Some people at this site ten days ago or so wondered why the anti-immigration group VDare had to purchase their own event staging grounds in Berkeley Springs WV. VDare had gone through years of event cancellations due to political pressure on hotels hired to stage the events. The event that would have allowed Rod Dreher and many others a platform for their ideas has been cancelled in Brussels due to political pressure. The modern left is no longer liberal. They are not Voltairian. John Stuart Mill would not recognize the modern left. The modern left is authoritarian and does not wish views contrary to leftist dogma to be uttered in public.
The modern Left is Marcusian, and they adhere to his analysis of "repressive tolerance", which suggests that tolerance is bad because it allows "oppressive" ideas to get in the way of the moral imperative of "liberation". So, through some very Orwellian contortions of language and thought, they arrive at the conclusion that freedom requires preventing free speech.
The modern Left is certainly Marcusean, even if they have no idea who he was, but James Kalb argues that the seed of this intolerance lies within historical liberalism itself. See his 'The Tyranny of Liberalism.'
Every system is intolerant of anything and everything that would depose it-- or contradict its axioms. Except maybe by ascetics who have already renounced all claim and desire for power, tolerance can only be shown toward that which does not threaten a (intellectual or political) regime.
Depends on what you mean by 'threaten.' In a totalitarian system any disagreement with the ruling party can be perceived as a threat. That doesn't mean it necessarily is one. More liberal regimes are supposed to tolerate more disagreement but such is not always the case, especially in the current era where tolerance itself seems to be growing ever more politicized.
Re: In a totalitarian system any disagreement with the ruling party can be perceived as a threat.
Paranoia infects totalitarian mind. Which is why I do not trust the Right these days either as there too it grows in great heaps like mold under a leaky roof in hot weather.
I do have a soft spot for Mill's work *On Liberty*, though:
“Human nature is not a machine to be built after a model, and set to do exactly the work prescribed for it, but a tree, which needs to grow and develop itself on all sides, according to the tendency of the inward forces that make it a living thing.”
OK. But the canonical text in this regard is the passage in Witness where Chambers decided to take a long hard look at the New Deal. It drives some people (Lukacs) nuts. Me, I find it quite convincing.
I'm thinking that maybe liberalism works better when it isn't in charge (which, incidentally, is also how I feel about the Church). Like, liberalism as generosity toward outliers and geniuses and eccentrics within a broader conservative framework, as opposed to liberalism as pure moral chaos and state-enforced "freedom".
Voltaire was bitterly opposed toward religious intolerance and autocratic (but unenlightened) tyranny. I rather think he chose his enemies well in that. I really cannot grasp the sympathy on the Right for the evil things the Enlightenment quite happily cast down.
Both Frederick and Catherine the Great posed as Enlightened despots, bent on reforming their countries. And to be fair both tried but ran into entrenched interests, while raising hopes they could not fulfil.
Don't forget Joseph II who was IMO a more genuine reformer, but his reckless reforms, coupled with his despotic streak, annoyed too many diverse interest groups at the same time. Compared to him, Frederick was a cynical fraud and Catherine was a sentimental fraud. On the other hand, compared to them, Joseph was a good-willed but stubborn fool.
Still, though, the hysterical tone of so much of the modern left may owe more to Rousseau and his idealistic moralism, than to Voltaire.
I consider the modern (far) Left as owing more to the Calvinists than to any 18th century philosophe.
And as for the tendency to reject the Enlightenment, I will repeat Mme de Stael's comment on the reactionary trend that followed the French Revolution: "From the severity with which philosophy, liberty and reason have been censured, one might conclude that prejudice, servility, and lies never did humanity any harm."
Also, I think Catherine had a genuine desire to reform as well-- her musings about abolishing serfdom were sincere. But what she soon learned was that the rest of the Russian regime was not so minded and her hold on power depended on the rest of the establishment accepting her as she had not one shred of legitimacy. Her promises also raised expectations she could not fulfill and that in turn provoked Pugachev's Revolt after which she dropped any thought of ending serfdom. The horrors of the French Revolution completed her transformation into a reactionary in the 1790s, though she did have enough good sense not to involve Russia in the actual wars against France.
Agreed, but the conflation of "liberal" and "left" should be avoided. While there is some overlap "leftists" and "liberals" have never been the same thing, and in important ways have often been opponents.
