If there is anything more ridiculous than the commonly-held idea, that families who eat together are more likely to be healthy and stay together, I would honestly like to know what it is. To believe that by eating together once a day, by making uncomfortable small-talk for maybe half an hour, that any parent could have played a significant role in his child’s life is ridiculous. But if it is ridiculous, it is at least instructive, being extremely indicative of a much larger problem: that Americans in particular are so incredibly dissociated from serious values — from Godly parenting, serious education, and the principles of cause and effect — that they believe by dining together, they can create strong families. (more…)
3. December 2013
29. November 2013
Well known to the seasoned Christian warrior is the tendency to read his Bible, meditate upon some moral commandment for some good time, in perfectly good faith and with a perfectly good intent, and then walk away and immediately violate his good intention. (more…)
24. November 2013
I’ve never really been able to pinpoint what the image of God actually is, but if I had to venture a guess, it would be something between our desire and our imagination. And I say this because the image never really begins with moral laws; the Bible says children exist before they know right and wrong. And we can also safely say that the image isn’t some other kind of knowledge, because experience teaches that youth and ignorance are perfectly correlated. But if the human begins with anything, and we have to say he’s born with the image, and that image makes him different than all the animals, and more like the divine, it would have to be an innate capacity to dream, and a drive to take him to places animals have never been and cannot be. (more…)
12. November 2013
I don’t believe in the Hindu idea of reincarnation, but I have to admit, it is very easy for me to understand how someone else could. Certain children have tendencies almost upon birth that seem impossible: tastes for certain kinds of music, and irrational aversions bordering on the bizarre, though almost nothing in the child’s life seems to hint at any kind of experience leading to particular tastes and inclinations; yet the tastes and inclinations are undeniable. (more…)
22. October 2013
A lot of people seem to be angry with John MacArthur; it would be more comforting to me, and a greater testimony to American sensibility, if Christians were more concerned about Pat Robertson. That the former can openly state his opposition to what he believes the falsified expression of spiritual power, is far less offensive than a man who has openly and repeatedly claimed to be speaking the words of God, but whose failed prophesies have proven him heretical. Yet the former man is almost universally condemned as hateful and divisive, while the latter maintains his audience for what? — not one, but multiple generations, despite a televised broadcast in which he said that Jesus told him President Obama would lose the last election. (more…)
9. October 2013
I’ve become convinced that if there ever were a manly and profitable use of social networking, it would rarely be to post information about where the user is, or what he’s doing, or how he’s feeling, but always about what he’s thinking. And if this appears strange to most Americans, it proves something very backward about the way they think: that by sharing the contents of a person’s ideas and beliefs, he would be rudely sharing something personal; and that if he were to be more polite, instead of speaking openly about what he sees as truth, he would share more information about things that really concern nobody else. (more…)
3. October 2013
However forcefully I oppose them, I can’t entirely blame the advocates of an unBiblical notion of the sovereignty of God. It seems more pious, at first glance, to deny that God and Satan both moved David to census Israel (2 Samuel 24:1; 1 Chronicles 21:1), that God and Satan both crushed Jesus on Calvary, to believe that it is Satan, and not God, who authors every death and disease, and ordains every national calamity. And looking beyond Scripture itself, we oftentimes find people willing to claim that
If sickness is the will of God, then every physician is a lawbreaker, every trained nurse is defying the Almighty, every hospital is a house of rebellion instead of a house of mercy, and instead of supporting hospitals, we ought to do our utmost to close every one; -F.F. Bosworth
thus implying that although God is sovereign over creation, that He only is sovereign over blessings, taking retaliatory measures like a man in a tennis match against the evils caused and maintained solely by His opposition. And if we are to be fair to these misguided believers, human reason suggests that to be the cause of something evil infers moral culpability; but if Scriptural evidence is a testament to anything, it is first that God is most certainly dictating the totality of human history (1 Samuel 2:6-10; Isaiah 45:7; Matthew 10:29; Lamentations 3:38; Prov 16:4; Amos 3:6; Jer 33:5); second, that God is righteous; and third, that the paths of human and divine reason oftentimes greatly diverge (Isaiah 55:8-9). (more…)
27. September 2013
I can’t recall the exact number of times I’ve heard that Thomas Jefferson’s opinions are irrelevant because he owned slaves, but if I could make an estimate, it would have to be about several dozen. And if Jefferson were alone the subject of such an unjust and ridiculous opinion, I would leave the matter alone, but I have heard it sincerely professed about Martin Luther because he didn’t have an unChristian and Evangelical obsession with the Jews, and about John Calvin because he burned a heretic at the stake. And the more I examine the matter, it seems that everyone feels perfectly comfortable finding a characteristic of a great or genius man insufferable, when what they really mean to do is ignore other ideas which, perhaps if not perfect, are worth serious consideration. (more…)
