conclusion because I "believe" in states. rights, but simply by grinding thru it, testing various examples. I found that those imposed from outside the locale, and were not popular (not in concert with local values), were what caused a great deal of daily social friction.

> Instead the Court
> ruled by fiat that there was a Constitutional
> right to elective abortion, bypassing state
> legislatures.

It's hard to read Roe v Wade and not come away with the idea that the majority of the justices "felt" that abortion should be available, and so worked hard to squeeze a camel thru the eye of a needle.

They seemed to start with this conclusion and then attempted to find ways to justify it by case law, since there is no direct guarantee.

> Likewise, we have seen the rise of
> the "imperial presidency," as if the Roman
> republic was giving way to something more like
> Imperial Rome of the Caesars. Increasingly people
> on the left and on the right feel that the
> president exceeds his Constitutional powers,
> though the matter is expressed in partisan terms.
> Well, I suspect that the relative impotence of
> Congress was demonstrated with Roe v. Wade.

I think that this is true, also, and you can see why I attempt to keep ahead of the game, sneaking like a nocturnal rat, because if there's an effective way within my lifetime, or even my wife's, who'll live to be 100 if genetics mean anything, please tell me. I've not found it yet.

[NOTE: Roe v Wade would never have involved the US legislature, at all, if the legal mechanisms stated in the constitution had been considered. It would be like the age of legal marriage: state-by-state.]

>
> FWIW:
>
> [www.senate.gov]
> larations-of-war.htm
>
> Can you imagine an alternate history in which
> Congress had zealously insisted on its sole right
> to declare war and had refused to pay for, well,
> wars of any other sort?

WHOA!!! You have a strong sense of fantasy!!! ;^)

So long as the president is commander-in-chief, the potential is always there to use force. It's like private gun ownership, but on the grand scale.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sawfish wrote, "Those favoring unrestricted abortion, available on demand, at no cost, everywhere, never seem to explicitly state that they do not see the unborn as non-human, and if true (that they see the unborn as human), they favor no rights, none, for the unborn without the consent of the mother. The mother, therefore, has total control of the unborn's fate."

Here's some confirmation of what you say, Sawfish.

Feminist Sophie Lewis says, "Abortion is a form of necessary violence. We need to move away from arguments designed to placate our enemies, and defend abortion as a right to stop doing gestational work. ...Abortion is, in my opinion, and I recognize how controversial this is, a form of killing. It’ s a form of killing that we need to be able to defend."

Or Salon blogger Mary Elizabeth Williams:

---All life is not equal. That's a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers. Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She's the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always.

When we on the pro-choice side get cagey around the life question, it makes us illogically contradictory. I have friends who have referred to their abortions in terms of "scraping out a bunch of cells" and then a few years later were exultant over the pregnancies that they unhesitatingly described in terms of "the baby" and "this kid." I know women who have been relieved at their abortions and grieved over their miscarriages. Why can't we agree that how they felt about their pregnancies was vastly different, but that it's pretty silly to pretend that what was growing inside of them wasn't the same? Fetuses aren't selective like that. They don't qualify as human life only if they're intended to be born.----

Next, about the "social construction of reality." There's a sense in which this concept is true. One of the reasons to read outside one's own time is to encounter works of literary power that are demonstrate different understandings than ours. That can help us to be more independent of the characteristic preoccupations and even blindnesses of our own time; it can help us to perceive, as C. S. Lewis put it, the matters about which President Roosevelt and Hitler are in agreement, or (today) Biden and Trump are in agreement.*

There is, however, a perennial moral law that all civilizations bear witness to, and that makes them comprehensible to one another. When, say, Marco Polo & friends made it so far East as they did, they never encountered outrageous moral difference. They might encounter different customs & taboos, but both foreigner and resident recognized this fundamental objective moral law. This law has to do, for example, with the duty not to do to others what you wouldn't want them to do to you; it commends truthfulness; it recognizes marriage of a man and a woman; it approves modesty and deference to elders, etc. (Some cultures might allow for polygamy. This is different from the ideal of a strictly monogamous society, but both communities recognize marriage.) What I'm saying is that ways of expressing awareness of moral law may vary, but there is an underlying agreement about something there, a way of the gods, a Tao, practical reason, etc.; it's something where the buck stops; you reason from it, but if you don't accept it as it is, your reasoning will be bound to be defective.


*I think part of what Knygatin is focusing on, when he writes of conspiracy or the pointlessness of elections, is this kind of thing.

To confound a very complex and difficult issue like availability of abortion, I have come to this: at present, in the present environment, generally available abortion is "good public policy" in terms of eliminating a potentially non-productive, non-positive social entity. By this I mean a) the unwanted unborn individual, who will statistically have a reduced (but not non-existent) chance at a socially productive life, but also b) removing the mother from a potentially untenable situation.

All this can be addressed thru successful adoption, as well.

Underlying all of this is my assumption, possibly wrong, that the current US society can do without the product of unwanted pregnancy. The added population is unneeded, whereas in earlier times in many locales, the addition of individuals to a society was much more important to that society's success.

So the surplus hands are unneeded at this time, and instead of being a positive social addition, tend to be a negative social detriment--a drain.

This same construct can be generally applied to the idea of criminal rehabilitation: in what sense do we need the skills/abilities of a twice convicted felon?

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sawfish wrote, "So long as the president is commander-in-chief, the potential is always there to use force. It's like private gun ownership, but on the grand scale."

That's about right, isn't it?

