Sunday, June 27, 1922. Bishop O'Rourke of the East passes away, Disaster at Huntington Beach, Lousy German troops.

The unlikely named former Catholic Bishop of Riga and later Bishop of Danzia, an opponent of the Nazis, died at age 66, in Rome, where he was living in exile.

Born in Minsk to a family of Irish heritage, which was also unlikely, he had resigned his position in Riga as a movement for a Latvian Bishop gained strength.  He clashed with the Nazis in Danzig, which had ultimately led to his relocation to Poland, where he was granted Polish citizenship.  When the Germans invaded Poland, he was on a journey to Estonia, and ultimately traveled to Italy.  He was not able to regain admittance to German occupied Poland.

A P-38 Lightening crashed into a crowd of beach goers at Huntington Beach, California, after its pilot had bailed out. Three people lost their lives and forty nine were injured.

Sarah Sundin noted that event, and others, on her blog:

Today in World War II History—June 27, 1943: French Resistance attacks Ateliers des Fives locomotive works at Lille. P-38 Lightning fighter plane crashes on Huntington Beach in CA, killing 4 children.

As odd as it is to consider that it even occurred, the 1943  German football championship was won by Dresdner SC.

Bill Downs, CBS Moscow correspondent, reported that Red Army troops were surprised by hte quantity of lice that captured German soldiers bore.

A Hairy Time

This is an advertisement commissioned by the Wyoming Department of Health, and my gosh does it bring home a really overlooked point about the past. . . and today.

Very well done, and very much worth the watching.

Not all that long ago getting a simple infection, and tetanus is more than a simple infection, could kill you.  Calvin Coolidge, Jr., the then Vice President's son, died from a staph infection resulting from a blister on a toe that he acquired playing tennis barefoot.  The infection killed the poor boy within a week of its occurrence.

Infections acquired at barber shops, sometimes deadly, were such a problem that they were a major topic of local physician's organizations.  Tetanus was only one of the killer diseases that lurked there. Even anthrax could be picked up from razor strop, if it had been made from a diseased animal.  Bacteria lurking in barbers brushes, used all day long on multiple clients, posed another danger.

And of course, as the story of Calvin Coolidge, Jr. shows, infections could be picked up anywhere, and kill you.

Memories of such things remained strong in my parents' generation.  My mother recalled that her father used to occasionally get a shave at the barbers, which was odd as this was well after the safety razor came about, and that he invariably developed "barber's cancer", a colloquial term meaning a bad rash from an infection.  The family tried to prevent him from doing this, but he would occasionally anyhow, and given the line of work he was in, it was probably in order to engage with members of the local public.  My father, for his part, never approved of going barefoot, regarding it as an invitation to infection.

Now, simple vaccinations eliminate the danger.

Friday, June 4, 1943. Giraud takes command.

Henri Giraud was appointed Commander In Chief of the Free French Forces.

Giraud was a career French Army officer, as we would of course expect, who had entered the army in 1900.  He was serving with the Zouave's in North Africa when World War One broke out and was badly wounded leading a Zouave charge earlier in the war, resulting in his capture by the Germans after he'd been left for dead.  He'd escaped German captivity posing as s circus roustabout after his recovery.

He was captured by the Germans a second time in May 1940, and escaped again in November 1942, as we discussed here:

Saturday, November 7, 1942. Giraud escapes France.

The British submarine Seraph smuggled French general Henri Giraud out of France.

Giraud was an opponent of the Vichy regime and had escaped German captivity, for Switzerland, back in April.  Vichy tried to lure him back, but he demurred.

While all in anticipation of Torch, the submarine took Giraud to Gibraltar, where he remained until November 9.  Relationships between the Free French officers were always highly complicated and tense, in part because their legitimacy was really legally questionable, which their organization, supported by the Allies, reflected. The Allies always tried to split the difference between outright firebrand rebels, like DeGaulle, and those who still held some ties to Vichy as the legal government.  Those in a position in between, like Giraud, were in an odd spot.

He received Allied support as the leader of the Free French following the assassination of Admiral Darlan. At the time, the Allies were trying to balance the personalities in the French leadership which varied from DeGaulle, who had gone into rebellion against Vichy from the onset, to individuals like Darlan who had not been sympathetic with the Nazis but who were unwilling, at first, to rebel against the established legal government.  Giroud appeared to be a good compromise between the two.  In that, he may have been misread.  An early sign of that was when Gen. Eisenhower asked him to take command of French troops in North Africa during Operation Torch, and he declined at first as he felt his honor demanded command of Torch itself, although he soon relented.