The problem I have with both leftists as well as liberals is they still typically vote for left of center democrat politicians. So, when push comes to shove, is there really a difference in their impact on practical, real world outcomes?
It would be interesting—perhaps not really interesting, but at least illuminating—to ask the mayor of Brussels to describe the difference between Catholics and whatever the heck "Catholic fundamentalists" are.
"This same mayor, Philippe Close, gave an interview in which he was asked about the rise of Islamic radicalism in his city. Know what he said in response? “But do you think Catholic fundamentalism is on the wane? Not at all.”
This is how these people operate, isn't it? Elitist left wingers get into office and immediately begin to sh*t on a huge chunk of the population, calling them deplorables or worse and governing in a way that dispossesses those "deplorables," effectively granting more rights to preferred minorities and fewer to the rest of us.
And any opposition is "right wing radicalism."
Is this the future, rule by a smarmy, conniving elite that's convinced it's morally better than the rest of us? Or at what point does that "right wing radicalism" take it down?
And yet the Left is reduced to a stammer and utters out bizarre fascist conspiracy theories when asked to account for Trump's popularity. You really have to give them credit. Such willful ignorance and lack of self reflection are usually only reserved for sociopaths and delusional messianics. Then again, I suppose most on the Left qualify as both.
Trump's popularity is limited however-- and it's evenly matched by his anti-popularity. Unlike Ronald Reagan he never has (and I think it's safe to say never will) gain the very broad popularity enjoyed by Ronald Reagan.
I disagree. Trump's unpopularity is pretty broad-based, not just among the woke or libertarian fringe. I know solidly conservative (and religious) people who can't stand him.
Trump's unpopularity is about as broad-based as his popularity. And that does not mean such people will vote for Biden-- but they may not vote for Trump either.
There are a lot of reasons for that, some of which reflect on Trump, some of which reflect on people who hate Trump not like him keeping them out of power or exposing their hypocrisy.
Trump quite deliberately elicits emotional responses in people, amongst those is the kind of hatred that causes people to emotionally need to believe bad things about Trump.
A person can be played into hating a grifter by the grifter and STILL be a mark that has been used sucessfully. (Tragan and Bill Clinton played this game effectively as well.
And of course if you're the sort of person who is accustomed to being the smartest guy in the room (often because circumstance put you in some pretty limited rooms) the notion that you're a mark is emotionally unaceptable so you'll reject people pointing out how you were played.
I can't stand him for one. That doesn't change the fact that I understand his appeal and that he may actually become the first mainstream presidential candidate I've ever voted for. I can't stand the Left's smugness and disdain for my neighbors, friends, and the people I grew up with. Trump won't do squat for them, I know that. But voting with your middle finger is about the only worthwhile way to cast your ballot anymore.
Securing the border, achieving more stability overseas, bringing the deep state up short, restoring American energy independence, bringing more sanity back to the economy, and generally pushing back on the Left, all of which he made efforts towards, and more in his first, and in the second, will be going for it even more, with better understanding and fire in the belly.
All of these, you and your neighbors benefit from, your unwarranted disdain aside.
I find that he's easier to stand (and understand) once you remove him from the human realm of moral categories altogether, and instead consider him as a type of wild boar. Then it's sort of fun.
Reagan was an "amiable dunce" according to Clark Clifford, advisor to several Democratic presidents and Johnson's last Defense Secretary. According to Clifford, Reagan's policies would be "a hopeless failure."
His personality was completely different, at least by the time he got to the presidency. Dunno, he seemed pretty hardcore and confrontational when he was the CA gov.
Trump's popularity is limited, but there are a lot of people who can't stand him but will vote for him because - look at the alternative. And the alternative isn't just Biden - it's Kamala Harris, it's Ibram Kendi, it's the purple-haired, nose-ringed, gender-confused fanatics screaming about genocide in Gaza and the "violence" of free speech.
If these were normal times I'd laugh at the thought of voting for Biden. These aren't normal times.
Last I checked Ibram Kendi is not in any public office at all, nor is he running for one. I'm willing to guess that maybe one in three Americans (if even that) know who he is. Of late he has not even graced the pages of the Atlantic which used to occasionally run one of his b!tch-fit pieces.
If you hear anyone start into "Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's" it usually ends with them giving Ceasar things which are God's.
Separation of Church and state, is one of those principals whose adherants will start off rationalyl when they think they have the solution and end up with some variation of "well you're just a stupidhead!" as the argument falls apart.