15. September 2013
If I’m to concede a point to the advocates of diversity, it is that having multiple perspectives on certain practical matters is greatly beneficial. Men, oftentimes confusing custom for righteousness, are frequently so blind to the unreasonableness of their own traditions and the possibility of better paths, that they frequently ostracize and persecute the greatest of visionaries and prophets, and stagnate in cesspools of their own willful ignorance. (more…)
13. September 2013
Throughout my short existence, I have learned that whether I am chivalrous or a man-pig, a good worker or a layabout, a wise man or a fool, people are going to hate me for what I choose. And if I am to live a meaningful life, I have decided that if I am to be hated, it is best to be hated by all the worst kinds of people. (more…)
1. September 2013
If there exists a more undeniable testament to the mindlessness of modern women than the Seattle Slutwalk, I would honestly like to know what it is. The belief that after laws have been passed against rape, that after hefty penalties exist for its punishment, that after unjust laws give women a very publicly known advantage in rape’s prosecution — in other words, that the very guns of the state have been turned against even questionably alleged rapists — that women can somehow by debasing themselves and chanting slogans curb such sinister acts, is so ridiculously absurd, that I wonder whether a comedian could have invented it. (more…)
11. August 2013
There are two kinds of men that this article will necessarily offend. The first, and most obvious, is the kind of man who honestly believes in an exceptional Mexican work ethic, the man who attempts to befriend or utilize the Mexican population to either prove himself not to be a racist, to acquire their votes, or to unfairly associate himself with qualities belonging to others. But the second kind of man, in my opinion, deserves to be offended far more than the rest: for, hoping to find an essay about the laziness of Mexicans, what he is actually going to find is an essay about the foolishness of white Americans. (more…)
6. August 2013
If I were not a Christian, I would undoubtedly be in favor of euthanasia. It makes more sense — or at least it feels far more compassionate — to let men die when they hate living; when their pains so greatly exceed their happiness, that they find no value in survival. But being a Christian, my perspective is very different: knowing that death is not the end of life, but rather a transition between forms, and that if men are not going to heaven, that they are going to hell, I could never feel right giving approval to assisted suicide, and so I oppose any measures in that particular direction. It does not do any good to end the earthly suffering of a man, if by doing so he goes into a lake of eternal fire. (more…)
5. August 2013
Having in the last essay denounced a prevailing Republican and Protestant ignorance, I feel necessitated to provide a list of materials which I consider essential to a proper education. I do not believe that most “educated” people are truly so; whatever titles they possess, to have failed to read the greatest, best written, and most profound literature ever made is essentially a profession of ignorance. Too many men have big heads, and think they understand certain philosophies which they’ve never truly encountered; and if we are to make headway against an ignorance even ignorant of itself (as most serious cases of ignorance are), we must begin by diligently asking which books and authors are the most important, and why. (more…)
4. August 2013
It never fails to amaze me that in almost every random encounter with a Lutheran, I have found that he knows nothing of Martin Luther’s theology. Most glaringly, the Lutheran, as is often the case amongst the mainstream Evangelicals, feels perfectly comfortable vilifying John Calvin. Yet when I mention that Calvin’s and Luther’s views on human depravity, predestination, and the like are practically identical, and that this can be proven by a casual reading of Luther’s The Bondage of the Will and Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, these Lutherans almost always passionately deny the case, and leave with a sense of insult. (more…)
29. July 2013
Anyone at least decently acquainted with me is also acquainted with my general distaste for Christian magazines. It isn’t just that I find most of them shallow, or that they fail to address the most controversial and meaningful topics powerfully, but rather that the overwhelming majority of the articles they publish, insofar as those articles are of an opinionated nature, are so far from actually being Christian, that as I read them, I begin to question my devotion to my own religion out of disgust for the things associated with it. (more…)
25. July 2013
If there’s to be any meaningful discussion about the role of Israel in Christianity, whether one takes an allegorical or literal position of Biblical prophecy, I believe men should begin with the following passage:
Thus says the Lord,
Who gives the sun for a light by day,
The ordinances of the moon and the stars for a light by night,
Who disturbs the sea,
And its waves roar
(The Lord of hosts is His name):
“If those ordinances depart
From before Me, says the Lord,
Then the seed of Israel shall also cease
From being a nation before Me forever.”
