Yes Kings!

 

Someone once said that the American political system is most curious. We elect a king every four years, and after four years in office that king has to run for re-election. And if he loses, he has to depart without protest and turn his throne over to someone else.

Curious indeed. But think about it – back in 1776, was there a country anywhere on earth that wasn't ruled by a king, emperor, or tyrant of some sort? (I can't think of a single example, but I'll have to check on Switzerland.) So this idea of a monarchy was pretty much universal and pretty much accepted. Even if a monarch was deposed, or even killed, he was soon replaced by another monarch (England being a very temporary exception). So this notion of an ordinary citizen being elected – by the citizenry, no less! -- to the highest office in the land was strange, exotic, and unfamiliar. Of course it was an ideal, held by the humanists and Enlightenment figures who crafted the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, but it was nonetheless rare for all that. It was, if you will, aspirational – we hope it works, it ought to work, but there are no guarantees (as they freely admitted at the time – let's give them credit for that much). But in a sense they were going against something deeper and more ancient than philosophy. One might say that, despite all the idealism various philosophers can come up with, the “ghost in the machine” is human nature, which is much older than ideas.

A famous line of poetry from Robert Frost is: “Something there is that doesn't love a wall.” We might almost say, “something there is that doesn't love kings”. But on a deeper level, don't we still have reservations about the alternative to kings – that thing we call “democracy”? It's still, in some ways, new, scary, strange, and unsettling. Imagine people – ordinary people – being entitled to choose their ruler? “Ain't fittin'” to quote Mammy in “Gone With the Wind”. And why is this? Human nature being what it is, we naturally tend toward hierarchies, pecking orders, the ruler and the ruled; there is a certain security in knowing that someone's in charge, and that they were put there by... what? Divine right? Some unearthly power? Or simply because they were the biggest SOB in the valley, as the saying goes. In any case, it's the way we think that things were meant to be, and the way they ought to be. And I'm not talking about superficial politics, movements, or propaganda, but the way we are – the way our brains operate. (Anthropologists are fond of studying hierarchies in “primitive” tribes or “native” populations. How often do they find anything that can even remotely be described as a democracy – a council of tribal elders maybe, but the entire tribe having a voice? I would say that's as rare as... well... as democracy as an ideal (vs. the way it is currently defined by its advocates, which means having the “right” people in charge, and everyone else can... well, you know).)

One might say that democracy is an idea, a concept – an abstraction – apparently unattainable, ephemeral, and ambiguous in meaning, and this is why is means such radically different things to different people and groups. People project their own impulses, loves, hates, hopes, and dreams onto this entity called “democracy” in that hope that it will solve all of their problems. Kings (rulers), on the other hand, are solid and tangible. One says “king” with a fairly good idea (based on history if nothing else) of what kings do; the word has a clear meaning. But in these times it's unfashionable to come right out and say that one is in favor of kings, or rulers, or tyrants. So we have instead the spectacle of opposing sides both clamoring to “save democracy”, which really means to get, and keep, the government out of the hands of those other people (even if means corrupting the election process).

And when it comes to protestors of the BLM sort, or Antifa, or No Kings... I have observed elsewhere that an anarchist is only a totalitarian in disguise. And this has held true going back at least as far as the French, Russian, and Chinese revolutions. Our present-day home-grown revolutionaries want to “smash the state” (especially the Trump version), but they have plans – all sorts of plans – for what's supposed to replace it, and it won't have much to do with human rights, I guarantee. (What it will have everything to do with is them being in power.) One only has to see what happens when a far-left candidate wins an election for mayor or governor. The long knives come out in a New York minute (so to speak). But that's OK, since it's all about democracy, don'tcha know. If you wrap yourself in a flag labeled “democracy” you can pretty much get away with anything as long as the right people are willing to cooperate. (Among many ironies, that which is supposed to be majority rule turns out, more often than not, to be minority rule. Some even refer, on a regular basis, to our “ruling elite”, as opposed to elected officials who are assumed – and rightly so in most cases – to be mere tools of the unelected (and often anonymous) ruling elite. And then you have “shadow government” at all levels – think of intelligence agencies – who wield far more actual power than anyone who's out in the open.)

And even if democracy is an unknown ideal, there is a great variety of systems that are called democracies, mostly in order to disguise their real purpose, which is to tyrannize a populace while claiming their popular approval. Think of the fate of so-called democracies over the centuries. Many communist dictatorships were/are called “people's republics” or the “democratic people's republic of...” whatever. France killed its king in the name of liberty, equality, and fraternity, and wound up with an emperor. The “banana republics” alternate on a regular basis between “democracy” and military dictatorship. And on the home front, there is an ongoing debate as to whether we are a democracy or a republic, the problem being that representatives are elected by popular vote, which is actually a hybrid system. The citizenry do not get to vote, in a direct sense, on anything of consequence – only for other citizens who will, hopefully, represent their interests, but who wind up being all too human, i.e. corruptible, at times. (And the bigger government becomes, the greater are the incentives for compromise, deception, and outright corruption. Think about – oh, let's say a defense contractor that can bag a multi-billion dollar contract simply by donating a measly $100,000 to some politician's campaign fund. Talk about ROI!)

Now let's think for a moment about our own home-grown kings, or men who would be king. George Washington was actually offered a kingship, but turned it down. So far so good. But his election and inauguration were marked by celebrations, parades, fireworks, rituals, commemorative songs and artwork, and so on, all of which kind of makes one think of the sorts of things kings enjoy. (He was also given a palace – OK, a mansion – to live in.) So no, the taste for kings – for rulers – had not abated a bit simply because of the Revolutionary War and our victory over England. There was nothing wrong, it seems, with trading a king across the ocean for one right here at home.

Then we have the equally curious phenomenon of “presidential powers”. The president is supposed to execute and enforce laws passed by the legislature, right? (I wasn't sleeping all the way through eighth grade.) And yet, when it comes to war – armed conflict between the US and other countries – the president, as commander in chief, seems to have dictatorial powers.

Ah, but wait! – you might say. Only Congress has the power to declare war. Right? Very true. So... when's the last time Congress actually declared war? The answer is... 1942. So... what were all of these other wars we've fought since then? Well... some were what were euphemistically called “police actions”, some were based on United Nations Security Council Resolutions, some on “Joint Resolutions” or just “Resolutions”. This is the triumph of euphemism. If our troops are dying, and our resources are being squandered, it's a war, no matter what you call it.