As it was, French forces in North Africa refused to recognize Giraud and instead continued to follow the orders of Admiral Darlan.  Darlan was accordingly recognized by the Allies as the head of French forces in North Africa, in spite of his association with Vichy.  Giraud's position was thereafter under Darlan.  Upon Darlan's assassination, Giraud's overall leadership of the French forces was forced through by the Allies.

Giraud had not been, however, a perfect choice, as he wished to retain French racial laws and he had made comments sympathetic to the accomplishments of Nazi Germany.  He'd ultimately fell when he acted independently of the Allies in sending French ships to help French resistance movements in Corsica in September without informing the Allies.  At this point, it was learned that he was maintaining an independent intelligence service.  This led to his wartime retirement.  

He served in the Assembly after the war, and died in 1949 at age 70.

Argentina's government fell in a coup d'etate which removed Ramon Castillo, who had maintained a strict neutrality position over World War Two, in favor of Gen. Arturo Rawson, who yielded nearly immediately to Gen. Pedro Ramirez, who continued the neutrality policy.  As this might demonstrate, the coup and Argentine politics were in a highly confused state, and would remain that way for many years.  Its military was clearly a danger, however, to civilian leadership of the country.

Belle and Kermit Roosevelt.

Kermit Roosevelt, serving as a Major in the U.S. Army, but also suffering from years of illness and alcoholism, committed suicide in Alaska.  He was 52 years old.

Adventuresome, like his father, but subject to alcoholism like his uncle.  He served in the British and American armies during World War One.  He'd accompanied his father on the legendary River of Doubt expedition in South America before the war, an event which contributed to Theodore Roosevelt's late in life declining health.  Like his father, Kermit Roosevelt nearly died during the expedition and also like his father, a branch of the river was named for him.

He served a second hitch in the British Army early in World War Two, participating in the Battle of Narvik.  He resumed heavy drinking after an injury in that battle, which he had previously given up, and was plagued by liver problems that was compounded by malaria. He was subsequently medically discharged from British service.  His drinking was so bad that Archie Roosevelt sought to place him in a sanitarium for a year upon his return, and he agreed to a four-month stay.  He took a commission in the U.S. Army as a major at that time and was stationed at Ft. Richardson, Alaska.

Wednesday, May 26, 1943. Edsel Ford passes. Canada rations, Barclay stays,

Today in World War II History—May 26, 1943: Edsel Ford, President of Ford Motor Company, dies, age 49; his father, Henry Ford, resumes the presidency. Canada begins meat rationing.

From Sarah Sundin's blog.

Ford, a major philanthropist, died of stomach cancer.

Edsel Ford with his wife Elanor.

Edsel had taken the company into aviation, over the objections of his father, which was foresighted at the time.  This allowed the company to engage in aviation manufacture during World War Two.

Like his father, his reputation in not wholly unblemished.  There are some reasons to suspect that he sympathized with the Germans in World War Two early on.

Edwin Barclay, the President of Liberia, visited President Roosevelt and spent the night, at the Executive Mansion, the first black to do so.  On the same day, Roosevelt ordered striking workers at rubber plants in Akron, Ohio to return to work.

U.S. Troops at Massacre Bay, Attu, May 26, 1943.

The Japanese attached Chinese forces at Pianyan in Hubei Province, but were repelled. the Japanese force of 4,500 men sustained 3,000 casualties.

The Germans ordered that concentration camp inmates cease being given sequentially numbered identification numbers in order that the number of murder victims could be concealed.

My father celebrated his 14th birthday.

Upon reaching 60

That's how old I am today.

When I was young.  I was about three when this photos was taken, maybe two.  My father was 36 or 37.

Americans like to debate at what age you are "old", with that benchmark, and the one for middle age, moving over the years to some extent.  Some go so far as to claim that the term doesn't mean anything. 

It does, as you really do become older and then old, at some point.

The United Nations categorizes "older" as commencing at age 60, something, given their mission, that would encompass the totality of the human race.  Some polling you'll see suggests that Americans regard it actually starting at 59 or 57.  Pew, the respected polling and data institution, noted the following:

These generation gaps in perception also extend to the most basic question of all about old age: When does it begin? Survey respondents ages 18 to 29 believe that the average person becomes old at age 60. Middle-aged respondents put the threshold closer to 70, and respondents ages 65 and above say that the average person does not become old until turning 74.