I agree. A question to be asked of supposed religiously devout Church and government leaders, such as Elpidophoros or President Biden (the devout Catholic) is, “Mr. President, as a devout Catholic, who sees a secular need of not interfering with a woman’s right to choose because of the separation of Church and State, what are you doing to promote the Church’s teaching on abortion with as much enthusiasm as you display promoting a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy!”
You are a true friend of Alexander, Rod, and I will pray for his salvation. Prayer is enormously powerful, and coupled with God’s unfathomable mercy for us, many more miracles happen than we know. May God have mercy on Alexander.
I think that this is true. My husband had a severe stroke in 2020. After surgery to remove the blood clot on his brain, he was in a medically induced coma. Not being sure he’d make it I asked the hospital chaplain to get a priest (we were in Charlottesville, an hour away from our home so we couldn’t call our own pastor). Priest from the nearest Catholic Church arrived. During the anointing, he repeated the Confiteor & the Our Father perfectly. He then did not talk again until a few weeks later. His niece was visiting him & we were discussing something & he piped up & made a one sentence comment. He has no memory at all of the 3 weeks he spent in the ICU & only a hazy memory of his first days at the rehab center. This is also a mercy because the ICU nurses told me ICU PTSD is a thing.
I still need to get better at praying specifically for things and people. A part of me is like, "Do You really need me to ask You, God? You know what to do, don't You?" But no, I understand that it matters.
One of the aphorisms attributed to Abba Makarios the Great which I have long appropriated to my use may be of help here:
Abba Macarius was asked, “How should one pray?” The old man said, “There is no need at all to make long discourses; it is enough to stretch out one’s hands and say, ‘Lord, as you will, and as you know, have mercy.’ And if the conflict grows fiercer say, ‘Lord, help!’ He knows very well what we need and He shows us His mercy.”
I take the "know" as "know how." I have prayed for Alexander with this in mind.
True confession: I sometimes get a little frustrated with overly florid and verbose Orthodox prayers. Though some of that is due to translation issues since Greek allows for a great deal of linguistic nuance with a single highly inflected word whereas English must haul out a small mob of words to achieve the same meaning.
Living in this world is suffering for folks who are awake to what Ash Wednesday means...loss. Eventually we all experience intense suffering when we feel the pain our Lord and Savior willingly experienced in the Passion of Christ. We have a choice to put ourselves in that Passion and offer it up for those, who like those Alexander's in our lives as well as the whole world are feeling the helplessness without a merciful Savior. Our choice is to become the prayer...Imagine Jesus saying "Alexander be well body, mind and soul"
Yes will say prayers for your friend. Believe it not I have a letter of provenance (from mid 1960s) and handkerchief with padre pio’s blood. I am pretty sure it is authentic. I won’t say how I obtained it, but I will pray for friend. Padre pio is powerful intercessor.
My morning Rosary will be said for Alexander.
Some people at this site ten days ago or so wondered why the anti-immigration group VDare had to purchase their own event staging grounds in Berkeley Springs WV. VDare had gone through years of event cancellations due to political pressure on hotels hired to stage the events. The event that would have allowed Rod Dreher and many others a platform for their ideas has been cancelled in Brussels due to political pressure. The modern left is no longer liberal. They are not Voltairian. John Stuart Mill would not recognize the modern left. The modern left is authoritarian and does not wish views contrary to leftist dogma to be uttered in public.
The modern Left is Marcusian, and they adhere to his analysis of "repressive tolerance", which suggests that tolerance is bad because it allows "oppressive" ideas to get in the way of the moral imperative of "liberation". So, through some very Orwellian contortions of language and thought, they arrive at the conclusion that freedom requires preventing free speech.
The modern Left is certainly Marcusean, even if they have no idea who he was, but James Kalb argues that the seed of this intolerance lies within historical liberalism itself. See his 'The Tyranny of Liberalism.'
Every system is intolerant of anything and everything that would depose it-- or contradict its axioms. Except maybe by ascetics who have already renounced all claim and desire for power, tolerance can only be shown toward that which does not threaten a (intellectual or political) regime.
Depends on what you mean by 'threaten.' In a totalitarian system any disagreement with the ruling party can be perceived as a threat. That doesn't mean it necessarily is one. More liberal regimes are supposed to tolerate more disagreement but such is not always the case, especially in the current era where tolerance itself seems to be growing ever more politicized.