But wait! Doesn't Congress have “the power of the purse”? Well... technically yes. But, #1, they can always be intimidated into releasing more funding for pretty much any war the president decides to engage in, especially if a negative vote would put their re-election chances in danger. And if not that, then we have what are called fungible resources. The president can divert funds from pretty much any government program into another, including the military. And besides, our national economy has been on a wartime footing since World War II. There was never a “peace dividend” – that's a myth. We have been prepared for war for over 80 years now. The troops have been in place, the weapons and ammunition were always on hand (and updated on a regular basis), the logistics were ready... all that was required was the green light from the White House. (The last war that took us any amount of time to “gear up” for was World War II. Lesson learned! Always be ready, because a war might start tomorrow.) (This is what the Pentagon calls “readiness”.)

Think about Trump's first term. He became a lame duck on his first day in office, thanks to the opposition (by Congress – including Republicans – and the Deep State), and “lawfare”, impeachments, hostile courts on every level (prior to his Supreme Court appointments), hostility and resistance from our “allies” as well as our “enemies”, and so on. The only thing he had any semblance of flexibility on was the military.

But he learned. During his second term (to date) he has been much more agile and aggressive in dealing with the courts, the Deep State (think DOGE), and Congress – and the “never Trumpers” in the Republican Party don't seem to have the clout they had the first time around. And he has also come to the realization that he can, basically, do anything he wants militarily, and no one can stop him. Wage (not declare) war on Iran? Nothing to it. So we have this completely baffling, and even bizarre, spectacle of a president who is constantly at war with the courts on the home front, but who can take out a very large country overseas single handedly, despite all the breast-beating, hand-wringing, hair-tearing, garment-rending, and protests by the opposition, Congress, the courts, the media, and late-night talk show hosts. He can be thwarted on the domestic front by a pipsqueak mayor or governor, or a judge looking for their 15 minutes of fame, but that's OK, because he can destroy a nation of 90-odd million people. Now tell me this makes sense on any level, and if there's any precedent for it in world history. And yet that is the system we have – or the system that what we started with in 1776 has evolved (devolved might be a better word) into.

And tell me also if there's anyone who really likes it this way, in their heart of hearts. If you say “no kings” then you're basically advocating total democracy, which is the rarest system on earth (assuming it's ever even been tried). If you're saying “no kings except the ones who do things that we like”, then you're advocating for part-time kings, or conditional kings, which are complete contradictions. What that amounts to is nothing more than mob rule.

Another bit of collective narcissism is the notion of being “on the right side of history” (implication: those other people are on the wrong side). Well... it kind of depends on what one defines as “history”. If you look at world history going as far back as any records exist, you have to conclude that, once again, pure democracy either never existed anywhere, or if it did it was little noted nor long remembered (thanks to Mr. Lincoln for that phrase). Iron-fisted rule was, well, the rule. So if one really wants to be on the winning side of history overall, one has to be all in for rulers – kings, in other words. But if one wants to be a “presentist”, or a futurist, or a dreamer of some sort, then current events and trends all have to be seen as pointing in the same direction – toward freedom, liberation, self-fulfillment, etc. – in other words, to Utopia. So to be “on the right side of history” you can simply ignore actual history and become delusional like the rest of the cool kids.

Plus – how will we ever know whether a given person, group, or movement is “on the right side of history” until they become... “history”? And who defines what “the right side” is? Just whoever won? (That's power in raw form. Nietzsche would approve.) And even so, many victories are far from permanent, and historical revisionism is going on all the time, sometimes based on newly-discovered documents but more often on political correctness.

The battlefields of history are littered with the corpses of people, groups, and movements that considered themselves cutting edge – vanguards – pioneers. The national socialists in Germany had delusions of grandeur, for sure – “the master race”, “the thousand-year reich”, etc. Well... it lasted all of 12 years. They thought they were on the right side of history, and many people agreed with them (in the U.S. and England, for example). The Bolsheviks thought they were on the right side of history – the “new Soviet man” and so on. And in that case, there are plenty of people around who think the Bolsheviks really were on the right side of history (you can find plenty of them in university political science departments). I suppose that communism had to somehow “evolve”, and continues to do so; it's certainly alive and well in their heads, and in the heads of large numbers of people filling our city streets with protests and marches.

All of this toying with semantics reminds me of that odd expression “reality-based foreign policy”, as if our foreign policy up to that point was based on something other than reality – which it may, in fact, have been. It would seem that a reality-based sense of history would indicate that we don't have to be pessimistic, but should not be Utopian in our thinking either. What's wrong with taking care of one problem at a time? “Sufficient unto the day are the troubles thereof” (Matthew 6:34)

But again, human nature is such that we want, crave, and seem to need a strong man (or woman) – someone who, when in charge, takes charge – with no apologies, lame excuses, or bogus appeals to “the will of the people”. After all, who are the “great men” of history, the heroes? The peacemakers? The ones who govern by committee? The ones who are obsessed with opinion polls? The ones who have to go begging to some legislature for everything? The ones who let themselves get beaten up by courts and judges?

The answer, obviously, is no. And the amazing thing is that even the greatest tyrants in history are still being celebrated somewhere, by someone – Napoleon, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao... and who are considered our “greatest” presidents? In almost all the cases, they are “war presidents” – Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, Johnson, etc. – who exercised dictatorial powers on the war front, but whose powers also tended to bleed into the society in general (consider censorship as a prime example, not to mention the military draft and other niceties like internment camps).

So, is there a “bottom line” to all of this? It's obvious that most if not all of these No Kings protesters, “rights” advocates, and anarchists are hypocrites, whether they know it or not. The crave a “strong man” as much as anyone else does, only that said strong man has to be in their image and conform to their expectations. (I've said it before – they should study history and see what happened to the Old Bolsheviks, and many of the French revolutionaries, and those who dared to speak up against Mao. Be careful what you wish for. Revolutions may be energized by idealists, but they are eventually taken over by cynics.)

But, even given all of that, is our system chronically, if not fatally, flawed? Will be always be a sort of freak of nature – a republic pretending to be a democracy which wages war at will on anyone, anywhere on the planet (usually to “spread democracy”!)? It seems that these contradictions should long since have been fatal, and yet here we are 250 years after it all started. (The cynic (or realist) might say that democracy is an idea whose time hasn't yet come, and in fact never will.)

It almost seems as if the “American character”, however one defines it, has proven itself to be durable enough to survive these contradictions. At least so far. But it also seems that the tide of opposition is rising, and it's not just about getting rid of Donald Trump, although his presidency – his very presence – seems to be acting as an accelerant. If he were to somehow vanish tomorrow, the opposition would still be there. The rhetoric might have to be adjusted a bit, but the ideas would persist, as would the degree of energy behind them. And, as always happens throughout history, it's not so much a matter of numbers as of belief, energy, determination, and – more often than not – ruthlessness.

