That’s a sharp reply. Because while there are religions that are tolerant of other faiths, there are those that are not. The left have declared a holy war on anyone who dares to disagree. Pretty much as Islam, which is only starting its crusade or antifada, whatever you like, to crash everyone else. Israel and Jews are simply the beginning as easy targets and habitual scapegoats. And the left will do the same with traditional western values.
I like that reply and yours' too. A liberal word I would assert is deescalate. Al Sharpton used it correctly, in a liberal context, on News Nation the last two weekends. as in, what are you doing, college administrators (but he could have said almost any group and it would still work: such as 'The US' or the PRC, etc.) to deescalate?
I have always associated the word conservatism with fearful sticks in the mud (or sticks stuck up somewhere else, especially if they cite would-be morality as motivation. Like the blue team out here in California appeared to be when they tried to ban tackle football for kids, or endless mask mandates and continued mask wearing---yes, I have seen them today, even in cars!, yesterday, on bikes outside, etc. THAT is exceedingly conservative behavior and shameful...
also, warmongering like the neo-cons do. you must 'let Israel "WIN" presumably like Nixon was doing with all those bombings in Cambodia and whatnot, or what Rambo wanted, even more so. Conservatism is your way or the highway, if you are not for complete obliteration of the enemy, then you are the enemy, and absolutism/no exceptions. Very embarrassing, and so sorry my blue team has embraced it...
With all due respect, that sounds like the precise sort of caricature I would expect to hear from Joy Behar, Jon Stewart or just about any prominent member of your "blue team." Attributing classic "blue team" behaviors like vax mandates, continuing to wear masks, the cancel culture, and even ongoing wars to conservatives and conservatism is most telling.
most telling of what? please finish your thought. I say it is fearful conservative behavior. I would also add conformist, or even ultra-conformist, as a synonym. By contrast, liberal, to me means do your own thing, dance to the beat of your own drum, individuality, and yes, anti-war and non-conformity too. These qualities are not currently popular on my blue team (or by Jon Stewart for that matter). If you have them, you are essentially kicked out of the democratic party (see, Bernie Sanders, see, RFK, Jr.). Sorry if I hurt your war-mongering feelings, JT. You see, I was never a big fan of soft rock...
Liberal means "do your own thing, dance to the beat of your own drum, individuality..." Huh? In case you missed it, virtually every vote the D's in congress take is unanimous, while almost every vote the R's take is contentious and split! So much for dancing to the beat of your own drum!
As for "war-mongering" conservatives, perhaps you noticed in the recent $95B funding bill that almost every D voted to fund our "wars" while half of the R's voted against it. Conservatives were livid with Johnson for supporting it, and the result is that he's now facing a recall.
I'm sorry, but it appears you're either gaslighting, a troll, or just terribly misinformed.
I think Ben is referring to the type of conservatives, aka neoconservatives, from many of my generation (Bush, Cheney, etc.). To my generation (Gen X), neoconservatives have equaled conservatives, because they’re the only type we know. But I guess a classic conservative would be someone like Teddy Roosevelt. That’s my perspective anyway.
It's a Linda Ronstandt song, don't you know it, sweet baby James? Very catchy.
Seriously, I'm not any of those bad words. I just think that if the dems are now for oligarch rule by tech., and against the working class, while now, being neo-con forever war-mongering and never anti-war, and now, being anti-civil liberties and anti-choice, just shut up and get in line, then we lost our identity, so we morphed into something psychotic and different. as Sasha describes, as you describe. sure.
but where I disagree with Sasha is that the red team did the same thing. Maybe it's the awful click bait AI that made them. Whatever the red team conservatives use to be/mean, say according to George Will and the Lincoln Republicans and so forth, they have completely dumped it all to be something evil: the Trump sycophant party. As I understand it, a lot of people down deep know it and are not fully happy about it, but go along with it, to own the libs.
I use that term loosely. I mean the Left that has grown out of Critical Theory, which, as I understand it, concerns itself with ferreting out hidden biases, prejudices, and power imbalances in society in order to achieve "social justice". But what they are advocating requires a totalitarian state to enforce, state sponsored intolerance.