Interesting.

It is not like flipping a switch, and it doesn't really happen to all people at the exact same time.  I'm often reminded of this when I observe people I've known for many years.  Men in particular, I used to think, aged at a much different rate than women.  I knew a few of my contemporaries who were getting pretty old by the time they were in their 30s, and I know a few men in their 70s who are in fantastic shape and appear much younger than they really are.  I recall thinking, back when I was in my late 20s, that my father was getting older, but wasn't old, right up until the time he died at age 62.

Having said that, I’m often now shocked, I hate to admit, by the appearance of women my own age, again that I knew when they were young.  It's not like I know every girl I went to high school with, but I know a few of them, and some of them have held up much better than others.  In that category, some of my close relatives have really held up well.

Up until recently, I could say that I've held up well, but this past year has been really rough health wise. First there was colon surgery in October, followed by a prolonged medical addressing of a thyroid nodule which was feared, at first, to be aggressive cancer. Working that out is still ongoing, but that now appears much less likely, meaning that only half the thyroid will need to be removed.  

All of that has reminded me of Jesus' address to Peter:

Amen, amen, I say to you, when you were younger, you used to dress yourself and go where you wanted; but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.

John, Chapter 21.

Peter, by the way, was between age 64 and 68 when he was martyred.  St. Paul was over 60, it's worth noting, when he met the same fate.

It's been rough in other ways as well.  One thing is that, in spite of what people like to claim, your fate is really fixed by age 60.  You aren't going to leave your job as an accountant and become an Army paratrooper.¹ If you are a paratrooper, you're going to retire now, as 60 is the military's retirement cutoff age.  If you've spent decades in the Army, and retire at 60 (most servicemen retire before that), you aren't going on, probably, to a career you don't have any strong connection with.

In my case, as I started to type out here the other day and then did not, as it didn't read the way I really wanted it to, I can now look back on a long career, over 30 years, and largely regard it as a failure, even though almost everyone I know would regard it as a success.  I won't get over that.  I'd always hoped to make the judiciary, but I'm not going to, and there's no longer even any point in trying.  I'm reminded of this failure every time I appear in front of one of the new judges and see how incredibly young they now are, and also when I listen to suggestions that the retirement age for judges be raised up to the absurdly high 75.

At age 60, if I were to go to work for the state (which I'm also not going to), I couldn't really ever make the "Rule of 85" for retirement.  As a lifelong private practice attorney, I'm now actually at the age where most lawyers look at their career, and their income, and decide they can't retire, some retreating into their office personality as the last version of themselves and nothing else.  I'm not going to become a member of the legislature, something probably most young lawyers toy with the idea of.  I'm not going to become a game warden, something I pondered when young.²  I'm way past the point where most similar Federal occupations are age restricted, and for good reason.

This is, work wise, pretty much it.

I said to myself, this is the business we've chosen; I didn't ask who gave the order, because it had nothing to do with business!

Hyman Roth, to Michael Corleone, in The Godfather, Part II ,

I'm also never going to own my own ranch, which was a decades long career goal.  I have acquired a fair number of cattle, but my operation is always going to be ancillary to my in laws at this point.  When I was first married my wife and I tried to find our own place, with she being much less optimistic about it than I. There were times, when the land cost less, that we could almost make, almost, a small place. We never quite did, and now, we're not going to.

Indeed, thinking back to St. Peter, I'm now at the age of "you can't", with some of the "can'ts" being medical.  I could when I was younger, but now I can't, or shouldn't.  Others are familial.  "You can't" is something I hear a lot, pertaining to a lot of things, ranging from what we might broadly call home economics, in the true economic sense, to short term and long term plans, to even acquisitions that to most people wouldn't be much, but in my circumstances, in the views of others, are.  Some are professional, as ironically it's really at some point in your 50s or very early 60s where you are by default fully professionally engaged, with that taking precedence over everything else, including time for anything else.