They're Back (UFOs, that is)

UFOs are in the news again, and I started thinking about all the aspects of this issue. The result (subject to change without notice):

 The argument usually breaks down as follows:

The "pro" side:

1.  They exist, and they are piloted by extraterrestrials.
1. Why are they here?  Possibilities --   
1. To study us
• "Alien abduction" comes under this heading.
2. To prepare to conquer us
• To study and test our defenses and detection abilities.
3. To protect us from our own warlike ways, e.g. by disrupting our warmaking capabilities.  (The Day the Earth Stood Still -- movie)
2. Where are they from?
• The usual answer is, not from our solar system, which opens it up to pretty much anywhere else.
3. How can they maneuver so well at high speeds, and appear/disappear in an instant?
• They have technology (materials and propulsion systems) far superior to ours.
4. How long have they been here?
1. People will point to UFO and alien-like drawings in caves or on ancient documents, and UFO-like objects in sculptures and carvings.
2. They will also point to myths and legends that seem to describe non-human visitors.
3. They will also point to certain archaeological structures that appear to be designed as landing pads for alien spacecraft, or directional markers for them.
5. Why don't they just show themselves (and say "take me to your leader")?
1. If we're the objects of study, they don't want to disrupt the data collection process (mass hysteria, etc.).  (The basic principle is that any sort or level of measurement alters the thing being measured.  So in a sense all measurements are inaccurate to some extent.  The strategy is to make measurements as unobtrusive as possible, i.e. not detected by what is being measured (in the case of living organisms).  (This has always been the problem with anthropology, e.g.  The presence of the data collector can have a major impact on the result.  (Classic example — "Coming of Age in Samoa" by Margaret Mead))
2. If it's about conquest, they prefer to keep it under wraps for now.
3. If it's about protecting us, they also prefer to keep it under wraps (even though many people would be grateful) and only reveal themselves at the right time (presumably, at the last minute before nuclear war breaks out).
2. They exist, and they are piloted by humans.
• What are they?  And why are they there?
1. Advanced weapons (we don't want other countries to know about).
2. Advanced weapons belonging to hostile (or even "friendly") nations that are being tried out to see how we respond.
3. Advanced spying devices that are difficult or impossible for other countries to detect.
4. A means of attacking/influencing our own citizens (with, e.g., microbes, or radiation, or poisons, or electromagnetic waves of some sort) (think "contrails", and experimental biological agent releases which have been documented).
5. To scare us into accepting/demanding totalitarian government
3. They exist, but are manifestations of demonic activity.
• To what purpose?
1. To distract people from religious thought and action (although it could backfire under some conditions).
2. To scare us into accepting/demanding totalitarian government.
4. They exist, but are manifestations of some sort of psychic projection on the part of individuals or the population in general.  (This could also be linked to demonic influence.)  (Another way of putting this is that they are not physical objects but focused collections of brain waves.) (One possible side effect — perhaps intentional -- being to cause hallucinations in "observers".)  

The "con" side:

1. They don't exist, and are the product of science fiction, mass hysteria, wishful thinking, etc.  (Note the "modern" UFO era only dates from the early 1950s, i.e. the same time as the atomic bomb hysteria.) 
2. But what about the "evidence"?
1. The meager amount of video evidence from military aircraft can be attributed to faults in the equipment or a misreading of the images.  (Note that all the news clips on this topic show the same very brief and blurry footage.  It's about as convincing as the "bigfoot" or "Loch Ness monster" footage.)
2. Same applies to ground radar (from civilian installations)
3. Crashed "UFOs", often with "unknown" types of metal
1. If UFOs are so high-tech, why do they ever crash?
2. "Unknown" metals — unknown to whom?  Why can't it be something we or some other country have developed in secret laboratories?
3. The "unknown" may simply be a way of sidetracking any further inquiry into what it is and who developed it.
4. If the "unknown" metals are the only proof that they are UFOs, it's a pretty think argument.
4. "Alien autopsies" — show me credible evidence, not just stuff made up for a side show or Weekly World News
5. "Alien abductions"
1. Show me actual physical evidence that has no medical or other ordinary explanation.
2. The alien abduction stories always seem to come from marginal people who have psychological issues (or just want to be famous).
3. Sometimes used as an excuse for failures or pathologies or "fugue states", i.e. people temporarily disappearing for no known reason.
4. As far as I know, no one has actually witnessed another person being abducted by aliens.  It's always self-reported.
6. "Eyewitness accounts"
1. Notoriously reliable in general
2. OK, they saw something.  How do they know it was a UFO?  (Imagine what people thought the first time they saw a stealth bomber.)
3. Again, imagination — or maybe just faulty vision.  (You can "see" plenty of things that aren't actually "out there" — I've done it plenty of  times because of retina issues.)
3. It's a hoax perpetrated by the government and the military.
1. To distract people from the much more serious problems in the country, or
2. To justify more total surveillance, or
3. To provide "evidence" of certain people being mentally unbalanced so anything else they say won't be believed (or, to provide a justification for incarceration in a mental facility).  (The "tinfoil hat" crowd, etc.) 
4. But if they don't exist, why the apparent "cover-up"?
• UFO stories, and "sightings", have been around since at least the 1950s, and the Air Force has been highly ambivalent about the whole business.  They used to say it was just "swamp gas", and they dismissed anyone who thought otherwise as a lunatic.
• But under pressure from Congress or whoever, they have occasionally undertaken a half-hearted "investigation", with predictably negative results.
• And this cycle continues even to this day.  They are basically being asked to find something that doesn't exist, or to prove a negative, which is logically impossible.
• Another angle is that the Air Force continues to "lose face" because they can neither find UFOs nor prove they don't exist.  So they have become quite weary of having to deal with the issue.  (They might almost wish they were for real, so they could get on with business and turn the matter over to someone else, like the State Department for example!) (or the United Nations)
• So the bottom line is that what is being covered up is not so much UFOs as the Air Force's inability (or unwillingness) to figure out what they are.  
• But like all real or apparent cover-ups, it backfires in the sense that people feel that if the government is lying to them about this, it's also lying to them about pretty much everything else.
5. They are not impossible in theory, but the chances of any extraterrestrial beings being willing and able to travel across space to Earth are infinitesimal for many reasons:
1. The distances involved (4.25 light years minimum).
2. The technology that would be required (materials and power sources).
3. The highly speculative "loopholes" like warp drive, worm holes, etc. are, again, more like sci-fi than any established science or technology. 
4. The motivation — even if they had the technology, why bother? (but see "study", above)
5. And besides, what are the odds of intelligent extraterrestrial beings existing at all?
1. Not mentioned in the Bible (not necessary a game-ender; China isn't mentioned in the Bible either).  
2. If life on Earth is only the result of random mutation and natural selection (Darwin), and took a very long time, wouldn't that be true of any other planet as well?
3. On the other hand, if we exist by way of Intelligent Design, wouldn't some other beings have to exist that way as well?  (Some will say sure, and they would have their own salvation history, etc.)  (see Perelandra by C. S. Lewis)
4. (I suspect that most UFO buffs are also Darwinians, and vice versa.  If life on Earth can come randomly out of nothing, then why not aliens?)
5. In any case, assuming the laws of physics are the same everywhere, how about the "laws" of biology, i.e. what is or is not possible under any circumstances?  The people who claim to have discovered planets that "might be capable of supporting life" seem to think so.
6. But simply being "capable" doesn't mean they contain life forms.  (Our own solar system seems pretty inhospitable to life outside of Earth.  And in many ways we are ideally situated, i.e. the position of the Sun in the galaxy.  So that would seem to narrow the potential for supporting life quite a bit if we're talking about other systems and other galaxies.)  
7. Even if there were highly intelligent beings elsewhere, they might be physically incapable of producing or using the required technology.  (Think about alien dolphins.  No opposable thumbs, for one thing.)