The bug ("totalitarian state") is a feature. Extremist ideologies are all the same in mentality. Only the labels change. Their "reasoning" is "First we decide what we think, then we decide why". Always what they think is that some others should be harmed. The "bourgeois" in Communism, Jews in Nazism, and now all "oppressors" (thoughtfully including Jews) in the current "Neo-Communism" that replaces class with "oppressed communities" and seeks redistribution of status rather than "the workers" controlling the means of production. With these people, all roads lead to "Therefore, we are justified in harming [insert hate-objects here]". They present that as reasoning to a conclusion. But it is really reasoning to an objective. And that objective requires a totalitarian state.
But cons, narcissists, criminals are constants in human nature. This is why the Leftist/feminist vision of society structured like a family, where everyone is supposed to be cared for and respectful of others, doesn't work. A few sharks will eat them all. Notice that with our supposedly compassionate Democrat administration the US is finding itself dealing with numerous global conflicts. Trump, who the Left constantly portrays as a bully, brought peace and stability during his term. Just as infants need their mothers, nations need strong men in their leadership class.
That's how the legacy media frames it because they hate Trump. Yet just take the case of Putin. He invaded Georgia when Obama took office (the end of the failing Bush II admin). Invaded Crimea when Obama was president (2014). Now invades Ukraine with Biden in office. No invasions when Trump was president. Then in the Middle East there were the Abraham Accords under Trump, which the legacy media tried to pretend was nothing. Not the Trump is the next Abraham Lincoln, but I'm convinced that the reason we keep getting into these wars is because the corrupt DC establishment profits off of them. Trump has his own money. So does RFK JR. and Vivek, and they are the ones speaking out against the swamp (e.g. "Nikki=corruption"). Trump has a monster ego for sure, but I think he's also a patriotic American and wants to get America back on track.
So thoughtful, Sasha, thank you. Your analogy about weaning puppies and kittens hit me hard. Like you, I'm a former Blue, and I breastfed all three of my kids and wouldn't have even considered any other route. I even talked about how important the spiritual bond with the mother is -- that there is an unseen connection that should not be broken until the child is a toddler. AND YET I also supported the rights of gay parents to adopt, even newborn, and somehow did not make the connection!! UGH. Humility is a bitch. 😂
Mary, maybe do not be too hard on yourself... things were changing so quickly, it was hard to know what was right and what was wrong. But you have the courage to evolve your views as new facts become clear. Perhaps it is not the case that humility is a bitch, but rather a blind attachment to dogmas of any sort, Left, Right, or otherwise.
Agreed, and thanks. I've happily released my labels and the dogma they carry with them! I've written about that very process in a number of my stacks -- thus, The Art of Freedom. It's an ongoing challenge, no?
Yes, Mary, freeing ourselves from dogma is an ongoing process of critical self-reflection amidst continually changing times... "The Art of Freedom", huh? Gonna have to check it out.
Thanks, NFT, for your kind words! Just to clarify... it's the newborn adoption thing -- from any kind of parents -- that now to me seems abrupt and highly problematic for the infant's development. As Sasha said, the birth mother's presence in the feeding and life of the child if at all possible until weaning, at least, seems so much healthier.
As an adoptive (female) mother - so, someone who's experienced the adoption process firsthand - I'd say this newfound revelation re adoptive infants' development sounds nice in theory. But in reality, there are myriad reasons a woman surrenders a child and few make for a situation where involving her in a child's and adoptive parents' daily lives will be entirely positive. Lack of maturity, mental illness, drug addiction are a few of the most common examples. Surrogacy is an entire kettle of fish on its own.
Then there's bonding between infant and adoptive parents, a process that certainly wouldn't be facilitated by having a third person feed the baby. It's difficult enough at first for adoptive parents to feel "entitled" to parent a child they didn't give birth to, much less having a birth mother looking over their shoulders judging them. And judging herself for surrendering a child she too will bond with more strongly if she has frequent contact. A child whose future she has no legal right to help determine.
Adoption is a complex process. If everyone involved was emotionally mature and healthy, the less abrupt scenario described might be possible and maybe even beneficial in some cases. But when was the last time you saw three emotionally mature and healthy people in one room together, much less in an emotionally charged situation like surrendering and adopting another human being?