Conversely, if things like the power to declare war really were exercised by Congress, the country, I suspect, would often look more conservative and we'd get involved in less military action (but perhaps enforce our borders better), because those Representatives and Senators would be closer to the people who elected them, more accountable, than the president is. The president is a Caesar or a king. He can fly his private copter to Camp David or fly to his golf course kingdom or whatever. The members of Congress have perks all right, but they can't hide quite so easily. Same with governors. Look how quickly a governor can be forced to resign or be recalled, and compare that to the presidency. I'm a retired English teacher, not a political theorist or historian, and maybe I'm wrong, but I feel like I'd like to see a decentralized United States -- so that we'd even use a plural verb ("The United States are pressuring China to come clean about Covid"), which might be a lot more responsive to ordinary taxpayers, etc.

Good luck with that....

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Next, about the "social construction of reality."
> There's a sense in which this concept is true.
> One of the reasons to read outside one's own time
> is to encounter works of literary power that are
> demonstrate different understandings than ours.
> That can help us to be more independent of the
> characteristic preoccupations and even blindnesses
> of our own time; it can help us to perceive, as C.
> S. Lewis put it, the matters about which President
> Roosevelt and Hitler are in agreement, or (today)
> Biden and Trump are in agreement.*
>
> There is, however, a perennial moral law that all
> civilizations bear witness to, and that makes them
> comprehensible to one another. When, say, Marco
> Polo & friends made it so far East as they did,
> they never encountered outrageous moral
> difference. They might encounter different
> customs & taboos, but both foreigner and resident
> recognized this fundamental objective moral law.
> This law has to do, for example, with the duty not
> to do to others what you wouldn't want them to do
> to you; it commends truthfulness; it recognizes
> marriage of a man and a woman; it approves modesty
> and deference to elders, etc. (Some cultures
> might allow for polygamy. This is different from
> the ideal of a strictly monogamous society, but
> both communities recognize marriage.) What I'm
> saying is that ways of expressing awareness of
> moral law may vary, but there is an underlying
> agreement about something there, a way of the
> gods, a Tao, practical reason, etc.; it's
> something where the buck stops; you reason from
> it, but if you don't accept it as it is, your
> reasoning will be bound to be defective.

I recognize a large degree of overlap, and note that that the largest differences between various cultures are to whom these rules apply. Can the outsider expect to have the same moral protections as the insider? My readings tend to show a fairly divided sample. Killing a stranger for his possessions is not murder, but killing a tribe member is.

And this difference--whether the moral protections apply to all, or just some--is itself a profoundly differentiating moral difference. Those who do are profoundly different, morally, from those who do not.

But yes, murder, marriage, some level of deference to parents/elders, this is shared by many cultures.

But rather than see this as coming from a divine or spiritual source, one might see it as evolution in action. Rather than see it as "...an underlying agreement about something there..." and a conformance to it, I see it as the set of values that enable a group to survive as a successful social entity. In short, those that do not follow these patterns tend to die out over time; they tend to fall away, evolutionarily.

Consider a society that had no restriction on mutual killing, no matrimonial ties, no respect/deference for parents/elder?

How long do you suppose that this group could hold together as a society such as would be recognized by Marco Polo? I'm suggesting that in any instance where this group encounters a more recognizable society, in which intra-tribal killing is severely limited, there is a sort of stable domestic arrangement, and the aged are sought for counsel, it's very difficult to see how the unrestricted group could survive, if in open competition. They could only survive, marginally, in a relatively productive hunter/gatherer environment (one that did not require much social cooperation for individual survival--Eden-esque); if the environment demanded social cooperation, like northern Asia, for example, they'd die out on their own, or gradually adopt the "underlying moral codes" that we postulate.

And if they lived in a hyper-productive environment not requiring social cooperation, they would eventually be driven from this HIGHLY DESIRABLE territory by a "morally bound" society, simply because of the effective teamwork of the latter.

So the existence of similar moral codes can be explained satisfactorily, at least to me, as an artifact of successful social evolution.

>
>
> *I think part of what Knygatin is focusing on,
> when he writes of conspiracy or the pointlessness
> of elections, is this kind of thing.

OK

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish wrote, "So long as the president is
> commander-in-chief, the potential is always there
> to use force. It's like private gun ownership, but
> on the grand scale."
>
> That's about right, isn't it?
>
> Conversely, if things like the power to declare
> war really were exercised by Congress, the
> country, I suspect, would often look more
> conservative and we'd get involved in less
> military action (but perhaps enforce our borders
> better), because those Representatives and
> Senators would be closer to the people who elected
> them, more accountable, than the president is.
> The president is a Caesar or a king. He can fly
> his private copter to Camp David or fly to his
> golf course kingdom or whatever. The members of
> Congress have perks all right, but they can't hide
> quite so easily. Same with governors. Look how
> quickly a governor can be forced to resign or be
> recalled, and compare that to the presidency. I'm
> a retired English teacher, not a political
> theorist or historian, and maybe I'm wrong, but I
> feel like I'd like to see a decentralized United
> States -- so that we'd even use a plural verb
> ("The United States are pressuring China to come
> clean about Covid"), which might be a lot more
> responsive to ordinary taxpayers, etc.
>
> Good luck with that....


;^)

Signed,

The Nocturnal Rat

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This discussion has me thinking that the answer to your question about when things were different would be: before the rise of nationalism.

It is right and natural that people should have a love for their patria, but that is something smaller than a modern nation-state and is largely displaced by national-state "patritoism".

A modern nation-state is bureaucratic, works towards centralization, works towards control of finance (hi, Knygatin!) and tends to want to project military might even in pointless wars, and encourages us to think of ourselves in sociological ways. A nation-state is much occupied with education, the mass production of people who will support the nation-state with their taxes, labor, lives, etc.

Thank you, Sawfish and Knygatin. I feel like a lightbulb has gone on for me.

As usual, my sensei C. S. Lewis has spoken to this topic. I will try to track down the reference, but anyway his desire was for a loose European federation, as I recall, of small states, e.g. Picardy, with their own roots -- NOT the gross nation-states we have.