So... that's what I've come up with, at least at this point.  If you see flaws or gaps in any of this let me know (I may put it on Facebook and/or my blog eventually). 

See also -- The Golem: UFOs Are Back, Ho Hum (May 30, 2021)

And -- The Golem: Jonesin' for Aliens (July 25, 2015) 

Yes, I've been thinking about this issue for a long time!  😄 

 

The Epstein Curse

 

It appears that the Epstein affair could turn out to be one of the biggest political scandals of our time, or even in the entire history of the Republic. Time will tell, but I put it way ahead of Watergate, for example. Now, I call it a “political” scandal not because it is entirely political – people from many walks of life (all at the top of whatever walk it is) have been caught in the web – but it is political because (1) so many of the names on the list are politicians or are heavily involved in politics, and (2) it has generated not only a war of words (and legislation) between the parties, but has also (3) created a major fault line running right through the MAGA movement – one that is unlikely to be fixed by any action of the administration, and which may have a major impact on the mid-term elections and beyond. In other words, it's too late to do the right thing; all that remains is to keep from doing too many wrong things. The administration claims that it can't win when it comes to dealing with the opposition, and this is true. The challenge is to cut losses, and who is wise enough to know what that would entail?

As for that list – which keeps getting larger each day – what is striking is that it pretty much represents a “who's who” of the ruling elite, regardless of political affiliation. So while it's heavily weighted on the political side, other demographics are amply represented – entertainment, the media, sports, business, banking, even royalty (in Price Andrew's case – he being the only one besides Ghislaine Maxwell who has suffered any serious consequences, which is interesting in itself).

Questions abound, and they are unlikely to be answered by any further release of information by the courts or the Justice Department (especially if heavily redacted, which is likely). Things like: (1) What was Epstein's game, anyway? What was his mission? What was he really trying to do, and why? (2) Where did all of his money come from? (Don't say “consulting” – that's a cover story if there ever was one.) (3) If he was as unsavory a character as he seems to have been, why did all these A-list people choose to associate with him, like so many groupies? Why the plane rides to and from his island? Why the parties at his many mansions? And, what did he have on so many of these people? (Whatever it was, it keeps them quiet to this day.)

And of course, the question that kicked the whole thing off – how did he die, and why? (Unless he didn't die but is living on some isolated island along with Hitler, JFK, and Jimmy Hoffa.) In this sense, the whole affair is red meat for conspiracy theorists. If he was engaged in blackmail and/or extortion, for example, how many people would have benefited from his demise? I'm guessing a few hundred. So are they all going to be ushered into a police lineup? Doesn't seem likely, but it would be amusing, you must admit.

If Epstein was a mysterious figure when he was at the top of his game, the mystery has only deepened since his death. And for that matter, if he was that powerful and had that many powerful friends/cronies/associates/clients, why did he get arrested in the first place? People at that level can “fix” just about anything. And how did he wind up in jail? No self-respecting blackmailer or extortionist is going to let that happen. Clearly, his empire imploded for some reason, but then the question is why? Did it get out of his control? Were there too many leaks (including, perhaps, deathbed confessions)? Did he outlive his usefulness? (Surely you don't believe that he was a one-man show like Hugh Hefner!)

Then you have the dithering, awkward, ambivalent, backtracking approach of the Justice Department to the whole thing. One day they want to get to the bottom of it all, the next day they're not so sure. The rationales make no sense... and the Democrats, predictably, jumped all over it, hoping that – at long last! – they've found the silver bullet that will bring down Trump, his administration, MAGA, the Republican Party, and... but hold on, now it turns out that The List also includes any number of Democrats, liberals, and their friends in the media and elsewhere, so they have their own reasons for wanting the whole thing to go away, but apparently hurting Trump is more important, so they're on the side of full release and “transparency”, at least so far.

But then you have the courts, and whose side are they on? (Because the courts are always on one side or the other, let's not kid ourselves.) So they're embroiled in the politics of the thing as well. Who gets more hurt if certain information is released? It's a gigantic cost/benefit problem. The courts – or so it seems – are generally on the side of the Democrats and liberals in general. So how do they work it so that any release of information inflicts maximum damage on Trump and minimum damage on the Democrats?

(Sidebar: The notion of justice being “blind” is a perennial case of naive optimism. While justice as a concept or principle may be “blind” in the abstract, it is anything but when it encounters human nature, which very readily tends toward corruption. And unfortunately the legal system is populated with, by and large, human beings – although one might fantasize that AI could replace them some day, thus enhancing the blindness factor – except that blandness might then replace blindness. So what we wind up with is what the media refer to as “Obama judges”, “Bush judges”, “Clinton judges”, “Biden judges”, “Trump judges”, and so on – right up to and including the Supreme Court. How one achieves balance, fairness, and true justice under these conditions is beyond me.)

