Will this be a century of climatism?

While socialism at least aimed at economic improvement, though using wrong means to this end, climatism deifies nature with its 11th commandment: “You shall not disturb my perfectly balanced ecosystems.”

It publicly admits its end of undermining and hampering production and stopping and reversing economic progress under this absurd pretext.

Climatism is the ideology of economic sabotage.

There is no reason to condemn anyone with everlasting hellfire, when a mere second of hellfire perfectly deters everyone from sin.

The “tzimtzum” doctrine would seem to imply that in “contracting His infinite light,” God either hurt Himself or made the whole reality worse than before when the space thereby allegedly created was fully lit.

This occult “Jewish” doctrine is also a Christian heresy that states that creation is metaphysically evil.

On the contrary, God posed no obstacles to the existence of non-divine creatures and did not need to withdraw His being to create them. Creation then is metaphysically good, adding something positive to God.

Social contracting need not lead to a statist society. For example, I can say:

“I want to live in a society where the standard of living improves the fastest” which happens to be laissez-faire capitalism; or

“where no legal impediments are placed on the increase in productivity of labor”; or

“where there are extensive consumer liberties”;

and hope that others will see the wisdom of my reasoning.

It’s telling that Jenner did not adopt an “intersex genderqueer” or any other of the 43 or however many sexual “identities.”

He wanted to be a regular woman.

This suggests that one’s sex is first spiritual and bodily only second. The mind wins the battle over matter even in this most favorable to matter case.

Abridgment of liberty is not the price of safety; liberty is the fountainhead of all economic goods, including safety.

The price of safety is cold hard cash, as in you’ve got to pay for your locks, security systems, life insurance, password managers, bodyguards, and all the rest.

The First Amendment does not read “There shall be freedom of religion, speech, press, … throughout the realm” but “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…”

As in, the federal Congress.

State governments are not forbidden by either the First or Ninth Amendment to make such laws.

In fact, they are empowered to do just that by the Tenth.

“Jesus died for our sins” and “Jesus scratched his head for our sushi” are equally unintelligible. The “for” fails to connect the two parts of the sentence meaningfully.

Only on my understanding are the motivations of all actors clear.

Jesus can be said to have laid down His life, because He did not physically resist His murderers. The purpose of that was, again, to experience personally humanity at its worst, in order for Christ to decide its fate while well-informed.

Thus, St. Thomas writes that “Christ endured all suffering” and “the pain of Christ’s Passion was greater than all other pains.”

However, redemption was a contingent event in two senses:

first, Jesus did not have to incarnate at all; and

second, after being killed, He did not have to accept and bless the world.

But He did both through a freely made choice, and that is why we give glory to Him.

(Note that His killers do not include us all; if they did, then Christ would have observed nothing good in humanity, only evil, and no salvation would as a result have been achieved.)

It’s almost as if the devil spoke to the Son prior to the Incarnation and said:

“I’ll tell you two things. First is about humans. If you go to them, then they — the people whom I despise yet you claim to love — will kill you.

“Second is about you. After they kill you, you’ll hate them.”

God had to accept the challenge. In the end, one thing the devil said was true; the other, false.