One of the most frustrating things about reaching this age, however, is seeing that you probably will never see how some things turn out, and you don't seem to have the ability to influence them.  I'm not, in this instance, referring to something like the Hyman Roth character again, in which he hopes to see the results of his criminal enterprise flourish but fears he won't live long enough to.  Indeed, I find myself curiously detached from concerns of this type that some people have.  I've noticed, for instance, the deep concern some aging lawyers have about their "legacy" in the law, which often translates to being remembered as a lawyer or their firm's carrying on.  I don't have those concerns, and indeed, taking the long view of things, I think it's really vanity to suppose that either of those wishes might be realized by anyone.

No, what I mean is that by this age there are those you know very closely, and you have reason to fear for their own long term fate, but you really don't have much you can do about it.  People who seem to be stuck in place, for instance, seem beyond the helping hand, and more than that, they don't really want, it seems, to be offered a hand.  People who have walked up to the church door but who won't go in as it means giving up grudges, burdens or hatreds, can't be coaxed in, even it means their soul is imperiled.  It recalls the last final lines of A River Runs Through It. .

I remember the last sermon I ever heard my father give, not long before his own death:

Each one of us here today will, at one time in our lives, look upon a loved one in need and ask the same question: We are willing Lord, but what, if anything, is needed? For it is true that we can seldom help those closest to us. Either we don’t know what part of ourselves to give, or more often than not, that part we have to give… is not wanted. And so it is those we live with and should know who elude us… But we can still love them… We can love—completely—even without complete understanding….

I guess that's about right. 

Footnotes:

1.  Or, I might note, a Ukrainian Legionnaire.  You are too old to join.

Interestingly, I recently saw an article by a well known, I guess, newspaper reporter who attempted to join the U.S. Army in his upper 40s.  He apparently didn't know that you are well past the eligible age of enlistment at that point.  He was arguing that there should be some sort of special unit made for people like himself, or like he imagined himself, well-educated individuals in their upper 40s.  Why should there be if you can recruit people in their 20s?

2. Wyoming Game Wardens were once required to retire at age 55, but a lawsuit some decades ago overturned that. It, in turn, was later overruled, but by that time the state had changed the system. Since that time, it's set it again statutorily, with the age now being 65 by law.  There aren't, therefore, any 67-year-old game wardens.

Statutorily, the current law provides:

9-3-607. Age of retirement.

(a) Any employee with six (6) or more years of service to his credit is eligible to receive a retirement allowance under this article when he attains age fifty (50).

(b) Effective July 1, 1998, any employee retiring after July 1, 1998, with twenty-five (25) or more years of service may elect to retire and receive a benefit upon attaining age fifty (50) as described in W.S. 9-3-610.

(c) Repealed by Laws 1993, ch. 120, §§ 1, 2.

(d) Any employee in service who has attained age sixty-five (65), shall be retired not later than the last day of the calendar month in which his 65th birthday occurs. 

Age limitations of this type are tied to physical fitness.  But what about mental fitness?  As mentioned here before, Gen. Marshall forcibly retired most serving U.S. Army generals, or at least sidelined them, who were over 50 years of age during World War Two, and that had to do with their thinking.  We now allow judges to remain on the bench until they are 70.  Would 60 make more sense?  And can the same argument be made for lawyers, who are officers of the court?

Speaks for itself?

 

Saturday, May 13, 1943. The Germans lay down their arms in North Africa (after having sustained greater losses than they did at Stalingrad), Postwar careers of the Wehrmacht, Mary Wells born.

Today In Wyoming's History: May 13: 1943  A measles epidemic was raging in the state.  As everyone in my family has the stomach flu today, I can sympathize with epidemics.  Attribution:  Wyoming State Historical Society.

That was, of course, in 2013, when that entry was written.  Other health problems are visiting now, ten years later, of a more serious nature.

Lieutenant General Bernard Freyberg (left), commander of the 2nd New Zealand Division, Brigadier Graham and Major General Kurt von Liebenstein at the surrender.

The German Army's 164th Infantry Division laid its weapons down and Major General Kurt Freiherr von Liebenstein surrendered the unit, becoming the last Afrika Korps unit to do so.

Of significant note, in the few days that the final Axis surrender in North Africa took place, 267,000 Afrika Korps troops became POWs.

In contrast, the Soviets took 91,000 German prisoners at Stalingrad.  In fairness, the Germans lost 500,000 men at Stalingrad.  However, in fairness again, during the entire North African campaign, the Germans and Italians suffered 620,000 casualties.  The British Commonwealth lost 220,000 men and the United States 18,500, one of whom was the brother of one of my father's good friends.