But to return to the legislative branch – we have a sharp divide, with what appears to be “release it all, and let the chips fall where they may” (AKA the Democrats have more to fear – but also because some legislators actually feel that the victims deserve justice), and the more cautious voices, who fear (and rightly so) that more information is going to raise even more questions. It's all about whose ox is getting gored, as the old saying goes.

Like any good conspiracy, when you dig too deep you eventually run into what has been called a “wall of silence” – where nobody knows anything, or if they do they aren't telling, for reasons only they know. The evidence that this has already occurred, at least to some extent, is the Justice Department's awkward handling of the matter from the start. It's as if they were, at first, barking up the wrong tree (which means the right tree), so had to switch to the right tree (which means the wrong tree, i.e. the dead end). So they will, at this point, claim due diligence, and blame the courts for scuttling the operation, while countless people up and down the fruited plain will heave a great sigh of relief. No heads will roll, no one will be ruined or “cancelled”, the whole thing will be cast into the memory hole until, probably a generation from now as happened with JFK, it will be claimed that “now it can be told” (once all of the guilty parties are dead). Twas ever thus. But still, it's amusing to see all of the scuffling and avoidance of the real issues.

The Epstein mystery is a mile deep. It's not just about a few jaded or naive or star-struck rich and powerful people seeking pleasures (forbidden or otherwise) along with others of their own kind. It is that, but it's much more. Were they all set up, and if so for what? How were they used, and by whom? And to what end? And did it work? Apparently it did, up to a point, but then Epstein fell out of favor. But why? Did he fail, or did someone decide to terminate (so to speak) that particular program? And if so, why? There will always be more questions than answers, because every answer generates more questions.

The more immediate question for the Republicans, and for the MAGA base, is how to repair the major fault line that this affair has created, and to do it in time to keep the midterm elections from being a disaster – and even more so the next presidential election. How ironic would it be if the Republicans, and the MAGA base, who were riding high after the election a year ago, would find themselves out in the cold thanks to a dead guy who was “the host with the most” for so many years. He's the gift that keeps on giving, but not in the way anyone welcomes.

A final thought – I guess it was about time for another earth-shaking conspiracy, since the JFK assassination has gotten to be pretty much old news by now (and the establishment is of one voice in that the matter was long since settled, so let's move on). JFK's assassination at least united the country – somewhat, and for a while – but the Epstein affair has done just the opposite.

Living the Gospel

 

A long-time friend, and a Benedictine monk of my acquaintance, have enjoyed a lively exchange of letters over the last few years. (I posted the contents of one of them on this blog on July 13, 2022, entitled “The Essentials”.) This letter (from the monk) is an excellent example of apologetics, and of the scriptural basis for living the Gospel. (One could also consider it a Bible study, considering the number of Biblical references it contains.) The monk introduces this text as follows: “Don't think these are simply memorized references to be fired off; I'm not one for either the fundamentalistic apologetic style, or for rote memorization. Rather, your letter led to me reviewing the New Testament as a whole with your implicit questions in mind. Each one of these passages in hand-picked.”

The letter follows:

I plan to begin with Jesus, [then] to Paul, [then] to what I would call – rather than the history of Christian Civilization – World history after the beginnings of Christianization. [Regarding the references] The very best bible I recommend now is the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible. They have an excellent one-volume New Testament, hardbound. Scott Hahn, the main writer, is one of the very best exegetes. If you read his introduction to the Ignatius Bible, after the first introduction, you will read an excellent summary of the Catholic approach to Scripture.

You are quite right to emphasize the love & mercy & compassion of Jesus. This is something that is very often underestimated or understood in the wrong way. This is true not only for those who forget that only God can judge a man's knowledge and intentions, and who confuse the objective moral truth of an objective disorder with subjectively judging a man's moral state; but also for those in special need of Jesus' mercy & compassion, but who run from a prayerful encounter out of fear that Jesus' knowledge and, therefore, objective judgment of a man's heart is for the sake of condemnation, rather than merciful love, healing & compassionate forgiveness, and for this full blossoming as the person he is meant to be, happy & at peace, because in harmony with himself, others and his loving Creator.

From the very beginning of such disorders the human race fled from God because he (Adam) saw that he was naked, and was afraid.

Jesus came to be the supreme witness to the truth (John 18:37-38) that God is not arbitrary condemnation but love (John 3:16-21). Love is what created things to be the good things that they are, and to find their full fulfillment in the full blossoming of their nature; and – for men – even a supernatural elevation & blossoming, which of course can only be a gratuitous gift.

The lie born of both fear (Adam) & envy of those in harmony (Cain & Abel) was that of God as naturally a severe judge, an arbitrary rule maker, and a condemnor of true freedom. The lie of Satan from the beginning (John 8:43-44) was – rather than acknowledging that a limited form of existence (a nature) was necessary for diverse individuals to exist – to claim that any nature was itself an unfair constraint on self-assertion and the will to power, and that a happiness of a form determined by a limited and harmoniously oriented nature was an affront to absolute freedom of self-determination and self-definition of one's fulfillment.

Thus began, from the very beginning, the Satanic project of (1) refusing such a harmony, even to the purposeful contradiction of his own fulfillment, in the name of an absolute freedom impossible to realize; and (2) out of hating and envy of that very source, means, and end of such natural & supernatural fulfillment; and so, to spite God the object of his loving and merciful designs, to lead everyone else to the same rejection – whether explicit or implicit – by means of more and more lies, obfuscation, seduction, confusion, etc.

But Jesus came precisely to be a living refutation of this. His most innocent, docile, receptive disciple came to understand all this in a particularly profound way (First Epistle of St. John 4:7-5:5). This is why He, Jesus, showed – emphasized – that the entirety of the laws that truly came from God could be reduced to loving God & others (Mark 12:28-34). Jesus manifested the true meekness & humility of His divine self toward creatures, and sought to teach men to imitate Him (Matthew 11:29-30).

But because mankind was suffering and broken as a result of the consequences of man's disorders – opposed to God's nature – namely pride, lying, murder, domination, hedonism, etc., Jesus came – as He repeatedly insisted – not to condemn, but to heal & teach which He often manifested through physical healings as well (Matthew 4:23-24, 11:4-6).

To those who had truly been offended, Jesus taught unlimited forgiveness (Matthew 18:21-22). To those leading more ordered lives but who thought it pious to abandon those who were more wounded, He insisted that He had come to save the lost (Luke 19:7-10), and that the greater the forgiveness received, the greater the fruit of love & gratitude (Luke 7:36-50). Not only had he come to save the broken-hearted, but to give them the means to help save others (Luke 5:8-11).