[FOUND IT: [www.unz.com]

Scroll down to p. 57 for Lewis's paragraph]

It should be evident that poetic consciousness is unlikely to thrive in a sociological, bloated nation-state world with Departments of Education staffed by holders of Ed.D. degrees, and so on, with policy handed down by the Emperor.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 17 Aug 21 | 03:56PM by Dale Nelson.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> *I think part of what Knygatin is focusing on,
> when he writes of conspiracy or the pointlessness
> of elections, is this kind of thing.


No. You remain unwilling to see who rules. Not the presidents, not the state, (it would have been fine with a leader of and for the people.) The international (((Money Masters))) rule. We are slaves under them. And besides tearing down our culture, their system is why the rain-forests are cut down, orangutans and thousands of other species are extinguished, and the seas are now filled with plastic garbage. The capitalist system, with its uninhibited freedom of doing business, is by nature a fluid ecology that requires the constant transcendence of its natural limitations through destruction or integration.

In what way(s) do you feel yourself to be a slave, K?

Serious question.

Even apart from matters of faith, what impresses this retired teacher is how I and perhaps most people so often fail to use the freedoms we have, e.g. freedoms to study and to read certain illuminating books, freedom of travel, freedom of property ownership, of educating our children ourselves, etc.

Given that, what makes anyone think that we would use even more liberty in ways beneficial to ourselves and others?

I will not quarrel with you, K, and I grant that, just as you have probably not read any of the books I have recommended (e.g. The Abolition of Man), I haven't watched the 3+ hour video you recommend. After all, this is an email conversation and no one is obliged to invest more time in it than he chooses. (We have that freedom!)

As for our economic way of life... I would revise Wordsworth to fit our prevalent social values better.

Wordsworth wrote:

The world is too much with us; late and soon,
Getting and spending, we lay waste our powers;—
Little we see in Nature that is ours;
We have given our hearts away, a sordid boon!


This could be rewritten as advertising to fit us:

Getting and spending -- experience the power of MasterCard!
Too much of a sordid boon is great!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 18 Aug 21 | 10:26AM by Dale Nelson.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In what way(s) do you feel yourself to be a slave,
> K?
>

As soon as we buy something from the market, cars, electronics, household utensils, clothes, light-bulbs, semi-finished food products, sweets, artificially fertilized fruit and vegetables (poisoning the agriculture fields with overfertilization and eventually it goes down into the seas), meat (cutting down primeval forests for pasture lands), short-term use plastic tools of all kinds, etc., etc., we are slaves under their Nature-destructive dominance. They dominate the supplies available. As soon as we put our children in school (which is law), we are slaves under their brain-infiltration (and yes, their tentacles reach into the private schools too. No one is allowed slip away from their grasp.). When we see a movie, or turn on the TV, they dominate us and decide what is available for us to see and hear. We are slaves under their News narrative. We are slaves under their forced multicultural society and mass immigration to our nations. When we get old and sick, we are slaves under their big corporation chemical drugs and antibiotics, that furthermore goes down the sewers and out into the seas, destroying wildlife. There is your capitalism "free market" consumers slave system.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dale Nelson Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > In what way(s) do you feel yourself to be a
> slave,
> > K?
> >
>
> [1]As soon as we buy something from the market, cars,
> electronics, household utensils, clothes,
> light-bulbs, semi-finished food products, sweets,
> artificially fertilized fruit and vegetables
> (poisoning the agriculture fields with
> overfertilization and eventually it goes down into
> the seas), meat (cutting down primeval forests for
> pasture lands), short-term use plastic tools of
> all kinds, etc., etc., we are slaves under their
> Nature-destructive dominance. They dominate the
> supplies available. [2] As soon as we put our children
> in school (which is law), we are slaves under
> their brain-infiltration (and yes, their tentacles
> reach into the private schools too. No one is
> allowed slip away from their grasp.). [3] When we see
> a movie, or turn on the TV, they dominate us and
> decide what is available for us to see and hear.
> We are slaves under their News narrative. We are
> slaves under their forced multicultural society
> and mass immigration to our nations. [4]When we get
> old and sick, we are slaves under their big
> corporation chemical drugs and antibiotics, that
> furthermore goes down the sewers and out into the
> seas, destroying wildlife. There is your
> capitalism "free market" consumers slave system.

K, I don't know where you live. I'm largely ignorant of things outside the United States, which I take to be relatively free though less free than it was 15 years ago. Yet, even so:

[1] Much of the spending you describe is not absolutely necessary. I don't have to buy some of those things at all, and some of the others I can buy from local producers through farmers' markets, enterprises that bring locally-sourced vegetables and meat to your door, etc.

K, I agree that we do not have absolute economic freedom. But is it irresponsible to extend our relative freedom?

Someone said, "A man is rich in proportion to the things he can do without." Have you read anything by people who tried to simplify their lives? Can you get hold of Brend's Better Off: Flipping the Switch on Technology, or Bede Griffiths' The Golden String, with its chapter "An Experiment in Common Life," or Murray's Copsford?

[wormwoodiana.blogspot.com]

[2]In the United States, homeschooling is legal -- all 50 of them.

[hslda.org]

I expect the creeps of the Biden administration, their allies in the teaching "profession," etc. will move against homeschooling, but they will have a fight on their hands if they do. Homeschooling is growing. Like one kid in ten!

[www.educationviews.org]


[3]Don't watch that crap! Don't subscribe to streaming services. Take back your life from that slop. Are you afraid you wouldn't know what to do with your time without TV and movies?

[4]Do you live someplace where authorities can force you to take drugs you don't want to take?



I do agree with your concerns about chemicals in the soil and water, etc. But there are people trying to do things better.