Re: In a totalitarian system any disagreement with the ruling party can be perceived as a threat.
Paranoia infects totalitarian mind. Which is why I do not trust the Right these days either as there too it grows in great heaps like mold under a leaky roof in hot weather.
Perhaps. But it doesn't happen to be the "mind' that's in power. And it won't be even if DT happens to win in November.
If Voltaire and JSM were honest, they would have to acknowledge the contemporary left as their great-grandchildren.
I do have a soft spot for Mill's work *On Liberty*, though:
“Human nature is not a machine to be built after a model, and set to do exactly the work prescribed for it, but a tree, which needs to grow and develop itself on all sides, according to the tendency of the inward forces that make it a living thing.”
OK. But the canonical text in this regard is the passage in Witness where Chambers decided to take a long hard look at the New Deal. It drives some people (Lukacs) nuts. Me, I find it quite convincing.
I'm thinking that maybe liberalism works better when it isn't in charge (which, incidentally, is also how I feel about the Church). Like, liberalism as generosity toward outliers and geniuses and eccentrics within a broader conservative framework, as opposed to liberalism as pure moral chaos and state-enforced "freedom".
Voltaire was bitterly opposed toward religious intolerance and autocratic (but unenlightened) tyranny. I rather think he chose his enemies well in that. I really cannot grasp the sympathy on the Right for the evil things the Enlightenment quite happily cast down.
Is that why he and Frederick the Great got on so well for a time?
Both Frederick and Catherine the Great posed as Enlightened despots, bent on reforming their countries. And to be fair both tried but ran into entrenched interests, while raising hopes they could not fulfil.
Don't forget Joseph II who was IMO a more genuine reformer, but his reckless reforms, coupled with his despotic streak, annoyed too many diverse interest groups at the same time. Compared to him, Frederick was a cynical fraud and Catherine was a sentimental fraud. On the other hand, compared to them, Joseph was a good-willed but stubborn fool.
Still, though, the hysterical tone of so much of the modern left may owe more to Rousseau and his idealistic moralism, than to Voltaire.
I consider the modern (far) Left as owing more to the Calvinists than to any 18th century philosophe.
And as for the tendency to reject the Enlightenment, I will repeat Mme de Stael's comment on the reactionary trend that followed the French Revolution: "From the severity with which philosophy, liberty and reason have been censured, one might conclude that prejudice, servility, and lies never did humanity any harm."
Also, I think Catherine had a genuine desire to reform as well-- her musings about abolishing serfdom were sincere. But what she soon learned was that the rest of the Russian regime was not so minded and her hold on power depended on the rest of the establishment accepting her as she had not one shred of legitimacy. Her promises also raised expectations she could not fulfill and that in turn provoked Pugachev's Revolt after which she dropped any thought of ending serfdom. The horrors of the French Revolution completed her transformation into a reactionary in the 1790s, though she did have enough good sense not to involve Russia in the actual wars against France.
I can't make a serious comment about Voltaire's status as a writer, but he was a repulsive man who believed in repulsive things.
Agreed, but the conflation of "liberal" and "left" should be avoided. While there is some overlap "leftists" and "liberals" have never been the same thing, and in important ways have often been opponents.
The problem I have with both leftists as well as liberals is they still typically vote for left of center democrat politicians. So, when push comes to shove, is there really a difference in their impact on practical, real world outcomes?
To be clear, what I should have said was: The problem I have with both leftists as well as liberals "being considered different" is.....
True, but leftism and liberalism need to be opposed in different ways by different arguments, so it helps to keep the terminology accurate.
Prayers sent for Alexander. Please keep us posted
It would be interesting—perhaps not really interesting, but at least illuminating—to ask the mayor of Brussels to describe the difference between Catholics and whatever the heck "Catholic fundamentalists" are.
It's probably that Catholic fundamentalists still have this regressive belief in a thing called God.
Praying for your friend this morning.
"This same mayor, Philippe Close, gave an interview in which he was asked about the rise of Islamic radicalism in his city. Know what he said in response? “But do you think Catholic fundamentalism is on the wane? Not at all.”
This is how these people operate, isn't it? Elitist left wingers get into office and immediately begin to sh*t on a huge chunk of the population, calling them deplorables or worse and governing in a way that dispossesses those "deplorables," effectively granting more rights to preferred minorities and fewer to the rest of us.