Jesus' entire mission was one of compassion toward our ignorance & weakness (Mark 6:34), and of bearing, himself, the cost of our disorders & errors (Matthew 8:16-17)

In return for this divine mercy & gratuitous forgiveness, Jesus asked only that we love as we should, and that that includes forgiving others the relatively tiny offenses they commit against us, in comparison to our offenses toward God (Matthew 6:14-15 and 18:32-35); and, not judging the hearts of others (Luke 6:37-42) as only God can do (John 8:13-19).

There were, however, those with whom Jesus had to be severe, in an attempt to wake them from their obstinate blindness, namely those leaders who, while ignoring true conversion of life, claimed to be the most righteous fulfillers of the externals of the law (Luke 11:37-44). For this purpose, they multiplied scrupulous regulations of an ignorant, material sort (Matthew 15:1-9), and mandated them to the poor people, who were crushed with absurd legalities (Matthew 23:1-36)(Mark 7:3-8, 14-23). Meanwhile, they refused to live the spirit of the true law and to teach it to the people (Luke 11:45-46, 52-53).

At the same time, they were merciless in their desire to ostracize & condemn the weak & sinful rather than to really help them recover & do better. They congratulated themselves on their supposed righteousness (Luke 18:9-14), which Jesus repeatedly showed to be only external and out of vanity (Matthew 6:1-8, 16-18). He preferred the weak & the wounded, who knew they needed healing (Matthew 9:10-13 and Mark 2:16-17) and sought it out (Matthew 21:28-32). He taught that all ritual offerings to God were only authentic if they were an image of interior sacrifice, forgiveness, & harmony (Matthew 5:20-24).

And so, these religious leaders themselves became the very image for the people of the false conception of God: severe judges, arbitrary rule makers, & condemnors of true freedom. In response, Jesus reveals what the true fulfillment [by Himself, i.e. what the old law was destined for] of the law is meant to be, namely, a transformation of the law from a body of material prescriptions to a body of spiritual precepts, to be lived out first interiorly, “in spirit and in truth” (John 4:16-26), and then expressed exteriorly in submission to God's loving plan, and in service to others. The commandments having to do directly with love of God, self, & others were not to pass away (Matthew 5:17-19) but to be fulfilled by a deepening of understanding of them, and a renewal of them, cleansed of all the compromises allowed to those who lacked the docility to live them out (Matthew 5:3-11, 21-22, 27-28, 31-32, 38-45) (Mark 10:1-12).

The commandments were no longer to be misunderstood as coercions opposed to happiness & freedom, but as the necessary means to that harmony that allows for true fulfillment; most of all in the supernatural union of life with God (John 14:15-21, 23-24) (John 15:9-17).

It was precisely because of the importance of allowing oneself to be loved by God, that Jesus also gave warnings & encouragements not to ignore his teaching, because of the dire consequences of separating oneself permanently from God's loving plan for the happiness of each one, dependent on their free will (Matthew 7:21-23; 13:47-51; 25:31-46) (Mark 3:31-35) (Luke 12: 22-34) (John 6:37-46).

This total renewal of love on earth was the fire that Jesus longed to ignite, knowing that its contrast with the desires of fallen men would lead to deep divisions (Luke 12:49-53). Thus although Jesus promised a deep interior peace from God (John 14:25-27), He also promised a sword (Matthew 10:34-36), divisions (Matthew 10:21-22), and hatred (Matthew 24:9-14), but in the end final victory over sin & death in loving union with Himself (Matthew 24:29-31).

St. Paul

In connection with the last section, as I had forgotten to say, it is only in light of what it means to love rightly that the famous central maxim of St. Augustine can be rightly understood: “Love, and do as you will.” It is no wonder, given the many misunderstandings of who Jesus is & what He said, that a number of persons misrepresent Paul in their writings & oppose him to Jesus. Even within the lifetime of the Apostles, his teachings, with their uniquely profound theological explanations of what other Apostles taught in more basic forms, were twisted and misused (2^nd Peter 3:14-18).

Now, before Pentecost, the Apostles were, on the whole, fairly lacking in understanding of the deep meanings and consequences of Jesus' teaching. For this reason, Jesus Himself, though He taught them many things apart from what He taught all the people (Matthew13-10-17), He withheld such profound and thorough explanations which they were unprepared, in wisdom and in intellectual penetration, to absorb (John 16:12-14). The Apostles were to await the gift of light from the Holy Spirit and special gifts of ministry (John 14:25-26). But for St. Paul, who converted after the Ascension, he couldn't be an eyewitness to the truth about Jesus without an extraordinary divine intervention whereby he would be taught by Jesus Himself, but would then be very careful to lay what he had been taught before the Apostles, so that they could confirm its authenticity as the true teaching of Jesus Christ (Galatians 1:11-14, 2:1-2, 6-10).

Now, in teaching the non-Jewish peoples, Paul had three main difficulties to deal with: First, instilling a whole new idea of who God is in previously pagan minds, namely, a true, immediately present Person, who was truly loving & merciful; who really cared about each individual personally, and sought their true happiness, rather than any benefit to Himself. Again, that God was love, and was to be imitated in order to love more and more with His life.

For Paul, love is what gives true spiritual value to everything (1^st Corinthians 13:1-13); it fulfills the whole law (Romans 13:8-14) and is what prepares us for the coming of Christ. God is the Father of mercies (2^nd Corinthians 1:3-4), and nothing can separate us from His love, nor does God condemn those who allow Him to save them. (Romans 8:31-39). Thus, God did not save us when we were His friends, but when we were opposed to Him, like enemies (Romans 5:6-11). God destined us for personal friendship with Himself purely out of gratuitous love (Ephesians 1:5-10). God, who is rich in mercy (Ephesians 2:4-10), saved us spiritually from our fallen state, because He made us for Himself; not because He needs anything, but in order to share His infinite fullness with others (Ephesians 3:14-19) out of unbounded love.

For this reason, the only way to properly reciprocate His love – so far as a little creature can – is to go & do likewise by seeking and allowing God to clothe our souls with the garments – so to speak – of His grace (i.e. supernatural assistance in the form of supernatural habits of soul), which elevates & heals us progressively and which makes it possible to live out the humanly impossible demands of the Gospel, namely, a wholly supernatural life of compassion, kindness, lowliness, meekness, patience, forgiveness, and love above all (Colossians 3:12-17).

For Paul, all this would result already in an interior blossoming of all that is beautiful & harmonious (Galatians 5:22-26).