[berrycenter.org]

[www.frontporchrepublic.com]

Would it be a good idea to make a list? --

1.List the genuine freedoms -- even if they are relative, not absolute -- that you have where you are. Take the time to do this in a serious manner.
2.List freedoms you definitely do not have where you are but might be able to enjoy elsewhere, e.g. if you moved from the city to the countryside, or even from your present country to another.
3.List freedoms that people in your place are exercising and perhaps extending, along the lines I have mentioned above.
4.Ask yourself if the thoughts and emotions you entertain in a typical day are the most productive of which you are capable right now. Do you have mental habits that make you feel less free than you are?

Let's talk some more.

And even if you decide to isolate from the rest, and live like Amish, you will still not be completely able to escape (((their))) grasp, influence, and pollution of the environment.

The president is merely a puppet. You don't need to watch that documentary to understand these things. Try to get a grip on (((who))) finances the presidential campaigns, try to find out what (((private bankers))) control the Federal Reserve Bank, ... then you should be able to put two and two together. It really is very simple.

Knygatin, I have this life to live, and I never expected to possess absolute freedom in it.

So the president's a puppet. Doesn't mean I am or you have to be one.

I'd just refer you to my previous message. You disagree, fine, but see if you can find something you can use too.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 18 Aug 21 | 12:17PM by Dale Nelson.

I have not said where I live, because I am deeply ashamed of it. 35 years ago I was not ashamed, it was a good country, with a fine international reputation. But today it has become the most liberal and self-destructive nation on Earth, completely in the hands of global finance. I live in Sweden. We are hijacked. But so is the rest of West Europe and USA, even if not to the same extreme dramatic immediate degree.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 18 Aug 21 | 12:36PM by Knygatin.

K, that explains a lot. My sympathies, brother -- I'm going to call you "brother" this time because I sympathize with you and because all my ancestors were from Sweden, every single one of them.

Yet even with things as dire as they are there -- I read with horror about Malmö -- here you are, a man who thinks his own thoughts at least to the degree that he can reject so much that he does reject, and possesses not just literacy, with all that that implies, but remarkable fluency in English.

So even as things are there, I hope you can be grateful for good things "they" have not kept from you.

Strength and courage!

Thank you very much Dale for your support.

Knygatin, you do live in a nation that takes a tyrannical line regarding homeschooling.

[hslda.org].

[www.rohus.org]

Oh, I am so sorry.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 18 Aug 21 | 01:21PM by Dale Nelson.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dale Nelson Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > In what way(s) do you feel yourself to be a
> slave,
> > K?
> >
>
> As soon as we buy something from the market, cars,
> electronics, household utensils, clothes,
> light-bulbs, semi-finished food products, sweets,
> artificially fertilized fruit and vegetables
> (poisoning the agriculture fields with
> overfertilization and eventually it goes down into
> the seas), meat (cutting down primeval forests for
> pasture lands), short-term use plastic tools of
> all kinds, etc., etc., we are slaves under their
> Nature-destructive dominance. They dominate the
> supplies available. As soon as we put our children
> in school (which is law), we are slaves under
> their brain-infiltration (and yes, their tentacles
> reach into the private schools too. No one is
> allowed slip away from their grasp.). When we see
> a movie, or turn on the TV, they dominate us and
> decide what is available for us to see and hear.
> We are slaves under their News narrative. We are
> slaves under their forced multicultural society
> and mass immigration to our nations. When we get
> old and sick, we are slaves under their big
> corporation chemical drugs and antibiotics, that
> furthermore goes down the sewers and out into the
> seas, destroying wildlife. There is your
> capitalism "free market" consumers slave system.

[NOTE: I must use semi-colon in lieu of comma until my replacement comma key comes in the mail. My apologies!]

Respectfully; K; I feel that we have agency; and if we're willing to take more effort--in some cases A LOT more effort--it's possible to dodge much of what you describe.

And here's the kicker; as I see it: if you take this trouble and you succeed with it and are largely satisfied; no one comes and rounds you up; as they would if you were a slave.

I know about schooling--forked out a lot of money for private prep and college; and as you say; it has gotten t o be high-priced indoctrination. But it's also possible to either a) homeschool your kids; then send them to a college/university that states its doctrine that you'd find acceptable; or b) send them to selected religions schools.

My point being that no one stops you--and I take it that your point is that you should not have to do this; and I agree: you should not.

So it's needlessly hard; but possible; to do the "right" thing.

But there it is.

Nor do I insist I'm necessarily correct on this; I could be wrong; just lucky.

There is lots of room for respectful disagreement here at ED; in my opinion. That's one of the things that make it different.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 18 Aug 21 | 01:04PM by Sawfish.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
SNIPPED...

>
> Strength and courage!


Ditto that; K! You're doing an admirable job of thinking for yourself--which is the single most important attribute any self-respecting person can aspire to.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A. MacIntyre, After Virtue:

----It is always dangerous to draw too precise parallels between one historical period and another; and among the most misleading of such parallels are those which have been drawn between our own age in Europe and North America and the epoch in which the Roman empire declined into the Dark Ages. Nonetheless certain parallels there are. A crucial turning point in that earlier history occurred when men and women of good will turned aside from the task of shoring up the Roman imperium and ceased to identify the continuation of civility and moral community with the maintenance of that imperium. What they set themselves to achieve instead–often not recognizing fully what they were doing–was the construction of new forms of community within which the moral life could be sustained so that both morality and civility might survive the coming ages of barbarism and darkness. If my account of our moral condition [is correct], we ought also to conclude that for some time now we too have reached that turning point. What matters at this stage is the construction of local forms of community within which civility and the intellectual and moral life can be sustained through the new dark ages which are already upon us. And if the tradition of the virtues was able to survive the horrors of the last dark ages, we are not entirely without grounds for hope. This time, however, the barbarians are not waiting beyond the frontiers; they have already been governing us for quite some time. And it is our lack of consciousness of this that constitutes part of our predicament. We are waiting not for a Godot, but for another–doubtless very different–St. Benedict [monastic community founder].----

With how much of this, K, Sawfish, and others, can you agree?