And any opposition is "right wing radicalism."
Is this the future, rule by a smarmy, conniving elite that's convinced it's morally better than the rest of us? Or at what point does that "right wing radicalism" take it down?
And yet the Left is reduced to a stammer and utters out bizarre fascist conspiracy theories when asked to account for Trump's popularity. You really have to give them credit. Such willful ignorance and lack of self reflection are usually only reserved for sociopaths and delusional messianics. Then again, I suppose most on the Left qualify as both.
Trump's popularity is limited however-- and it's evenly matched by his anti-popularity. Unlike Ronald Reagan he never has (and I think it's safe to say never will) gain the very broad popularity enjoyed by Ronald Reagan.
Most of the anti-popularity crowd thinks men can become women. So make of that what you will.
I disagree. Trump's unpopularity is pretty broad-based, not just among the woke or libertarian fringe. I know solidly conservative (and religious) people who can't stand him.
I don't think as broad based as you think. Certainly not enough "broad based" to not vote for him/refrain from voting/vote for Biden.
This is not 2020 and they've seen the consequences of that folly.
NOt much hope for the gender confused. But then, not much hope from them for anything, except for their salvation, which has happened.
Trump's unpopularity is about as broad-based as his popularity. And that does not mean such people will vote for Biden-- but they may not vote for Trump either.
There are a lot of reasons for that, some of which reflect on Trump, some of which reflect on people who hate Trump not like him keeping them out of power or exposing their hypocrisy.
Trump quite deliberately elicits emotional responses in people, amongst those is the kind of hatred that causes people to emotionally need to believe bad things about Trump.
A person can be played into hating a grifter by the grifter and STILL be a mark that has been used sucessfully. (Tragan and Bill Clinton played this game effectively as well.
And of course if you're the sort of person who is accustomed to being the smartest guy in the room (often because circumstance put you in some pretty limited rooms) the notion that you're a mark is emotionally unaceptable so you'll reject people pointing out how you were played.
I can't stand him for one. That doesn't change the fact that I understand his appeal and that he may actually become the first mainstream presidential candidate I've ever voted for. I can't stand the Left's smugness and disdain for my neighbors, friends, and the people I grew up with. Trump won't do squat for them, I know that. But voting with your middle finger is about the only worthwhile way to cast your ballot anymore.
Securing the border, achieving more stability overseas, bringing the deep state up short, restoring American energy independence, bringing more sanity back to the economy, and generally pushing back on the Left, all of which he made efforts towards, and more in his first, and in the second, will be going for it even more, with better understanding and fire in the belly.
All of these, you and your neighbors benefit from, your unwarranted disdain aside.
I find that he's easier to stand (and understand) once you remove him from the human realm of moral categories altogether, and instead consider him as a type of wild boar. Then it's sort of fun.
Reagan wasn't regarded as the Saint of the Republic in his lifetime. You're old enough to remember that.
No, he wasn't. He was "Hitler." Just as all REpublican presidents have been since at least Nixon.
Yes All Republicans are Hitler and all Democrats are socialists.
I'll used one of those Home Depot broad brushes, partisan loyalists are idiots about politics. That's why they're partisan loyalists.
Years ago, someone I once loved used to refer to Reagan as "Ray-gun." I didn't love that, but I found it bemusing.
Ray-gun with his Star Wars—you've gotta admit, that's sort of catchy.
Reagan was an "amiable dunce" according to Clark Clifford, advisor to several Democratic presidents and Johnson's last Defense Secretary. According to Clifford, Reagan's policies would be "a hopeless failure."
Dude was Johnson's SecDef. Given that fiasco, not sure he was qualified to call anyone a dunce.
His personality was completely different, at least by the time he got to the presidency. Dunno, he seemed pretty hardcore and confrontational when he was the CA gov.
Er, Reagan was reelected in one of the biggest landslides in history. I think that speaks volumes as to how the public in general saw him.
Trump's popularity is limited, but there are a lot of people who can't stand him but will vote for him because - look at the alternative. And the alternative isn't just Biden - it's Kamala Harris, it's Ibram Kendi, it's the purple-haired, nose-ringed, gender-confused fanatics screaming about genocide in Gaza and the "violence" of free speech.
If these were normal times I'd laugh at the thought of voting for Biden. These aren't normal times.