As for those other two difficulties, they were very real threats to the happiness & freedom of those Paul had brought the Gospel. For this reason, it is here that he was forced to be a little firm, in order to nip them in the bud before they caused serious damage.

Paul, himself, had gone from being a violent, aggressive pharisee (Acts 8:1-3; 9:1-2) to being a gentle, meek Apostle of the Gospel of God's love, who was even blamed by jealous upstarts for writing powerfully but being weak & simple of speech in person (2^nd Corinthians 10:1-10; 11:12-13, 6-21). He refused even to accept financial support, in order not to be any hindrance, vs. the exploitative pretenders (2^nd Corinthians 12:11-14).

Paul greatly preferred not to have to be firm and severe (1^st Corinthians 4:14-21), nor to cause those whose joy & happiness he desired any more pain than necessary; and he was filled with anguish & sorrow at the thought of the dangers besetting them (2^nd Corinthians 1:23-2:4).

To those he put in charge of churches, Paul forbade unreasonable severity (1^st Timothy 5:1-2), as well as “stupid, senseless controversies” (2^nd Timothy 2:22-26) or quarreling. He spoke very strongly about the evil of judging another's heart, even within the Christian community (Romans 14:10-13, 1^st Corinthians 4:3-5). And as for those outside the Christian community, he refuses to judge them, but leaves them to God's knowledge & love (1^st Corinthians 5:9-13); i.e., he refuses to judge them even if they seem clearly guilty of serious faults.

Instead Paul emphasizes mercy & compassion and peace (Romans 12:14-21), forgiving & reconciling as apostles of God's forgiveness (2^nd Corinthians 15:16-21); and putting away all bitterness, anger, & malice (Ephesians 4:31-5:2) in order to be imitators of God, as his children (Titus 3:1-7).

Of those two aforementioned difficulties, the one of the Corinthians is more straightforward. St. Paul had a special solicitude for the community of the Corinthians, since Corinth was notorious in the classical world for being a very wealthy party town, and those Christians were not only surrounded by this seductive environment but had until recently been living accordingly. Soon enough, a number of them – even after they had embraced the Faith, and been well-taught about their obligations, and about what was good for them (or moral) and what was not – began sliding into old habits, or even worse ones than the pagans (1^st Corinthians 5:1-4)! And so, while living inauthentically, they boasted of their Christianity (1^st Corinthians 5:6-8). At the same time, they were quickly breaking up into quarrelsome factions (1^st Corinthians 1:10-13), and even suing each other before pagan judges (1^st Corinthians 6:1-6). Even though Paul needed to penalize the worst offender, he made sure that the community restore him to fellowship after a moderate time, and counseled forgiveness & comforting him (2^nd Corinthians 2:5-11).

As for the last difficulty, it was precisely an extension of what Jesus had to deal with because of the Pharisees & Scribes. Some Christian Jews refused to obey the teaching of the Apostles that all the endless material prescriptions of the law had come to an end, and that only the spiritual ones remained, and were fulfilled perfectly in the freedom of the New Testament or Covenant, the one Jesus inaugurated (Romans 3:21-31; 2:12-16). Paul speaks of himself to Peter the Apostle as having died to the law through Christ's death ([his] union with it), and now living with His new life (Galatians 2:11-21). This was because Peter, who was feeling self-conscious and succumbed to fear of the opinion of these same Judaic Christians, was doing an injustice to the non-Jewish Christians by eating separately from them, turning them into 2^nd class Christians.

This particular group came to be called the circumcision party (meaning faction, of course; as opposed to the other type of circumcision party! (Joshua 5:2-8)). They even traveled around where Paul had, and took advantage of the trust of non-Jews who believed that the Judaic Christians knew best how to be truly Christian, [i.e.] what Jesus truly wanted.

And so, the Galatians were the most quickly misled (Galatians 1:6-8). Paul taught them that the rigors of the old law were a protective & educational measure taken by God for the Israelites until they would be mature enough to live the life of the spirit in faith without disciplinary, remedial prescriptions (Galatians 3:23, 4:7). That they weren't called to the old covenant wherein fearful reverence for God was emphasized for those who didn't know how to obey out of love for goodness & for God; but that they were called rather to be beloved sons of God, their “Abba” or “Daddy”, to live as heirs in the freedom of the love of Christ: Not a freedom to throw themselves again into disorder, but a freedom to do good for its own sake, out of love for God & others (Galatians 5:13-14).

Paul likewise warned the Romans of these dangers, especially considering the considerable number of them – the Christians – who were Jews (romans 7:4-6; 8:15-17). Likewise, to the other churches, he explains the fulfillment in Christ of what had only been prepared for and foreshadowed in the old covenant or testament (2^nd Corinthians 3:7-11, 17-18) (Colossians 2:16-17), and that they shouldn't let themselves be subjected to the old dietary & ritual cleanliness restrictions (Colossians 2:21-23).

Instead, God's universal church includes all men, uniting Jews & Gentiles, abolishing the law of material commandments & ordinances, and bringing about one body in Christ, who is our peace (Ephesians 2:13-22). No longer will it be allowed that there be a difference before God of Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female (Galatians 3:28-29; Colossians 3:11).

World history after the advent of Christianization

Whereas one could write whole books – and has done so – on all these topics, I can now limit myself (being finished with the core material) to a few main comments.

Since Christianity is opposed to the ends & spirit of fallen man, and since men remain fallen, and since even Christian baptism does not remove the fallen tendencies to fall back into self-destruction & that of others, Christianity experiences a whole gradation throughout time and various cultures of either being whole-heartedly accepted, half-heartedly accepted, or rejected & persecuted. The Church makes do with the success that it had, in order to bring men even a little closer to the full truths and to living out the full Christian life.

However, some historians then often point to any event within any culture that even has a light veneer of Christianity, and often blame Christianity for the divisions that occur.

Now, it has been true in every age that even many leaders of the Church at various levels have not themselves committed whole-heartedly to the truth, and from this came the worst scandals of all (Psalm 49:16-21).

Another major aspect has always been the political one. When Roman emperors converted to Christianity, they didn't stop thinking like emperors, i.e. that religion being the most powerful reality that binds a society together – that the emperor needs to help govern religion, and call councils, and suppress dissidents as political threats. Of course it gets far more complicated when shortsighted men on both sides encourage such thinking, or when groups really do adopt a heresy as the best means to begin a political revolt, and take up arms against orthodox believers; or when a leader sends an army after such armed heretics/revolutionaries. And all of this has been true from Constantine to the Arians to the Huguenots to the Communists. And the same goes for those leaders who themselves become heterodox. The Church has tolerated many political impositions over the years for the greater good of men's souls.