Birth mothers are often involved in their children's lives in open adoptions, which are common. These arrangements can benefit everyone. But they can also be stressful and confusing enough without adding another dimension.
Theory is always the place where the ideal can exist, unchallenged! Your experience with the reality of the situation is very welcome, and I'm grateful you took the time to kindly share it with me. I take your points. The adoption process is clearly an agonizing one all around, fraught with emotions and turmoil; it sounds like open adoption in general is the best of a difficult situation.
And you sound like a wonderful mother. Thanks for weighing in.
For some reason I'm unable to like comments today. But know I tried! Yours is a very emotionally mature and healthy attitude towards one's own good intentions!
My daughter is 36 now and she's still the very best thing that's ever happened!
Good on you, Mary! Now, seriously, consider the horror the Left (well, anyone) would express when seeing someone stomping on sea turtle eggs. And now think of the ease with which the Left aborts babies.
Sasha - A Conservative in the American tradition is one who venerates the Founders and the wonderful 'Experiment' they started with the founding of this nation. To King George and the rest of the English-speaking world at that time they were the 'Liberals', the 'Revolutionaries'. Thus. we know the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights as the second, third and fourth most freedom loving and inducing documents of all time! Next only to the Bible in terms of importance of all literature in the improvement of the human condition!
With respect to the 'human condition' now encompassed by the Alphabet Mafia (LGBTQ) and their insistence that we all not only accept their inanities, but glorify them, we have lost a lot of ground. With the radical left insisting on the overthrow of the Constitution, the end of Free Speech and the demise of the Family as the primary organizational component of civilization, Gay Marriage and all of its permutations is just another wedge issue to tear our society from its hinges, and keep us at each others throats. Tribalism is what we left for dead with the American Revolution. But now it is back in full force, in cahoots with: Racism, Classism, Genderism, etc. to a degree that our survival as a free and independent people is more in doubt today than ever in our 250 year history as a nation! God help us?!
Roger, if I may--I believe, fervently, in all the things you note in your first paragraph, but I would describe myself as a Classical Liberal, not a "Conservative." Is that possible?
Thank you for this very thoughtful and well-considered piece. I agree with everything. You might want to look at the spring 2024 American Spectator devoted entirely to religion in American society. In general terms, I have grown into a “ Burkean” conservative— society must change organically. My personal impression of the Pope is that he may just be anti-American, like many leftists of his generation in South America, but is also inconsistent, incoherent, opportunistic and inclined to curry favor among the “woke” powerful and wealthy.
If one wishes to better understand Fiducia Supplicans (the gay blessing thing that the "Pope" is attempting to play down), then do a quick youtube search for Dr. Anthony Stine (Return to Tradition) and Joe McClane (A Catholic Take). Also, Dr Taylor Marshall.
They are all theologians, very trad Cath, and have very clearly explained the wordplay and danger of Bergoglio's (the guy currently in St Peter's chair) document about blessing sin, as well as the framework being laid for female deaconesses (I've already seen photos of potential deaconess attire) and the eventual ordination of women, which yes... is directly disobeying God (look up St Paul's statement on this).
The novus ordo Church is a fallen church. It's become progressive, heretical, well on its way to apostasy. For more on that, research "What went wrong at Vatican 2."
It all started going bad after the death of the last true Pope in 1958.
Fair warning. It's a serious scholarly rabbit hole. Expect to put some time in it, if you truly wish to understand.
This age was spoken of in end times prophecy. The falling away of Christians, the corruption and diabolic overthrow of the Church, the false teachers and prophets.
Fatima also spoke of the Church descending into darkness in a hundred years or so. Well, it's been about a hundred years since that prophetic event was foretold.
My interest in this is due to being 1) Constitutional Conservative
In my opinion the last true Pope was Saint John Paul II. The left have corrupted his message of Christian Love and true social justice. True Love, the kind Jesus preached, had the elements of justice, compassion and discipline. The current Pope and his marxist supporters have totally disregarded discipline of any sort.