I note this as, once again, it sheds light on the Soviet propaganda of the time that they were fighting the war alone. The Soviets lost 750,000 men fighting the Germans at Stalingrad, which is a massive loss, and the battle is regarded as the largest in human history, but in terms of campaign loss, if viewed that way, the Germans and Italians loss more men fighting the British (mostly) and the Americans in North Africa.

Von Liebenstein would go on to join the Bundesherr in 1955 and retire five years later at his World War Two rank of Major General.  He died in 1975 at age 76.  His career dated back to World War One.

This raises a question I've never been able to get a good answer for.  Did the Federal Republic of Germany recognize per 1955 military service for retirement purposes for West German soldiers?  I'm thinking it must have.

The early Bundesheer was packed with former members of the Wehrmacht, and even a handful of SS officers, capped at major for career advancement, were allowed into it, after first being declined.  I don't know the percentage, but a roster of Bundesheer officers reads like a whose who of former Nazi era Heer rolls. 

Indeed, amazingly, the West German government called upon ten senior former Nazi era officers in the early 1950s, including Erich von Manstein, about how to reestablish a German army.  In 1953 Manstein addressed the Bundestag on this topic, noting that he favored a conscript army with 18 to 24 months mandatory male service, thereby looking back to the pre-1939 German system.  This system was in fact adopted.  Von Manstein himself was not allowed back into that army, but it's well known that he had a veto power over former German officers applying to join it, and that he did not want "traitors".

One American historian, a former Army officers, has called this group a "handful", but that's far from true.  There were a lot of them.  And more than a few of them had a background like von Liebenstein.  He'd started off as a junior Imperial German Army in 1916, had gone on to the Reichsheer after the German defeat, had served the Nazi's after that, and completed his career in the service of the Federal Republic of Germany.

How did he view his loyalties?

On this, it ought to also be noted, the post World War Two German Federal Republic's offices were simply packed with those who had served the Third Reich.  Over 70% of its judiciary in that era had.  This really began to come apart with the upheavals of 1968, which gave us the Germany, culturally, we have today.

FWIW, the post-war Austrian Army also had officers who had been in the German Heer, and before that, in the Austrian Army.

Famous Motwon singer Mary Wells was born on this day in Detroit.

Hogwash

That's what the most recent entry by Robert Reich is: 

The Republican threat to our children

Reich is an intelligent man, and a highly left wing one.  Like a lot of intelligent pundits, right and left, he's mastered the art of connecting the disconnected.

The two major political parties do this all the time, which is part of the reason American politics are dysfunctional.  One proposition is stated, and then a chain of them are linked in, in order to support a thesis that is, well, hogwash.

A lot of issues in the world just flat out stand on their own, or nearly so. Abortion is one example.  Reich, who perversely, given his Jewish heritage, is pretty much for infanticide in the womb without restraint, makes the BS link that "if you are pro-life, you must be pro gun control".

In truth, a lot of pro-life people probably are pro gun control. But the two are not really linked. And if they were, Robert Reich would be manning the picket lines against abortion at abortion clinics, as infanticide factories are euphemistically called.  Indeed, as the arguments for abortion are pretty much the same as the arguments for the Holocaust were, i.e., "they aren't real people", "they're a burden on real people", and therefore the two really are linked, he should be in any event.

In this article, he notes the conservative opposition to teenage gender mutilation and then links that into gun control, etc.  It's patently absurd. There's no connection whatsoever.

There are connections, however, with a host of other "liberal" laws that are not under attack and should inform an intelligent audience, or perhaps Mr. Reich.

You can't get tattoos legally as a minor.

You can't buy firearms, in spite of what Mr. Reich seems to be suggesting, as a minor.

Child labor laws do exist, in spite of what Mr. Reich is suggesting, and at a Federal level.

You can't legally bind a minor to a contract, and therefore minor's can't contract.

In more and more states, minors aren't allowed to marry, which is something the left supports.

The left, however, is bizarrely fascinated by sex, and including sex in the most odd ways imaginable.  In 2023, with so many problems facing the nation, a rational legal effort to prevent minors from being mutilated in the name of a passing and likely bogus set of theories is a good effort.

Remember eugenics?

It was a big deal prior to World War Two.

Do you remember it Robert?  You probably ought to consider that at one time it was the up and coming "scientific" "medical" theory, and so those of low IQ or who were impaired were chemically neutered, people were lobotomized, and ultimately, millions of Europeans gassed.