And -- seriously -- I do mean this -- in what ways might our favored authors help, if at all?

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A. MacIntyre, After Virtue:
>
> ----It is always dangerous to draw too precise
> parallels between one historical period and
> another; and among the most misleading of such
> parallels are those which have been drawn between
> our own age in Europe and North America and the
> epoch in which the Roman empire declined into the
> Dark Ages. Nonetheless certain parallels there
> are. A crucial turning point in that earlier
> history occurred when men and women of good will
> turned aside from the task of shoring up the Roman
> imperium and ceased to identify the continuation
> of civility and moral community with the
> maintenance of that imperium. What they set
> themselves to achieve instead–often not
> recognizing fully what they were doing–was the
> construction of new forms of community within
> which the moral life could be sustained so that
> both morality and civility might survive the
> coming ages of barbarism and darkness. If my
> account of our moral condition , we ought also to
> conclude that for some time now we too have
> reached that turning point. What matters at this
> stage is the construction of local forms of
> community within which civility and the
> intellectual and moral life can be sustained
> through the new dark ages which are already upon
> us. And if the tradition of the virtues was able
> to survive the horrors of the last dark ages, we
> are not entirely without grounds for hope. This
> time, however, the barbarians are not waiting
> beyond the frontiers; they have already been
> governing us for quite some time. And it is our
> lack of consciousness of this that constitutes
> part of our predicament. We are waiting not for a
> Godot, but for another–doubtless very
> different–St. Benedict .----
>
> With how much of this, K, Sawfish, and others, can
> you agree?

OUCH!

Lots.

I think it's true that one should resist the easy temptation to point to the dissolution of Rome (kingdom to republic to empire until dissolution) and some of the parallels between the late republic and late 20th/early 21st C United States; but some of the contemporary descriptions of the shift from community focus to individual focus seem unmistakenly recognizable.

I'm reading Sallust's Catiline War ~63 BC. He details how formerly Roman citizens had rigorously pursued high standards of behavior and achievement; but that gradually; accompanied by repeated flirtations with semi-permanent dictatorships (formerly limited by law to a) special circumstances and b) one year in duration); the highest levels of landed families; mimicked by the common people; became increasingly self-indulgent to the point that they were apathetic.

The causal arrow is not entirely clear; but it seemed that as Rome became increasingly wealthy; less and less was required of the emerging generations; the lack of rigor and responsibility encouraged self-indulgence out of boredom; essentially; and this created a moral vacuum into which unprincipaled leaders arose. Lucius Catiline was one such.

It's easy to detect this in many of the contemporary recorders of the era: Livy; etc. I think from their POV they don't actually see cause and effect as clearly as I believe we can see it now.

>
> And -- seriously -- I do mean this -- in what ways
> might our favored authors help, if at all?

I can't say--I'm too far gone... :^(

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 18 Aug 21 | 11:10PM by Sawfish.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> K, that explains a lot. My sympathies, brother --
> I'm going to call you "brother" this time because
> I sympathize with you and because all my ancestors
> were from Sweden, every single one of them.
>
>

Brother and friend,

Dale, from the origins of the Orthodox Church I would have guessed you came from Eastern Europe, or South-Eastern Europe, ... from your name, Old England. But, on the other hand, some of the best fighting blood and spirit of Sweden emigrated to USA. And they did not come to a land of welfare tickets for free life-time support, they had to struggle and build something.

I see USA as the frontier of the survival of the fittest. That is why this country has produced some of the greatest creative and inventive individuals, in science, art, and literature. While Europe has cultivated and refined its old ghosts. Both are (or were) essential parts of Western civilization.

Knygatin, I like various books written from within Orthodox tradition, but I'm not a communicant member of any of the Orthodox churches. Certain Orthodox practices and secondary doctrines are problematic, so far as I'm concerned.

I'm an adult convert to conservative Lutheranism. I'm a member of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. You can find out more about the LCMS here:

[www.lcms.org]

Unlike many denominations, the LCMS has no women pastors. We hold to traditional Christian beliefs about sexuality.

I looked around, wondering where I would go to church if I lived in Sweden. I don't read Swedish, so I can't read this document:

[missionsprovinsen.se]

I believe that is the church body I would seek out if I lived in Sweden. It seems to be close to the LCMS.

The "Lutheran" church with which you may be familiar, the big one in Sweden, is unacceptable. Its lesbian bishop and so on are indications of deep corruption. I would enjoy looking over some of their old buildings. I do have a high regard for Bo Giertz (died 1998), who was a bishop in this church in a time when it was not so bad as it's become. He retired in 1970.

I know almost nothing about Swedish-American literature. I thought the Norwegian novelist Rølvaag's Giants in the Earth was a good story about the region in which I live.

[en.wikipedia.org])



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 21 Aug 21 | 08:59AM by Dale Nelson.

In school I was classmate with the daughter of the Swedish Lutheran bishop over the region I live in. He was High Church Lutheran and firmly opposed the ordination of women.

Today the Lutheran national church of Sweden has a woman (if one can call her that, because she has none of the warmth of the female principle) archbishop, and the church is more or less united with the Social Democratic party, actively preaching their political manifests. The bishop of Uppsala county is a female gay activist. The rainbow pride flag has become an obligatory decoration of the state church (and inside all of the state universities); there was even a touring art-exhibition visiting the churches in each city with paintings representing Jesus as homosexual with erect penis. And they now hand out multi-gender guides for "Christian queer kids".
As if that wasn't enough, Sweden's commander in chief over the military, walks and dances with drag queens in the pride processions, promotes the pride flag as the most important flag worth defending, and fills the army with women and transsexuals.

It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World.