You also know that the Crusades were always a mixed bag. Whereas you did indeed have a good number of truly noble, supernaturally minded souls who desired to free the invaded & oppressed Christian populace and the sacred cites of Biblical history, you did have quite a number of persons who treated it as a land grab for their own dominion & profit. Even Mary, the Mother of Jesus, in Her appearances to St. Bridget – while extolling those who lived out faithfully their oath of Christian knighthood – sadly complained of these others who made a mockery & a scandal out of a fundamentally Christian cause.

And who can think of the horrendous sack of Constantinople without memories of most un-Christian, venal, Venetian intrigue; philistine rapine & destruction; and starving barbarian mercenaries assuaging their desperation with piles of Byzantine rump roast?!

Indeed, those who pay close attention to the Scriptures, although they rejoice in the spread of the Gospel to all nations, don't expect the majority of the population – sadly – to live accordingly. True Christians do want to be, for God and others, the salt of the earth & the light of the world (Matthew 5:13-16), but they still know that to the extent that the world does not understand who God really is and what is truly for their happiness & peace, to that extent the fallen, disordered elements of society will always oppose him (John 15:18-21, 17:25-26).

By the way, as for the homoousion, Chesterton's response to Gibbon's quip was that there is only one letter difference between the words theist & atheist. But, as you can see, it makes all the difference in the world, even though people should not have killed each other over it. The fundamental difference between saying that Jesus was of a similar substance (homoi-) to God the Father, vs. that he was of the same (homo-), divine, immaterial substance [Uncreated Being] as the Father; it is the difference between His being a sort of preeminent spiritual being vs. His being the second personal, subsisting supposit of the unique Pure Being of God [just a bit of theological metaphysics terms], one in being & divinity & holiness & omnipotence & infinity with the divine Persons of the Father & the Holy Spirit. The result of the easier-to-think-about Arian heterodoxy would have been the very overthrow (were it possible for a divine institution) of Christianity.

This is because the Supreme Witness to who God is, and the supreme authority that can establish a new covenant or testament with the whole human race, and can oblige men to it out of love, can only be God Himself (Luke 10:21-22). Now, as many theologians point out, Christians are happily in the inextricable position – given all that Jesus said of Himself (and, by the way, which the pharisees heard very clearly, charging Him with blasphemy) – of either being very certain that Jesus is who He said He was (one God with the Father: John 10:24-30), or of being certain that He was a madman or a liar. Now, all His life and words show that He was not insane; and, along with His miracles, which could only come from God (John 3:2), they make it certain that He was not a liar. For we know that God does not back up a liar's words & claims, even if the pharisees didn't want to hear that (John 9:30-34, 41). Those who in the hope for a false feeling of harmony want to tone down this claim with various forms of syncretism & naturalism, not only have to contend with Jesus' repeated attempts to help others realize the fact in a non-coercive manner (Matthew 22:41-46; John 8:42-43), and His clear teaching to His Apostles (John 17:1-5, 24-26; John 16:25-33), but also with the clear reaction of the Jewish leaders when Jesus judged it at last the time to further unveil the truth that they had been supposed to be prepared for, and let them make a decision (John 8:53-59 [On the “I am see Exodus 3:13-15]) (Luke 22:67-71) (John 19:7-9) (John 18:33-37) (John 5:18-27).

Moreover, there are the Apostles' straightforward accounts of the manifestations that were meant to reassure them & confirm the truth (Matthew 3:13-17; 17:1-8; 2^nd Peter 1:16-21), as well as Jesus' clear acceptance of their acts of faith-filled certainty in who they had come to know Him to be, by the light of the infused certainty of supernatural faith (Matthew 16:13-19; John 20:26-29).

Now, you may have noticed that in some of the quotes above, Jesus – even while calling Himself the Son of God – also calls Himself the Son of Man & seems to contrast this with the Father... God. This is because He like to emphasize both that (#1) As divine Person of the Son, who continuously proceeds from the Father while remaining one in Being with Him [Too much theology here to explain it all], He receives all that He is – continuously – from the Father; and (#2) That existing also now as man, He delights to be – at least in this way – infinitely smaller than & totally dependent, humanly, on the Father, like us. He delights in this because He is now also a little man who, as man, can worship the Father, and throw Himself surrenderingly into the Father's infinitely loving arms. But, He eventually affirmed that there was quite a difference between the way that God the Father is His God & Father vs. the way that He is ours (John 20:17)

And so you see, Christianity, i.e. the truth of Christianity & its realization in men, is the greatest love story ever told; it is the divine romance of the universe, wherein the perfectly self-sufficient God nevertheless does not reject what He has made, even after the human race rejects Him. Rather, He comes in person not only to save us all, His lost sheep (John 10:11-21), as the divine shepherd; but to give us Himself and take us for Himself, as the divine bridegroom of our souls (John 3:27-36). And we monks and nuns – i.e. those who are faithful to the sacred vows they made to God, wherein they already in this life reserve all for Him – we enjoy already this conjugal bond of mind & heart with the world's Beloved, and we look forward to its full development in the life of the world to come.

There are two beautiful passages in which Jesus revealed Himself to John later on, with a vision of all that He is, as God & man (Revelation/Apocalypse 1:12-19), and as the divine bridegroom, who gave His life for His bride (Revelation 19:6-10, 11-16; 21:1-8).

As for Christians on earth being in danger, it is true that there is indeed a danger of a decline, at least in the West; not only because many comfortable Christians are very poor Christians; or not really at all; but also because – as Joseph Ratzinger put it – the “dictatorship of relativism” is on the rise, as it has been, with its inherent intolerance of any manner of thought and behaviour based on objective criteria of truth, nature & its fulfillment, and the goodness of perfected nature.

Yet, not only have Christians been forewarned of inevitable persecution, but Jesus indicated that a catastrophe of some sort would bring about a substantial reduction of those who believe in Him, in the end (Luke 18:18). But where & when this will be, we can only speculate about in various ways.

Alas, Christians themselves have often been a large cause of the truths of Christianity not being well understood or believed.

But true, faithful Christians, like God, desire “all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 1:1-7). And like God, they do not desire even those who knowingly harm themselves and others, and offend God, to be lost, but rather that they be converted and live (Ezechiel 33:11-19).

So there you go, my comments are at an end, and, I would say, given the vastness of the matters concerned, not too long. I hope they may be enjoyable reading at least. God Bless.