Transgenderism will pass as well, and just as the left has manged to forget its prior associations with things inconvenient, such as how nifty the early Soviet Union was, they'll wash their hands of this.  

Probably, trial lawyers will do the washing.

But those backing it will just go back to their comfortable lives and linking in one improbable with another.

Normalizing Mental Illness isn't helping to address it.

Guardrails on roads aren't put up because if they're not, everyone will drive off the road.  They're put there, so an errant driver doesn't drive off the road and get hurt or killed.

Drinking laws don't exist because, if they don't, everyone will take up drinking at an early age.  They're there because some will, to their detriment, and the laws make it harder.

Controls, of all types, exist as some, but only some, will go over the boundaries into self-destruction, or the destruction of others.

We should have remembered that before we started taking down the guard rails on sexual conduct.

Readers of this blog, if they hit only one or two entries, probably come away with the impression that I'm an arch-conservative or a flaming liberal.

I note that, as readers who only hit this one, are going to think "oh, reactionary conservative".  Not so, my views don't fit easily into a right or left category, and that's because they're all based on a set of guiding principles, one of which is the adherence and belief in science and nature.

Both the left and the right are fully at war with nature right now.  And this is one of the things causing the country to be so massively polarized.

I'm not in the Trumpist right by any means, but lefties who wonder how anyone could be should take stock in this.  Right now, a fair part of the left, and not even the far left, is pretty much invested in normalizing mental illness. We've gone from a state in which an aberrant behavior, but one that didn't otherwise control every aspect of a person's personality, was forced upon society as normal, and forced upon those who bore it as their singular identity, to one in which outright mental illness is now being proclaimed as normal.  There's a pretty big difference between a person experiencing some disordered inclinations, to having those inclinations define them in every way and be celebrated.

There's also a big difference how far down a scale a person goes once they depart from a genetic mean.  Some people, for example, might be excessively materialistic to their personal detriment.  Not too many take that all the way into compulsive theft.  Or, for example, some people might have an inordinate fascination with food.  Calling somebody a glutton is out of style now days, but not too many of those people take it all the way into compulsive overeating.  Some people are inordinately fascinated with themselves, but only a true minority take it into narcissism.  Some people drink more alcohol than they should, but then there are also alcoholics.

Part of what keeps people from going overboard with deeply seated negative personality deviations is societal and legal controls, legal controls being a species of societal ones.  The law will step in if you steal.  Societal pressure, anymore, will step in if you eat too much. You get the point.

Some of our deeply seated natural instincts are the ones that can really get out of control if they are allowed to delve beyond an acceptable mean, and decay into mental illness.  A person has a right to defend themselves, but not to become compulsively violent.  Those who do become psychopaths.  We shouldn't tolerate temping people into being psychopaths, but in fact with do.

As people know that abnormal is in fact not normal, they naturally get up in arms about it at the point where they're told they have to accept it in spite of the evidence their own eyes affords them.  The far right, as personally hypocritical as it is, at least on some social issues doesn't advocate for normalizing mental illness.

The left, in contrast, has at first done everything it could to take down the guardrails. . . we can hardly remember, for example, that Hugh Hefner was once prosecuted for obscenity.  Once that had the predictable results, and the decay really set in, its tried to normalize the decay.

And, as it was only a matter of time, we're just about to go through one more door, maybe, in which a mental illness/deeply destructive compulsion, is about to be regarded as "A Okay".  Inevitably, we're now going through one more door.  Consider this twitter post from the group Gays Against Groomers:

New pedo flag and “orientation” just dropped. Meet the “YAP” community: Youth Attracted Persons.

According to them, they are oppressed, and you are a hateful, fascist bigot if you oppose them.

Normalizing pedophilia was always the goal. They are the next victim class.

And already a Virginia professor is wanting to make sure that the term "minor attracted person" is used rather than pedophile, as the latter term might be regarded as offensive.

That's right.  Since Obergefell, we've gone from altering the normal, universal understanding of marriage, to forced acceptance that there's no difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality, to chose your own gender, and we're about to go to molesting children being a life choice.

And, take for example, Montana legislator Zachary Raasch.

Never heard of Raasch?  Well, if you are following the news, you've heard of him being proclaimed as a hero for disrupting Montana's legislature.