Back to sane reality. Vilhelm Moberg was a Swedish author who wrote a series of famous novels about the emigrants who settled in USA. Late in life he said that Sweden is not a democracy, but a democratorship (dictatorship pretending to be a democracy).

A favorite Swedish poet/bard I have started reading lately, is Carl Michael Bellman (1740-1795). He composed songs (mostly bacchanalian drinking songs, mixed with beautiful pastorals and religious poetry) that lively captures the culture and spirit the 18th century, with its stark contrast between ecstatic revelry and mundane misery. He performed these with lute, for the royalties and others. He was a good friend of the Swedish king Gustav III, the last true Swedish king we had before the Freemasons took control over this country.

Sawfish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dale Nelson Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> SNIPPED...
>
> >
> > Strength and courage!
>
>
> Ditto that; K! You're doing an admirable job of
> thinking for yourself--which is the single most
> important attribute any self-respecting person can
> aspire to.

I admire your own passion for this too.

Only dead fish swim downstream.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> The "Lutheran" church with which you may be
> familiar, the big one in Sweden, is unacceptable.
> Its lesbian bishop and so on are indications of
> deep corruption. I would enjoy looking over some
> of their old buildings. I do have a high regard
> for Bo Giertz (died 1998), who was a bishop in
> this church in a time when it was not so bad as
> it's become. He retired in 1970.

Yes, Giertz was predecessor to bishop Bertil Gärtner, whom I have been more familiar with.

> I know almost nothing about Swedish-American
> literature. ...

There is Ray Bradbury!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 22 Aug 21 | 12:53AM by Knygatin.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> A favorite Swedish poet/bard I have started
> reading lately, is Carl Michael Bellman
> (1740-1795). He composed songs (mostly
> bacchanalian drinking songs, mixed with beautiful
> pastorals and religious poetry) that lively
> captures the culture and spirit the 18th century,
> with its stark contrast between ecstatic revelry
> and mundane misery. He performed these with lute,
> for the royalties and others. He was a good friend
> of the Swedish king Gustav III, the last true
> Swedish king we had before the Freemasons took
> control over this country.


ROTFLMAO
You are aware, are you not, that Bellman as well as your dear favourite Gustav III were Freemasons themselves?

Martinus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Knygatin Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > A favorite Swedish poet/bard I have started
> > reading lately, is Carl Michael Bellman
> > (1740-1795). He composed songs (mostly
> > bacchanalian drinking songs, mixed with beautiful
> > pastorals and religious poetry) that lively
> > captures the culture and spirit the 18th century,
> > with its stark contrast between ecstatic revelry
> > and mundane misery. He performed these with lute,
> > for the royalties and others. He was a good friend
> > of the Swedish king Gustav III, the last true
> > Swedish king we had before the Freemasons took
> > control over this country.
>
>
> ROTFLMAO
> You are aware, are you not, that Bellman as well
> as your dear favourite Gustav III were Freemasons
> themselves?

"Rolling On The Floor Laughing My Ass Off", eh? Laughing at me, are you?! That is offensive, and it makes me sad to receive such a refutation, over tangled historical details over 200 years old. Instead of arguing your cause in a cultivated manner. You really seem to have some political attitude invested in all of this. I would guess leftwing liberal. Am I right? Because it is often their habit to laugh off political dissidents. Let's discuss in a civilized effort, shall we?

I never said Gustav III was a "dear favorite". I don't know him that well. Not the best of kings, but he was at least a patron of the Arts (very much in trend with the current time). And he was of Swedish royal heritage. He was murdered by Ankarström, who was likely not a Freemason, but used by them, serving as a tool. This was followed by a few uneasy years with Gustav III's failing son, and then Gustav III's weak-willed brother, as kings. During the last few years Jean Bernadotte was the actual ruler behind the scenes, conspired to that position by the Freemasons, until he finally became king; he was handpicked in France by the Freemasons, to serve their interests. Jean Bernadotte was earlier involved with Napoleon in the French Revolution war (which was financed by Rothschild). In Sweden his name was changed to Karl XIV Johan, so that the Swedish people would accept him. With his coronation the influence of the monarchy in Sweden was permanently lessened. Ever since then the Freemasons have had dominating control over the parliament of Sweden, to protect their own interests. And the parliament and the media (that they also own), and hence the news narrative, are in league. We can see the same thing in other European countries. England is a clear example.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> ... Gustav III ... was at least a patron of the Arts (very
> much in trend with the current time).

Unsure if "current" is correct use of English here. I meant that particular time which was current to him, the Rococo culture of the 1700s.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Knygatin Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > ... Gustav III ... was at least a patron of the
> Arts (very
> > much in trend with the current time).
>
> Unsure if "current" is correct use of English
> here. I meant that particular time which was
> current to him, the Rococo culture of the 1700s.

Contemporaneous.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sawfish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Contemporaneous.


Thank you.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > Contemporaneous.
>
>
> Thank you.


Not needed. :^)

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sawfish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Knygatin Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Sawfish Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > >
> > > Contemporaneous.
> >
> >
> > Thank you.
>
>
> Not needed. :^)


Oh now, on the contrary. Absolutely. ;)

Knygatin Wrote:



> Yes, Giertz was predecessor to bishop Bertil
> Gärtner, whom I have been more familiar with.



> There is Ray Bradbury!


Giertz's novel Stengrunden, known in my circle as The Hammer of God, is a conservative Lutheran favorite -- I like it very much myself.

As for Ray Bradbury -- I never thought of him as a Swedish-American author. I'd be delighted to claim him as such!

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Knygatin Wrote:
>
> > Yes, Giertz was predecessor to bishop Bertil
> > Gärtner, whom I have been more familiar with.
>
> > There is Ray Bradbury!
>
> Giertz's novel Stengrunden, known in my circle as
> The Hammer of God, is a conservative Lutheran
> favorite -- I like it very much myself.