I think JPII was a kindly, warm, lovable man -- but a radically weak Pope. I heard that, because of his upbringing, he was so used to being surrounded by lying, subversive Marxists that he didn't believe a lot of what he was told when informed of some of the bad things going on in the Church. That would explain a lot of his inaction.
All things antithetical to life and reproduction are their highest values.
"Ye shall know them by their fruits" said a fairly famous ancient Jewish guy... "I put before you Life and Death. Choose Life, so that you and your children may live" said his Father....
There are 3 things these people currently care about above all things:
1) The right to kill babies in the womb
2) The right to mutilate those children who escape the womb
I watched the free press video. There has been no society/civilization that has accepted this deviant behavior that survived. This will be the source of the end of the American experiment in self government. It will be replaced by something much much darker and worse and centuries will pass before it is tried again.
Jane Fondle is a low quality troll, and normally, ignoring that kind of pathetic call to provocation is the wisest course. But that’s because most people don’t have the time or the writing skill to dismantle, not only the schoolyard-level “oh yeah, so’s your mom” fishing, but the deeply flawed position behind it. You’ve done both - as usual.
Jane is an not a "troll," she is an all-too-typical Leftist woman who is herself trapped in a hell of feminist/intersectionality dogma--and, unlike Sasha-- too blind to be able to recognize it.
She is thoughtful and reasoned rather than hidebound and reactionary. We are never going to all agree so we have to try to understand each other. The extremes of BOTH party's DELIBERATLY INHIBIT THIS. Tom Clancy called it the NIH (not invented here) syndrome. Seems to co-occur a lot with TDS.
Sasha's viewpoints/stories are always a must read. I find myself enjoying the comments on her posts as enlightening and enjoyable. Impossible to "agree" with all of it but the community created around her writings gives one hope.
I always value Sasha's openness. That takes courage. I expect intuitively we all know that men, women, children, and babies are persons. Simultaneously we all know that dogs are not persons. But just as dogs are given roles as pets, companions, herders and hunters through the genetical traits, so humans are born with roles.
Put clearly, each person is a person because each person is a finite copy of the Creator God. Each person is assigned a role at birth: male role or female role. Seeing things this way helps me see where we go wrong in society.
I am Catholic and I am not a fan of Pope Francis. One of the local priests once told me we must pray for the Pope. But he also added, ‘I don’t listen to him.” Draw your own conclusions. Being Catholic involves living a life according to conservative values not the Marxist dribble this Pope often spews.
You are every bit as competent as Ben Shapiro to comment on homosexual issues, Sasha. Perhaps more so in that you have lived at the ground level rather than comment on things like Shapiro does.
I am a lifelong conservative and conservatism has basically meant to simply conserve what works(e.g. Bill of Rights) and not live in a bubble. I have never been hostile toward gays in any way - generally super nice folks - because they have been around since time began. Things have definitely gone too far these days; post human.
"I also worry about the mental health of small babies who need mothers. They just do." Spot. On. It is why I am pro-life, both the baby and the mother.
We all know the answer to your final thought. The new Left in America is as intolerant as radical Islam. Might be why they like them so much.
Perfectly stated.
That’s a sharp reply. Because while there are religions that are tolerant of other faiths, there are those that are not. The left have declared a holy war on anyone who dares to disagree. Pretty much as Islam, which is only starting its crusade or antifada, whatever you like, to crash everyone else. Israel and Jews are simply the beginning as easy targets and habitual scapegoats. And the left will do the same with traditional western values.
Suggest changing “will do” to “have been doing”.
I like that reply and yours' too. A liberal word I would assert is deescalate. Al Sharpton used it correctly, in a liberal context, on News Nation the last two weekends. as in, what are you doing, college administrators (but he could have said almost any group and it would still work: such as 'The US' or the PRC, etc.) to deescalate?
