In one forum or the other over the last couple of years, we've carried on (and on, and on) about what we're seeing in the culture at large in the West, but particularly in the US. Often we've said that some things are contra naturam: against Nature. That's perfectly obvious in the case of the "men can have babies" stuff, just like it's obvious that there is no such thing as "marriage" between homosexuals. It's much less obvious in the way modern medicine is developing, particularly in the "mRna", which at its core is an attempt to re-program DNA. It's not a vaccine against some disease or other; it is a vaccine which "improves" the roadmap of the physical makeup of the human being.
Or so they say.
It's now very clear that 'improving the roadmap' may lead to "sudden" and "unexplained" deaths of people who are not aged and who do not have a serious co-morbidity. IOW, that experiment has failed in the minds of normal people, such as insurance company underwriters. But since it's an experiment in the minds of its makers, those deaths, along with the miscarriages and changes in the female's cycles, are merely problems which can be fixed with fine-tuning.
That's why Bill Gates--a semi-educated and practical-atheist geek--is convinced that with a few systems- and/or applications-programming tweaks to the DNA, Humans Will Be Perfect. That's 'transhumanism.' They'll live forever, and, with the systems- and applications-programming tweaks to the social systems, they will live forever in comfort and material happiness.
Or so they say.
We have also alluded to the Gnostic heresy and its very ancient type: Eve. She bought the line of Satan who convinced her that were she and Adam to munch on the apple, they would be 'like unto God' in knowledge. That 'like unto God in knowledge' thing re-emerged with the Gnostics, who held that there is 'secret knowledge' which only certain people could have; in fact, only certain people should have such knowledge. Fr. John Hardon's indispensable Pocket Catholic Dictionary defines it thus:
The theory of salvation by knowledge. Already in the first century of the Christian era there were Gnostics who claimed to know the mysteries of the universe. They were disciples of the various pantheistic sects which existed before Christ. The Gnostics borrowed [only] that which suited their purposes from the Gospels, wrote new gospels of their own, and in general proposed a dualistic system of belief. Matter was said to be hostile to spirit and the universe was held to be a deprivation of the Deity. ...........Gnosticism is the invariable element in every major Christian heresy by its denial of objective revelation which was completed in the Apostolic age and its disclaimer that Christ established in the Church a teaching authority to interpret decisively the meaning of the revealed word of God.
In the mid-Renaissance, Gnosticism showed up in the mystery-cults, and manifested materially in alchemy. It's really all the same. Note well the definition from Wiki:
Alchemists attempted to purify, mature, and perfect certain materials.[2][4][5][n 1] Common aims were chrysopoeia, the transmutation of "base metals" (e.g., lead) into "noble metals" (particularly gold);[2] the creation of an elixir of immortality;[2] and the creation of panaceas able to cure any disease.[6] The perfection of the human body and soul was thought to result from the alchemical magnum opus ("Great Work").[2] The concept of creating the philosophers' stone was variously connected with all of these projects.
The lesson of Genesis and the reason for redemption is that Sin Screws Stuff Up. Following Eve's seduction, humanity is flawed; it carries a physical deprivation which is incurable, but its spiritual deprivation IS curable through the Passion. That is human nature, period. That is also the lesson against which today's Gnostics fight. It's a war against Nature and--more important--against Nature's God.
Since nature's God established the family as the primary block of a rightly-ordered society, this war is also ferociously waged against the family, and that's the assigned duty of the Modern Education Establishment. There's a reason that educators have taken 'sex education' away from parents (and churches); there's a reason that educators have assumed an adversarial role to parents in matters as fundamental as sex (or as it's conveniently termed, "Gender.") And there's a reason that educators crusade against the straw man of 'racist, homophobic, Christian-nationalist American white supremacy'. It is to diminish or destroy the family and subsequently the nation. The same attack is brought against the Catholic church and many (not all) of its Christian daughters, and for the same reason: the Church is an essential element of a well-ordered society.
What's the goal? Well, a disordered society is unstable and eventually finds a savior, usually a dictator of the Totalitarian sort. The Global Reset/World Economic Forum crowd just happens to have the solution.
Or so they say.
This is why there is no Hegelian synthesis available. The Left is hysterical over the 'no compromise' position of the conservatives, but one simply cannot 'compromise' with the idea of men having babies or women becoming men--or for that matter--eradicating death and disease. It's contra naturam. It cannot be done.
Bannon & Co. cover this territory here. It's worth a listen.
2 comments:
"It's not a vaccine against some disease or other; it is a vaccine which 'improves' the roadmap of the physical makeup of the human being."
It is important to distinguish between the mRNA project we just saw and a more general sort of attempts to improve on what we get out of nature. Eyeglasses alter what nature gave us, but in a way that is not against nature: it is guided by nature. Aristotle holds that the purpose of the arts -- his definition encompasses all of our sciences, as 'science' meant something else for him -- is to perfect nature. The eyeglasses (and any similar technology) simply perfect what we can reason from nature was intended, so that the eyes still see. They see better.
Contrast with a project that reasoned that sight was evil (perhaps it is the root of racism, as it allows us to detect what would otherwise be undetectable evidence of 'race'), and thus sought to get people to put out their eyes. This would be destroying rather than perfecting the natural capacities, and against nature.
In principle mRNA and similar technologies could be either aligned with the improvement of nature, or contra nature. The technology itself is neither one or the other, but the model lets us judge whether it is being used well or badly.
Indeed, the mRNA is used badly--and may be fatally flawed altogether. We don't know, and will NOT know, for at least a generation.
But that doesn't change the larger problem. What we see is a large synthesis of projects mentioned above which are not attempts at improvement, but rather attempts at destruction of the important things, voiced by Ms. Meloni: God, Family, Country.
Post a Comment