Giertz wrote several books, and was a very respected priest in Sweden. Before the downfall of society. I have not read the book Stengrunden, his most famous probably; I am not an active Christian, so I don't have that particular interest.

My mother converted to the Catholic church, because she thought the Lutheran national church was sloppy. That was in the 1970s. But she got into an argument with the priests about a certain priest who wanted to marry a woman but was not allowed to. After that she stopped going there. He eventually resigned from his post, and became a professor of theology in the city of Lund; and married.
I went to Catholic kindergarten, and have retained an aesthetic preference for the Catholic church. But lately I have become convinced that it is wrong to deny Catholic priests to marry, it goes against Nature. Concerning Catholic nuns, they seem somewhat better off in accepting their position with satisfaction. They are often cheery and enthusiastic. I have fond memories. I was something of a favorite with the leading nun at kindergarten, and received a very nice little crucifix from her when I left.

Luckily we have a High Lutheran church nearby, who opposes much of the Lutheran national church. The building itself is not so beautiful as the old churches, but you can't have everything in these times, I guess.

> As for Ray Bradbury -- I never thought of him as a
> Swedish-American author. I'd be delighted to
> claim him as such!

A far stretch perhaps. But his mother immigrated from Sweden.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 22 Aug 21 | 04:16PM by Knygatin.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dale Nelson Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Knygatin Wrote:
> >
> > > Yes, Giertz was predecessor to bishop Bertil
> > > Gärtner, whom I have been more familiar
> with.
> >
> > > There is Ray Bradbury!
> >
> > Giertz's novel Stengrunden, known in my circle
> as
> > The Hammer of God, is a conservative Lutheran
> > favorite -- I like it very much myself.
>
> Giertz wrote several books, and was a very
> respected priest in Sweden. Before the downfall of
> society. I have not read the book Stengrunden, his
> most famous probably; I am not an active
> Christian, so I don't have that particular
> interest.
>
> My mother converted to the Catholic church,
> because she thought the Lutheran national church
> was sloppy. That was in the 1970s. But she got
> into an argument with the priests about a certain
> priest who wanted to marry a woman but was not
> allowed to. After that she stopped going there. He
> eventually resigned from his post, and became a
> professor of theology in the city of Lund; and
> married.
> I went to Catholic kindergarten, and have retained
> an aesthetic preference for the Catholic church.
> But lately I have become convinced that it is
> wrong to deny Catholic priests to marry, it goes
> against Nature. Concerning Catholic nuns, they
> seem somewhat better off in accepting their
> position with satisfaction. They are often cheery
> and enthusiastic. I have fond memories. I was
> something of a favorite with the leading nun at
> kindergarten, and received a very nice little
> crucifix from her when I left.
>
> Luckily we have a High Lutheran church nearby, who
> opposes much of the Lutheran national church. The
> building itself is not so beautiful as the old
> churches, but you can't have everything in these
> times, I guess.
>
> > As for Ray Bradbury -- I never thought of him as
> a
> > Swedish-American author. I'd be delighted to
> > claim him as such!
>
> A far stretch perhaps. But his mother immigrated
> from Sweden.

Did either of you think that you'd be marginalized within the traditional doctrines of your church; as it "evolved" from beneath you?

This is largely how I feel philosophically--what mystifies me. I essentially moved nowhere for the last 30 or so years philosophically; and now I'm way out there; on an island. This is essentially an 80s centrism.

I'm not sure I've ever found a historical account of any preceding era where something like this has happened in so short a time. It is like a multi-generational evolution within the space of about 10-15 years.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sawfish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Did either of you think that you'd be marginalized
> within the traditional doctrines of your church;
> as it "evolved" from beneath you?
>

Do you mean if we were afraid we would be expelled from the church? No, we have kept a low profile. I have never been an active churchgoer. (I drop in alone from time to time, to feel the symbolic space of the high ceiling, the peaceful atmosphere, the focused spiritual dedication of the shrine. And I enjoy visiting very old churches, for cultural and historic reasons.) My mother, after she left the Catholic church, has not been active either. She seems to have struggled much more than I with her belief in God. I have been more at peace with my belief in Divine order, and the Cosmic "wheel", with every single event falling in place naturally. I never felt I needed a church to support my faith, or to feel secure, or to explain things. The outdoors, Nature, is my church.


> This is largely how I feel philosophically--what
> mystifies me. I essentially moved nowhere for the
> last 30 or so years philosophically; and now I'm
> way out there; on an island. This is essentially
> an 80s centrism.
>
> I'm not sure I've ever found a historical account
> of any preceding era where something like this has
> happened in so short a time. It is like a
> multi-generational evolution within the space of
> about 10-15 years.

Not quite sure I follow your experience here. Are you relating it to the changes in society?

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > Did either of you think that you'd be
> marginalized
> > within the traditional doctrines of your
> church;
> > as it "evolved" from beneath you?
> >
>
> Do you mean if we were afraid we would be expelled
> from the church? No, we have kept a low profile. I
> have never been an active churchgoer. (I drop in
> alone from time to time, to feel the symbolic
> space of the high ceiling, the peaceful
> atmosphere, the focused spiritual dedication of
> the shrine. And I enjoy visiting very old
> churches, for cultural and historic reasons.) My
> mother, after she left the Catholic church, has
> not been active either. She seems to have
> struggled much more than I with her belief in God.
> I have been more at peace with my belief in Divine
> order, and the Cosmic "wheel", with every single
> event falling in place naturally. I never felt I
> needed a church to support my faith, or to feel
> secure, or to explain things. The outdoors,
> Nature, is my church.
>
>
> > This is largely how I feel
> philosophically--what
> > mystifies me. I essentially moved nowhere for
> the
> > last 30 or so years philosophically; and now
> I'm
> > way out there; on an island. This is
> essentially
> > an 80s centrism.
> >
> > I'm not sure I've ever found a historical
> account
> > of any preceding era where something like this
> has
> > happened in so short a time. It is like a
> > multi-generational evolution within the space
> of
> > about 10-15 years.
>
> Not quite sure I follow your experience here. Are
> you relating it to the changes in society?