I have always associated the word conservatism with fearful sticks in the mud (or sticks stuck up somewhere else, especially if they cite would-be morality as motivation. Like the blue team out here in California appeared to be when they tried to ban tackle football for kids, or endless mask mandates and continued mask wearing---yes, I have seen them today, even in cars!, yesterday, on bikes outside, etc. THAT is exceedingly conservative behavior and shameful...
also, warmongering like the neo-cons do. you must 'let Israel "WIN" presumably like Nixon was doing with all those bombings in Cambodia and whatnot, or what Rambo wanted, even more so. Conservatism is your way or the highway, if you are not for complete obliteration of the enemy, then you are the enemy, and absolutism/no exceptions. Very embarrassing, and so sorry my blue team has embraced it...
With all due respect, that sounds like the precise sort of caricature I would expect to hear from Joy Behar, Jon Stewart or just about any prominent member of your "blue team." Attributing classic "blue team" behaviors like vax mandates, continuing to wear masks, the cancel culture, and even ongoing wars to conservatives and conservatism is most telling.
100%
most telling of what? please finish your thought. I say it is fearful conservative behavior. I would also add conformist, or even ultra-conformist, as a synonym. By contrast, liberal, to me means do your own thing, dance to the beat of your own drum, individuality, and yes, anti-war and non-conformity too. These qualities are not currently popular on my blue team (or by Jon Stewart for that matter). If you have them, you are essentially kicked out of the democratic party (see, Bernie Sanders, see, RFK, Jr.). Sorry if I hurt your war-mongering feelings, JT. You see, I was never a big fan of soft rock...
Liberal means "do your own thing, dance to the beat of your own drum, individuality..." Huh? In case you missed it, virtually every vote the D's in congress take is unanimous, while almost every vote the R's take is contentious and split! So much for dancing to the beat of your own drum!
As for "war-mongering" conservatives, perhaps you noticed in the recent $95B funding bill that almost every D voted to fund our "wars" while half of the R's voted against it. Conservatives were livid with Johnson for supporting it, and the result is that he's now facing a recall.
I'm sorry, but it appears you're either gaslighting, a troll, or just terribly misinformed.
I think Ben is referring to the type of conservatives, aka neoconservatives, from many of my generation (Bush, Cheney, etc.). To my generation (Gen X), neoconservatives have equaled conservatives, because they’re the only type we know. But I guess a classic conservative would be someone like Teddy Roosevelt. That’s my perspective anyway.
It's a Linda Ronstandt song, don't you know it, sweet baby James? Very catchy.
Seriously, I'm not any of those bad words. I just think that if the dems are now for oligarch rule by tech., and against the working class, while now, being neo-con forever war-mongering and never anti-war, and now, being anti-civil liberties and anti-choice, just shut up and get in line, then we lost our identity, so we morphed into something psychotic and different. as Sasha describes, as you describe. sure.
but where I disagree with Sasha is that the red team did the same thing. Maybe it's the awful click bait AI that made them. Whatever the red team conservatives use to be/mean, say according to George Will and the Lincoln Republicans and so forth, they have completely dumped it all to be something evil: the Trump sycophant party. As I understand it, a lot of people down deep know it and are not fully happy about it, but go along with it, to own the libs.
You’re describing illiberalism. Conservatism exists on a different spectrum. Your conflation of the two reveals your bias.
oh, and you turn purple when comedians make jokes, so you want to cancel them. Very conservative to be comedy-phobic.
Might be but I think it’s more the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Boom!
I use that term loosely. I mean the Left that has grown out of Critical Theory, which, as I understand it, concerns itself with ferreting out hidden biases, prejudices, and power imbalances in society in order to achieve "social justice". But what they are advocating requires a totalitarian state to enforce, state sponsored intolerance.
The bug ("totalitarian state") is a feature. Extremist ideologies are all the same in mentality. Only the labels change. Their "reasoning" is "First we decide what we think, then we decide why". Always what they think is that some others should be harmed. The "bourgeois" in Communism, Jews in Nazism, and now all "oppressors" (thoughtfully including Jews) in the current "Neo-Communism" that replaces class with "oppressed communities" and seeks redistribution of status rather than "the workers" controlling the means of production. With these people, all roads lead to "Therefore, we are justified in harming [insert hate-objects here]". They present that as reasoning to a conclusion. But it is really reasoning to an objective. And that objective requires a totalitarian state.