Thus says the Lord:
“If heaven above can be measured,
And the foundations of the earth searched out beneath,
I will also cast off all the seed of Israel
For all that they have done, says the Lord. (more…)
17. July 2013
A particular frustration of mine, in recent years, is the average individual’s inability to take general advice or correction in any useful manner. Whenever I say something to uplift or rebuke — about the importance of a good education, or about how people are most likely to take Biblical passages figuratively when they clash with cultural norms — I find that the intended message is missed entirely, and that the people most in need of correction approve of my statement without considering that they are exactly the kind of person the statement intends to reprimand. (more…)
3. July 2013
Across the Puget Sound, far away from the crowded streets and bustling ugliness of a God-forsaken Seattle, lies a freeway overpass in a sleepy, scenic town known as Poulsbo. Since my conversion to Christian conservatism, my father and I have gathered together every fourth of July, each a flag in hand, rain or shine, to wave at the passers-by. (more…)
2. July 2013
A long while ago, while I was in college, I remember reading an interview in Maxim Magazine which featured Kid Rock. I remember at the time finding him interesting, a man openly and fondly talking about crack-dealing and prostitution and such, a long-haired wild-man chasing his own lusts through an American wasteland, an entertainer of incontinent and imbecilic youths (such as I was) made rich and famous not by virtue, but by vice. (more…)
26. June 2013
However firmly I believe myself to hold to the teachings of the apostles, I have to admit there are several passages which have some air of cultural belonging, containing statements that I don’t believe are universally applicable. They range over several different topics, but first and foremost amongst these I believe to be the prohibition of long hair on males — yet not even a prohibition, but an outright declaration that long hair is naturally shameful. (more…)
11. June 2013
If I’m to disclose something personal about myself, it’s that I deeply regret being thought of as a “political” person.
Though men are often recognized by what they love, nothing in my case could be farther from the truth. I’m not attracted to politics because I enjoy politics; I find myself mired in political matters because I hate them. (more…)
7. June 2013
Whatever false doctrines men hold about the freedom of the will — that it remains separate from desire, being able to freely choose and act no matter its circumstance — are of little consequence to the fact that men do evil things. Whether lying, cheating, or being slack in their work, men have the tendency to do what they most prefer; and as all are aware, what men prefer differs at every point of the day, certain desires being irrepressible at certain times, and being overpowered by others at other times.
For this reason, that men oftentimes pursue their urges instead of their virtues, it becomes necessary to cultivate wisdom and good habits. Consider that as children, having no knowledge of others, and perhaps equally little of themselves, or of the laws of physics, the human being is left almost entirely at the whims of his emotions and cravings; incapable of expressing himself, or knowing means to ends. But as the child grows, as he begins to associate certain behaviors with certain rewards, he begins to recognize that should he pursue his desires in the wrong ways, that he doesn’t get what he wants. In short, if he does not learn to be wise, he does not live in happiness; and to put it another way, the fool is most likely to be in a constant state of unhappiness, refusing (or incapable of) pursuing his desires in the most meaningful way possible, and oftentimes having the attainment of his lesser needs (food, sex, etc) triumph over his greater (harmony, piety, etc).
There are two objects, then, always standing between man and happiness. The first of them is ignorance, men always living in spiritual clouds, though of various densities, within which each and every man is blind to either what he really needs, or lacks a sufficient understanding of why it should remain a priority. He recognizes goodness in obedience to God, but never really sees it in its full light; he sees the pains more than the glories, the sorrow more than the happiness, and so cannot pick up his cross and follow the Savior. As the Apostle wrote, for the glory set before Him, He endured the cross. This enlightenment of heavenly glory constitutes a major ministry of the Holy Spirit, the enlightening of the saints of the righteousness of Christ, the horrors of sin, and the reality of the coming judgment, bringing man into a proper reverence and fear of the Almighty, and causing him to repent of sins and beg forgiveness.