Last I checked Ibram Kendi is not in any public office at all, nor is he running for one. I'm willing to guess that maybe one in three Americans (if even that) know who he is. Of late he has not even graced the pages of the Atlantic which used to occasionally run one of his b!tch-fit pieces.
Canto III.
You know the gravestone tag in the English churchyard?
Judge thou not me, as I judge not thee:
Betwixt the stirrup and the ground
I mercy sought and mercy found.
I've always liked the one that George MacDonald recorded:
Here lies Martin Elginbrod,
Hae mercy on my soul Lord God,
as I would do were I Lord God,
and ye were Martin Elginbrod.
What a dear friend you are, Rod. ❤️
I just said a prayer to God for your friend Alexander.
If you hear anyone start into "Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's" it usually ends with them giving Ceasar things which are God's.
Separation of Church and state, is one of those principals whose adherants will start off rationalyl when they think they have the solution and end up with some variation of "well you're just a stupidhead!" as the argument falls apart.
I agree. A question to be asked of supposed religiously devout Church and government leaders, such as Elpidophoros or President Biden (the devout Catholic) is, “Mr. President, as a devout Catholic, who sees a secular need of not interfering with a woman’s right to choose because of the separation of Church and State, what are you doing to promote the Church’s teaching on abortion with as much enthusiasm as you display promoting a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy!”
Amen
And not a single Greek bishop in America has the courage to state the truth of the Faith.
The broad brush sale at Home Depot is still going on I guess.
Well I was going to Lowes today, but that sale sounds pretty sweet.
You are a true friend of Alexander, Rod, and I will pray for his salvation. Prayer is enormously powerful, and coupled with God’s unfathomable mercy for us, many more miracles happen than we know. May God have mercy on Alexander.
I will remember your friend in my "candle prayers" tomorrow before the liturgy.
Medicine has long known that the comatose retain some degree of consciousness, however impaired. They are not "brain dead".
I think that this is true. My husband had a severe stroke in 2020. After surgery to remove the blood clot on his brain, he was in a medically induced coma. Not being sure he’d make it I asked the hospital chaplain to get a priest (we were in Charlottesville, an hour away from our home so we couldn’t call our own pastor). Priest from the nearest Catholic Church arrived. During the anointing, he repeated the Confiteor & the Our Father perfectly. He then did not talk again until a few weeks later. His niece was visiting him & we were discussing something & he piped up & made a one sentence comment. He has no memory at all of the 3 weeks he spent in the ICU & only a hazy memory of his first days at the rehab center. This is also a mercy because the ICU nurses told me ICU PTSD is a thing.
I will say my rosary for Alexander.
I still need to get better at praying specifically for things and people. A part of me is like, "Do You really need me to ask You, God? You know what to do, don't You?" But no, I understand that it matters.
I struggle with that as well especially when it’s overly general. Rod’s ask today is very specific and I find that a little easier.
One of the aphorisms attributed to Abba Makarios the Great which I have long appropriated to my use may be of help here:
Abba Macarius was asked, “How should one pray?” The old man said, “There is no need at all to make long discourses; it is enough to stretch out one’s hands and say, ‘Lord, as you will, and as you know, have mercy.’ And if the conflict grows fiercer say, ‘Lord, help!’ He knows very well what we need and He shows us His mercy.”
I take the "know" as "know how." I have prayed for Alexander with this in mind.
True confession: I sometimes get a little frustrated with overly florid and verbose Orthodox prayers. Though some of that is due to translation issues since Greek allows for a great deal of linguistic nuance with a single highly inflected word whereas English must haul out a small mob of words to achieve the same meaning.
Living in this world is suffering for folks who are awake to what Ash Wednesday means...loss. Eventually we all experience intense suffering when we feel the pain our Lord and Savior willingly experienced in the Passion of Christ. We have a choice to put ourselves in that Passion and offer it up for those, who like those Alexander's in our lives as well as the whole world are feeling the helplessness without a merciful Savior. Our choice is to become the prayer...Imagine Jesus saying "Alexander be well body, mind and soul"
Yes will say prayers for your friend. Believe it not I have a letter of provenance (from mid 1960s) and handkerchief with padre pio’s blood. I am pretty sure it is authentic. I won’t say how I obtained it, but I will pray for friend. Padre pio is powerful intercessor.
Prayers already sent, in Jesus's Holy Name.