But cons, narcissists, criminals are constants in human nature. This is why the Leftist/feminist vision of society structured like a family, where everyone is supposed to be cared for and respectful of others, doesn't work. A few sharks will eat them all. Notice that with our supposedly compassionate Democrat administration the US is finding itself dealing with numerous global conflicts. Trump, who the Left constantly portrays as a bully, brought peace and stability during his term. Just as infants need their mothers, nations need strong men in their leadership class.
That's how the legacy media frames it because they hate Trump. Yet just take the case of Putin. He invaded Georgia when Obama took office (the end of the failing Bush II admin). Invaded Crimea when Obama was president (2014). Now invades Ukraine with Biden in office. No invasions when Trump was president. Then in the Middle East there were the Abraham Accords under Trump, which the legacy media tried to pretend was nothing. Not the Trump is the next Abraham Lincoln, but I'm convinced that the reason we keep getting into these wars is because the corrupt DC establishment profits off of them. Trump has his own money. So does RFK JR. and Vivek, and they are the ones speaking out against the swamp (e.g. "Nikki=corruption"). Trump has a monster ego for sure, but I think he's also a patriotic American and wants to get America back on track.
So thoughtful, Sasha, thank you. Your analogy about weaning puppies and kittens hit me hard. Like you, I'm a former Blue, and I breastfed all three of my kids and wouldn't have even considered any other route. I even talked about how important the spiritual bond with the mother is -- that there is an unseen connection that should not be broken until the child is a toddler. AND YET I also supported the rights of gay parents to adopt, even newborn, and somehow did not make the connection!! UGH. Humility is a bitch. 😂
Mary, maybe do not be too hard on yourself... things were changing so quickly, it was hard to know what was right and what was wrong. But you have the courage to evolve your views as new facts become clear. Perhaps it is not the case that humility is a bitch, but rather a blind attachment to dogmas of any sort, Left, Right, or otherwise.
Agreed, and thanks. I've happily released my labels and the dogma they carry with them! I've written about that very process in a number of my stacks -- thus, The Art of Freedom. It's an ongoing challenge, no?
Yes, Mary, freeing ourselves from dogma is an ongoing process of critical self-reflection amidst continually changing times... "The Art of Freedom", huh? Gonna have to check it out.
It's a hopeful place with a wise, supportive community/comment section. Hope to "see" you there! 😊
Tell me about it. I was raised Catholic. I still believe in God.....Just not religion!
Yes, it is very possible to believe in God but not the Pope, esp this current one... in fact, these days it is just common sense.
You are to be respected all the more, for it. Many (including me, more frequently than I care to admit) could benefit from emulating your example.
Thanks, NFT, for your kind words! Just to clarify... it's the newborn adoption thing -- from any kind of parents -- that now to me seems abrupt and highly problematic for the infant's development. As Sasha said, the birth mother's presence in the feeding and life of the child if at all possible until weaning, at least, seems so much healthier.
We're all learning... :-)
As an adoptive (female) mother - so, someone who's experienced the adoption process firsthand - I'd say this newfound revelation re adoptive infants' development sounds nice in theory. But in reality, there are myriad reasons a woman surrenders a child and few make for a situation where involving her in a child's and adoptive parents' daily lives will be entirely positive. Lack of maturity, mental illness, drug addiction are a few of the most common examples. Surrogacy is an entire kettle of fish on its own.
Then there's bonding between infant and adoptive parents, a process that certainly wouldn't be facilitated by having a third person feed the baby. It's difficult enough at first for adoptive parents to feel "entitled" to parent a child they didn't give birth to, much less having a birth mother looking over their shoulders judging them. And judging herself for surrendering a child she too will bond with more strongly if she has frequent contact. A child whose future she has no legal right to help determine.
Adoption is a complex process. If everyone involved was emotionally mature and healthy, the less abrupt scenario described might be possible and maybe even beneficial in some cases. But when was the last time you saw three emotionally mature and healthy people in one room together, much less in an emotionally charged situation like surrendering and adopting another human being?
Birth mothers are often involved in their children's lives in open adoptions, which are common. These arrangements can benefit everyone. But they can also be stressful and confusing enough without adding another dimension.