But supposing man overcomes his ignorance, still another object stands in his way. Man’s mind being subject to whim, his reason more active in certain portions of the day, or under certain conditions, man oftentimes forgets his true spiritual reality, and becomes aware almost entirely of his physical desires, a state of depravity known as carnality. Almost entirely forgetting his spiritual nature, and being enticed by the calls of his sin nature — calling loudly, and promising bliss –, his knees buckle under the weight of humanity, and he does what he knows not to do. Sometimes man does not know, and other times, what he knows is not enough to overcome how he feels. Unlike ignorance, with which he doesn’t even know his sin or the ultimate desert of the wicked, human frailty reaches for the temporal because it lacks the will to overcome. It knows of righteousness and sin and judgment, but almost feels them as another reality, as children often forget their rules when away from home — not entirely, not as though the rules had never existed, but rather recognizing the distance between them and authority, between desire and punishment. In this case, man’s account of time, how he prefers to have pleasures now instead of waiting, an indisputable fact (otherwise, man would always choose to postpone pleasure until later when possible), plays an important role in his weakness.
Knowing, then, that man is easily overcome by ignorance and frailty, and that these comprise the two primary means by which the Devil entices the gullible, it becomes the Christian’s solemn duty to perpetuate the pursuit of knowledge, and to overcome desires by means not simply of pure virtue — for virtue triumphs and flags throughout the day, depending on the circumstance — but rather, as John Stuart Mill noted, by the cultivation of habit. For wisdom, the pursuit of eternal truths and practical knowledge, can only supply half of man’s virtue: the other half must be conditioned so that man prefers, by tempering of his very body and soul together, to do what he is accustomed to do. When men lift weights, or read difficult books, they can far more easily tackle the day’s physical challenges, and process more difficult concepts. Likewise, when men build good habits, they overcome not with pure virtue, but, being assisted by reflex and stubbornness, subdue what would otherwise be insurmountable.
But there is another danger which, if ignored, can cause equal harm. Structure, habit, traditions give the impression of virtue — but do not necessarily always represent it. Having holiness of appearance, they practically beg reverence; being highly visible and calculable, they invite the senses to admiration — but all can be serene, orderly, harmonious and still lack that something, that Spirit, that holy communion. Man can eliminate the external appearance of sin, cleaning and polishing and rearranging until every device impedes his transgression (or at least, the most destructive ones; buy yet, inside he can remain vacant. Unless God Himself presides over a man’s soul, even should he run the most orderly home; even should he remain faithful to his wife; even should he appear spotless to the entire world — yet, we know he can be entirely empty. As such, the cultivation of good habits cannot alone account for holiness: man must actively pursue a relationship with the Almighty — the confession and repentance of sins invisible; the invitation of communion; constant prayer and dependence upon the invisible; and a healthy vision not of the present, but of the eternal future.
What failures the American church is responsible for! What carelessness! What dereliction! Thinking themselves wise, they became fools; being comfortable in their megachurches and warm homes and excessive food, they ignored serious teaching, and mistook their present luxury and safety for normalcy.
31. May 2013
The world of romance is fraught with perils and heartbreak — no man or woman, despite perceived wisdom, is entirely safe. We put on our best face when approaching the opposite sex, ensuring that if at all possible, flaws are concealed and excellence laid open for examination, presenting a wildly lopsided picture of the self for the gain of admiration — whether for benefits short or long-term. Despite the best efforts of friends and family to protect us from the loser, reason is oftentimes lost in decision, urges and senses overpowering the mind: for this we must be prepared to recognize and promptly label certain warning signs, harbingers of romantic disaster which leave parties feeling cheated and miserable, and tearing at the very fabric of matrimony. For if we recognize significant flaws before emotional attachment, we may end relationships with minimal difficulty and loss, bringing a certain safety to an oftentimes self-destructive yet necessary pursuit. (more…)
19. May 2013
Having already expressed my profound admiration for womankind — that Woman is worthy of protection and chivalry — I must now express something far less comfortable, and yet vital to her well-being. For in recent years I’ve become aware that modern woman, being alienated generations from the laws of nature and all sensibility, has placed both herself and mankind in a precarious position — so dangerous, in fact, that I believe her doing so comprises a forfeiture of sanity. To explain this theory, a theory enshrouded by almost two centuries of feminist “thought,” we must begin with the concept of reason itself. (more…)
13. May 2013
Whatever certain men say about regrets — that they shouldn’t be had, that whatever mistakes one has made, have made us the men we are today — amongst my many, the numerous, excessive, cowardly failures of youth and the present day, there stands one, nearly above the rest.
I remember a day of my youth, about the age of maybe 15, walking through a park with a young, beautiful blonde. The day had been spent well enough — whatever she thought of me, whether romantically or not, I was interested in her, and every moment, every conversation, every glance mattered. Yet within this picture of youthful ecstasy entered another, a youth we both knew; a black, ugly, forceful young man, who placed his hands upon the blonde in a manner which left me in a state of shock.