But not as Raasch, but as the self-proclaimed Zooey Zephyr.

Raasch was a high school wrestler who, at some point, decided he'd rather be a woman, even though that's genetically impossible.  He had himself surgically castrated and a pseudo vagina surgically created and is taking drugs to complete as much of the process as can be.  He's deeply mentally disturbed, as this Twitter post likely demonstrates to anyone who isn't so far gone down this path as to be unable to see.

Rep. Zooey Zephyr

@ZoAndBehold

This is my ideal relationship with a man: one where I'm riding him, and also ready to end his life.

Quote Tweet

SAKON

@sakonlieur

·

Oct 30, 2020

Lose. #原神 #GenshinImpact #Childe #Lumine #rkgk

Show this thread

1:19 PM · Nov 3, 2020

That's deeply weird.

Raasch is interested in other disturbing things, such as transhumanism.  He's heavily into video gaming.  He's a Manga fan, as the distressing image above shows.  According to one person whose detailed his interests, who is of course only one person, he's  "shows all the classic signs of an autogynephilic—a man who (often spurred by pornography or fetish) becomes sexually aroused by the idea of themselves as a woman."   Raasch's known "relationships" have included at least two other men affecting the trans identity, one of whom was also a "furry".

Raasch has clocked himself in the mantle of a type of crusader, disruptively arguing that not allowing people afflicted with a desire to change their gender will lead to suicide.  Even pro LBGTQ groups assert this argument should not be made as it is counterproductive.  But all of this is instructive.  Starting no later than the 1960s, and perhaps a couple of decades earlier than that, we started taking the fences down.  By the time of Obergefell, we were ready, or at least some were, to knock a stone wall down.  Now it's so far down that a person who is obviously deeply mentally ill is being portrayed as some sort of crusader for civil rights.

And the next step. . . almost taken.

Many have been concerned that the US seems to be sliding towards fascism.  It probably isn't, in literal terms, as fascism properly understood is a corporatist political theory that has no real popularity in the US. What we are sliding towards, however, is on one hand a deeply authoritarian anti-democratic populist right and a deeply anti-natural left.  

Should this get any worse, the left will be more to blame for it than the right.

The left went to war with democracy in the late 1960s and began to advocate for rule by an autocratic court, which it apparently thought it could keep left wing forever, as lawyers were, and are, generally political liberals.  It certainly did keep it left wing for a long time.  Concern over this only developed when the court returned to actually interpreting the law, one really significant actually accomplished during the Trump administration.  Now the left, which was previously perfectly happy to leave the Court completely to itself, is howling with rage over supposed ethics concerns on the Court, something that it didn't care much about previously, and much of which is just a thinly veiled desperate effort to remove justices while the Democrats control the Oval Office and Senate.  At any rate, the left is now deeply dedicated to being wholly at war with human nature, vested in the concept that every human being has a right, basically, to be a god of their own.  Liberal commentators, like Robert Reich, who likely would have thought Raasch nuts up until relatively recently, are all for such fantasies now.

It's well worth remembering that it was the German, Italian, Spanish and Japanese radical left that appeared long before the extreme right in those nations.  German communists, which had its own collection of now benighted individuals who really aren't very admirable in real terms, appeared well before World War One and struggled to seize the country from the less radical Socialist when the German monarchy collapsed in 1918.  The Communists can't be blamed for the Nazis, but fear of Communism certainly contributed to the rise of the Nazis and their electoral success in a major way.  More than a few German voters who voted for the Nazis in 1932 were voting against the Communists.

And the Spanish Communists were headed for a clear usurpation of democracy in Spain before the Spanish right revolted.  The Spanish right was deeply anti-democratic, but the Spanish left wasn't dedicated to it either.

And while the claim that is sometimes made that moral decay in Weimar Germany lead directly to the rise of the Nazis isn't really correct, there's a slight element of truth to that, albeit it's only a piece of a much larger pie.  The Communists of the late 19th Century and early 20th Century were absolute in supporting the libertine.  Marx's dictum that "all wives shall be held in common" was a Communist position, and many early Communists expressed that in their personal lives flagrantly.  Whitaker Chambers notes in Witness than he and his wife became exceptions over time, starting at the point at which she became pregnant, as the expectation was that she'd abort the child, the Communist norm.