Theory is always the place where the ideal can exist, unchallenged! Your experience with the reality of the situation is very welcome, and I'm grateful you took the time to kindly share it with me. I take your points. The adoption process is clearly an agonizing one all around, fraught with emotions and turmoil; it sounds like open adoption in general is the best of a difficult situation.
And you sound like a wonderful mother. Thanks for weighing in.
For some reason I'm unable to like comments today. But know I tried! Yours is a very emotionally mature and healthy attitude towards one's own good intentions!
My daughter is 36 now and she's still the very best thing that's ever happened!
Good on you, Mary! Now, seriously, consider the horror the Left (well, anyone) would express when seeing someone stomping on sea turtle eggs. And now think of the ease with which the Left aborts babies.
Sasha - A Conservative in the American tradition is one who venerates the Founders and the wonderful 'Experiment' they started with the founding of this nation. To King George and the rest of the English-speaking world at that time they were the 'Liberals', the 'Revolutionaries'. Thus. we know the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights as the second, third and fourth most freedom loving and inducing documents of all time! Next only to the Bible in terms of importance of all literature in the improvement of the human condition!
With respect to the 'human condition' now encompassed by the Alphabet Mafia (LGBTQ) and their insistence that we all not only accept their inanities, but glorify them, we have lost a lot of ground. With the radical left insisting on the overthrow of the Constitution, the end of Free Speech and the demise of the Family as the primary organizational component of civilization, Gay Marriage and all of its permutations is just another wedge issue to tear our society from its hinges, and keep us at each others throats. Tribalism is what we left for dead with the American Revolution. But now it is back in full force, in cahoots with: Racism, Classism, Genderism, etc. to a degree that our survival as a free and independent people is more in doubt today than ever in our 250 year history as a nation! God help us?!
Amen RR. In simple terms, America has fallen away from God in the past 60 years, hence our problems.
Roger, if I may--I believe, fervently, in all the things you note in your first paragraph, but I would describe myself as a Classical Liberal, not a "Conservative." Is that possible?
Thank you for this very thoughtful and well-considered piece. I agree with everything. You might want to look at the spring 2024 American Spectator devoted entirely to religion in American society. In general terms, I have grown into a “ Burkean” conservative— society must change organically. My personal impression of the Pope is that he may just be anti-American, like many leftists of his generation in South America, but is also inconsistent, incoherent, opportunistic and inclined to curry favor among the “woke” powerful and wealthy.
If one wishes to better understand Fiducia Supplicans (the gay blessing thing that the "Pope" is attempting to play down), then do a quick youtube search for Dr. Anthony Stine (Return to Tradition) and Joe McClane (A Catholic Take). Also, Dr Taylor Marshall.
They are all theologians, very trad Cath, and have very clearly explained the wordplay and danger of Bergoglio's (the guy currently in St Peter's chair) document about blessing sin, as well as the framework being laid for female deaconesses (I've already seen photos of potential deaconess attire) and the eventual ordination of women, which yes... is directly disobeying God (look up St Paul's statement on this).
The novus ordo Church is a fallen church. It's become progressive, heretical, well on its way to apostasy. For more on that, research "What went wrong at Vatican 2."
It all started going bad after the death of the last true Pope in 1958.
Fair warning. It's a serious scholarly rabbit hole. Expect to put some time in it, if you truly wish to understand.
This age was spoken of in end times prophecy. The falling away of Christians, the corruption and diabolic overthrow of the Church, the false teachers and prophets.
Fatima also spoke of the Church descending into darkness in a hundred years or so. Well, it's been about a hundred years since that prophetic event was foretold.
My interest in this is due to being 1) Constitutional Conservative
2) Traditional Catholic
I hope this helps your friend (and anyone else).
God bless.
In my opinion the last true Pope was Saint John Paul II. The left have corrupted his message of Christian Love and true social justice. True Love, the kind Jesus preached, had the elements of justice, compassion and discipline. The current Pope and his marxist supporters have totally disregarded discipline of any sort.
I think JPII was a kindly, warm, lovable man -- but a radically weak Pope. I heard that, because of his upbringing, he was so used to being surrounded by lying, subversive Marxists that he didn't believe a lot of what he was told when informed of some of the bad things going on in the Church. That would explain a lot of his inaction.