Starting in 2012; gay marriage; legalization and commercialization of cannabis; introduction of the concept of self-identifcation as having priority over traditionally accepted definitions of gender/race/reality; bands of seemingly post-apocalyptic survivors labeled "homeless" who are in reality simply a segment of society unwilling to live by established norms (laws/customs) sympathized with by social leadership; decriminalization of hard drugs like heroin/meth; spontaneous unlawful removal by mobs of statues with no legal sanctions or criticism; official tolerance for property crimes.

etc.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sawfish asked Knygatin and me: "Did either of you think that you'd be marginalized within the traditional doctrines of your church, as it "evolved" from beneath you?"

Circumstances differ as between the United States and Sweden, the latter having or having had a "state church" while the U. S. never did -- as I don't suppose I need to tell you, Sawfish.

I grew up with devout Evangelicals as parents, and one of the features of that subculture is that it has little or no trouble with people moving around among various denominations.

(Roman Catholic polemicists sometimes try to score a debating point about the Reformation, when they say that, once people turned from the papacy as the final arbiter of truth, Protestants went off in countless directions so that there are 22,000 different Protestant churches -- or whatever the number is that they cite. This is misleading because there's very little doctrinal difference between many of these administratively distinct bodies. If, for example, someone starts as a Free Methodist, moves to a new town and joins the Wesleyan church there, moves again and joins the Church of the Nazarene there, moves yet again and joins the Evangelical Free church there -- it'll be totally OK with everyone. No such person will have to renounce any doctrinal errors presumed to pervade the previous denomination, but will be received by a very simple profession of faith and a testimony of some kind of conversion experience. But for present purposes I'd say there are just a few truly distinct varieties of non-Roman Catholic, non-Eastern Orthodox Christianity known to me in the U. S. There are the mainline denominations such as the Methodists, ELCA Lutherans, the Congregationalists, etc. -- most or all of which are in fellowship with one another. This variety is where, I suppose, most of the U. S. presidents have come from, by the way. Then there are the doctrinally conservative bodies. There are the conservative Lutherans, with their catholic understanding of the sacraments. There are the Pentecostals. There are the more Calvinistic and the more Arminian evangelicals. And these would account for most of the non-RC, non-Orthodox U. S. Christians.)

From my own reading I became convinced that these churches in which I grew up were right about some things and in error about others, and after a period of exploration became an adult convert to the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. It hasn't changed its doctrine and polity* in the better part of 200 years, I believe, i.e. someone from an early LCMS root-church who time-traveled to our time and visited one of our churches would not be nonplused by what he heard from the pulpit. Conversely, someone coming from an Episcopal church of 1840 to the typical Episcopal church today would be astonished and horrified by what the woman in liturgical vestments was saying from the pulpit. An obvious impostor! A great many Episcopalians of conservative convictions have left that denomination, which has suffered a hemorrhage of membership since the 1960s or so. These people who leave ECUSA become Roman Catholics, Orthodox, conservative Lutherans, etc. or join refugee Episcopal bodies such as ACNA, the Anglican Church in, or of, North America, the Reformed Episcopal Church, etc.

There's quite a menu of church bodies in the United States from which someone can choose. That isn't the case, as far as I know, in Sweden.

*That Lutheran visitor from the past would encounter one surprise in today's LCMS, namely that adult women members of the congregation as well as men may vote on church business, e.g. whether to buy a new water heater or get the old one fixed again, etc. Churches may send women delegates to synodical conventions to represent the local congregation. There there may be votes on various matters that are generally not, I would say, of doctrinal emphasis. The LCMS is pledged to the Bible and to the Book of Concord, which is a collection of early Lutheran confessions of faith, and this core isn't up for debate. But seeing women having this degree of participation would be surprising to our visitor, as for that matter would be so many women wearing dresses that expose the knees, or -- pants!!

Knygatin Wrote:

> Back to sane reality. Vilhelm Moberg was a Swedish
> author who wrote a series of famous novels about
> the emigrants who settled in USA. Late in life he
> said that Sweden is not a democracy, but a
> democratorship (dictatorship pretending to be a
> democracy).

Guess what? I checked my shelves this morning and found I have a copy of Moberg's Unto a Good Land! I knew I had had one once and even used to use a passage from it as a model for descriptive writing when I taught freshman composition, but I wasn't sure the book was still around. I've never read it. I see there's an earlier book, The Emigrants, that I perhaps should read first.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Guess what? I checked my shelves this morning and
> found I have a copy of Moberg's Unto a Good Land!
> I knew I had had one once and even used to use a
> passage from it as a model for descriptive writing
> when I taught freshman composition, but I wasn't
> sure the book was still around. I've never read
> it. I see there's an earlier book, The Emigrants,
> that I perhaps should read first.

The Emigrants comes first in The Emigrants (novels series).
Also, Jan Troell made a very very fine series of films based on these books, starring Max von Sydow and Liv Ullman among others.

> The Emigrants comes first in The Emigrants (novels
> series).
> Also, Jan Troell made a very very fine series of
> films based on these books, starring Max von Sydow
> and Liv Ullman among others.


Thanks, Knygatin. I'll likely look into both book and films.

Sawfish Wrote:

> When was it any different?

Until recently even most leftwing people understood that there are two sexes, period (aside from rare conditions -- hermaphroditism). There's no difference between your sex and your gender.

The radical severing of "gender" from sex has laid upon our culture a pseudo-scientific bogus thing that is widely understood as explaining phenomena.

Right. Like aether and phlogiston.