It isn't that the Socialist government of Weimar Germany made the country a moral sewer, but it is the case that following the First World War some urban areas of Germany did experience a notable moral decay, if a person can recognize one, that did repel some conservative Germans.  It was not the case that this was a major factor in the Nazis coming to power, but rather just one more thing.

Pre war Naiz poster, swastika removed, showing Hitler being chummy with German children, and therefore appealing to traditional values.  In reality, of course, Hitler never had any children of his own and shacked up with the fairly pathetic Eva Braun until right at the end of the war, marrying her only then.  He wasn't a family values kind of guy, but appealing to traditional Western European values made him seem attractive to some scared elements of German society. . . much the way serial polygamist and generally icky Donald Trump appeals to many legitimately scared Americans now.

And hence why I note it here.  On the right, there's a definite fascination right now with finding a vehicle to return to existential conservative values.  In the more thoughtful camps, this is being expressed in terms of Christian Nationalism. Some are just expressing it in terms of traditional conservatism.  But the populist right is really picking it up as people are shocked by the rapid change in this area and know it to be wrong without thinking deeply on it.  People turned to Trump in the first place, as he basically promised to burn the entire edifice down.

He's promising that again.

Yes, personally he may be morally bankrupt, but then Hitler wasn't a choir boy either.  People, in desperation, will turn to those who seem to be able to get things done.  And in doing that, they'll adopt the conspiracy theories that explain how something so weird could happen.

The left closing a blind eye to the really disturbing events going on here is feeding the right.  It's a rare person who can closely cut between two extremes and not fall into one.  People are being pushed into one here.

And the really mentally ill are being left behind.

This is the second time in recent decades we have done this.  Earlier we decided that people with mental illness, often caused by drugs or alcohol, would be happier if not detained. So we set them out on the streets, where they likely descend further into drugs and alcohol.  Compulsions in this are too can be massively overwhelming.  St. Matt Talbott found that in order to overcome alcoholism he actually had to take routes that avoided taverns, lest he fall into them.

In other words, he put up his own guardrails.

In the area we are referencing here, profound sexual deviance, that's also the case.  Prior to the aftershocks of the Stonewall Riot era, most homosexuals lead pretty normal lives, even if they engaged in the conduct.  The societal guardrails, of which the legal recognition of some of the natural law in the form of laws pertaining to families, men and women, were part of that.  Once that started getting taken down, it left those with pulls, often developed pulls, in other directions to try to stay on the road by themselves.  

Drinking is one thing.  Alcohol is a poison and while the species is long acclimated to it, it's an acquired taste of some degree.  But the biological imperative to reproduce, no matter how much moderns may wish to frustrate it, is wired into us.  The overwhelming majority of human beings will not fall into deviance, but in every society up until this very one, the societal laws, if not the statutory ones, operated to affect guardrails.  Even those people who like to note "but the ancient Greeks" blind their eye to hte fact that no less of a a figure than Plate railed against homosexuality.

Homosexuality, of course, is just one of the deviations, and in contemporary terms it's nearly a garden variety one.  All sorts of other plagues exist in this area, from people addicted to pornography to people who engage in serials conventional affairs. Indeed, the last item is the oldest of the deviations of them all, and probably the one that gets more people killed, even now, than any other.  

Some years ago, on a Catholic Things You Should Know, Fr. Michael O'Loughlin noted being in a group of friends, who were secular friends, in which one of them noted longingly that he wished he could go back and look at women the way he had before he had knowledge, to put it delicately.  There's more than a little to that.  Indeed, it's worth noting how many long married men remarry, and always have, very rapidly after a spouse dies.  It's likely a certain acclimation has something to do with that.  And its been noted that in our modern society, where the rules about monogamy and chastity have broken down, it's become harder for those with serial "partners' to really form a bond.  Indeed, according to psychologist, after men have had eight such partners, their chances of delving down into the below 18 ranks for more dramatically increase.

And the long example of pornography should warn us.  The entire culture is pornofied, but some descend into various types of mental illness due it.  Raasch likely has, although we can't know for sure what caused him to take the deviation that he did.  

But simply asserting that everyone has to accept it as normal makes no more sense than pretnding alcoholism is normal. 

Or, pretending pedophilia is normal.

But the logic is there.  If cutting off your member and having a fake vagina, and taking drugs to affect the appearance of a woman is normal, then pedophilia, which requires a lot less than that, must be too.

But it isn't.  Neither is transgenderism.