The man survived both Hitler and Stalin. Knew 11 languages. Was the first non-Italian elected in over 500 years! Stunning!
I loved your thoughts on the subject. I think most people feel the same way even though they don’t express it..Thanks for sharing
Let everyone know that July is MAGA month.
And November
All things antithetical to life and reproduction are their highest values.
"Ye shall know them by their fruits" said a fairly famous ancient Jewish guy... "I put before you Life and Death. Choose Life, so that you and your children may live" said his Father....
There are 3 things these people currently care about above all things:
1) The right to kill babies in the womb
2) The right to mutilate those children who escape the womb
3) Killing Jews
Rotting Fruit. Death.
I watched the free press video. There has been no society/civilization that has accepted this deviant behavior that survived. This will be the source of the end of the American experiment in self government. It will be replaced by something much much darker and worse and centuries will pass before it is tried again.
I fear you may be correct.
When the pendulum swings back from extreme Left, and it will, how far will it go?
Technically, an extreme Right is a Libertarian.
But this time, the pendulum might aim directly for Autocracy and Imperialist Dictator.
History does not repeat. But it does rhyme.
Sometimes, tragically so.
Oh nvm I think you mean the one at end of article!
Which Free Press video? I’d like to watch it too. Thank you.
It was imbedded into the piece.
Jane Fondle is a low quality troll, and normally, ignoring that kind of pathetic call to provocation is the wisest course. But that’s because most people don’t have the time or the writing skill to dismantle, not only the schoolyard-level “oh yeah, so’s your mom” fishing, but the deeply flawed position behind it. You’ve done both - as usual.
Jane is an not a "troll," she is an all-too-typical Leftist woman who is herself trapped in a hell of feminist/intersectionality dogma--and, unlike Sasha-- too blind to be able to recognize it.
I’m guessing Jane is a guy, and a he’s a troll. Just a hunch.
For a while, I thought Jane was a re-flagged Feldspar. Now I think she is just AWFL.
I’m beginning to like Ms Fondle. She keeps her cool and challenges us. Good to have counter arguments.
I can't say I like her but she is useful.
She is thoughtful and reasoned rather than hidebound and reactionary. We are never going to all agree so we have to try to understand each other. The extremes of BOTH party's DELIBERATLY INHIBIT THIS. Tom Clancy called it the NIH (not invented here) syndrome. Seems to co-occur a lot with TDS.
Sasha's viewpoints/stories are always a must read. I find myself enjoying the comments on her posts as enlightening and enjoyable. Impossible to "agree" with all of it but the community created around her writings gives one hope.
"Children are tokens to further their movement. They don’t want to be parents. They want society to accept them as parents" well stated.
I always value Sasha's openness. That takes courage. I expect intuitively we all know that men, women, children, and babies are persons. Simultaneously we all know that dogs are not persons. But just as dogs are given roles as pets, companions, herders and hunters through the genetical traits, so humans are born with roles.
Put clearly, each person is a person because each person is a finite copy of the Creator God. Each person is assigned a role at birth: male role or female role. Seeing things this way helps me see where we go wrong in society.
I am Catholic and I am not a fan of Pope Francis. One of the local priests once told me we must pray for the Pope. But he also added, ‘I don’t listen to him.” Draw your own conclusions. Being Catholic involves living a life according to conservative values not the Marxist dribble this Pope often spews.
The pope is very much a Marxist.
then shouldn’t they also respect the rules of other religions? Just a thought.- no they won’t! This was a good , heartfelt piece.
You are every bit as competent as Ben Shapiro to comment on homosexual issues, Sasha. Perhaps more so in that you have lived at the ground level rather than comment on things like Shapiro does.
I am a lifelong conservative and conservatism has basically meant to simply conserve what works(e.g. Bill of Rights) and not live in a bubble. I have never been hostile toward gays in any way - generally super nice folks - because they have been around since time began. Things have definitely gone too far these days; post human.
"I also worry about the mental health of small babies who need mothers. They just do." Spot. On. It is why I am pro-life, both the baby and the mother.