I was not sure, at that moment, by gauging her expression, that something was wrong. Physically, I knew something was wrong — an act which deserved retaliation; but it wasn’t until later that she’d mentioned how she felt about it. She had been violated, and I had stood there and done nothing, said nothing, because in my cowardice, I would rather have risked her violation than risked her disapproval at rescue.
My imagination plays cruel games with me, driving me to frustration, wishing that time, set in cold, dead marble, could become once again like sand — my will determining its shape, my choices building grain upon grain to form not the tombstone of the coward, but the monument of the mighty.
I wish now that I’d broken his face, that this pushy, borderline rapist — who undoubtedly went on to harass other women — had left with a bloodied shirt and a sense of shame and fear; that I’d taken a risk for her; that I was heroic. But instead of defending a beautiful woman, I permitted her assailant liberty. Instead of claiming my virtue as a man, I became something subhuman instead; weak, excessively contemplative, ashamed. It may be true that Jesus Christ commands us to turn our own cheeks; but He never told us to allow sexual assault. He never said “turn your helpless neighbor’s cheek for her.” No, if we’re to take Biblical Law seriously, He never even prohibited striking someone. For a man to place his hands upon another woman in that manner — crude, vile, abominable — deserves the worst that a man can give another within the boundaries of the Law.
Whatever spirit — or lack thereof — possessed me at that moment, I cannot forget it. That war of ugliness upon the beautiful; that depravity impressing itself upon innocence; that horror of the strong pressing upon the weak — in my presence! On my watch! With my permission!
I do not know how other men feel about this subject, but let the honorable agree upon one thing: that if the above coward was us, that he is us no longer. When Providence allots strength for the protection of the weak, and power for the defense of the innocent, then let us wield it dutifully, giving of ourselves, whatever the consequences, so that when memories speak from ages past, we can live with honor instead of shame.
For there is something within the breasts of men — something which distinguishes us from the fairer sex, something noble, something dangerous, which gives us the name of Man. It transcends the physical, belonging to both small and large, old and young, an almost inexplicable desire to protect women; a something which I don’t believe manhood is complete without, and yet is so oftentimes neglected, and in our modern day repressed. To feel a woman within your arms, and have her know that she is safe; to comfort the distressed, to rescue her from the jaws of death or the dangers of evil men — if a man doesn’t feel this, what should we call him? And what more should we call him if he refuses to act upon it?
When this sentiment is lacking, it is untrue, unfair — unsafe — to call a male a man.
No, perilous times call for frankness and manly honesty, not a spirit of nurture or effeminacy. For tyranny comes not publicly in brutish, unshaved faces and dirty undershirts; but from young blondes — independent without reason — touting lyrics like I’m just a girl [...] and they won’t let me stay out late at night; women incapable of understanding the aggressive nature of man, the dangers inherent in the natural universe; women political beyond their understanding and hostile to gentlemen, women who view any admittance of physical weakness as permission to domination. I can do little to correct their insanity — this attitude which believes all discomfort and duty can be relieved, and yet all liberty expressed — this attitude, which demands a right to sleep with whomever she pleases, and then protests “anybodies” on the sidewalk making sexual remarks — this attitude which accepts constant objectification through pornography and media, which desires to play with beasts, which undresses and drinks itself into stupidity, and then is surprised when accosted by man — Man! Whose biological form testifies his predatory nature! Whose size and build exceeds that of woman! Whose historical records testify of large harems, rapes en masse, and brutal beating! And she believes none of what she sees!
No — sensible women know that men are always aggressors; men must be suppressed by the gasps of offended women and the fists of angry, protective gentlemen. When women don’t gasp, and men don’t fight, women testify by their silence that any woman can be treated like a whore.
Let us defend women whether we think they will appreciate it or not, and let us call ourselves men.
30. April 2013
A people’s forfeiture of self-rule — what does it look like? Does surrender build piece by piece, day by day, law by law; or does it happen suddenly, publicly, officially — expressedly? Is it not debt that exceeds the boundaries of conceptualization? Families broken — fathers who do not father, a birthrate shriveling into impotence? A nation’s murder of millions of its own innocents? Borders left open against the creeping Reconquista? Yes — but even more than these; even more than the advance of state piracy, even more than the soullessness of Americanized Christianity, even more than teachers who do not teach virtue, and pastors who do not preach Law, we have another declaration of surrender far more blatant, yet like the others still implicit. Though acts are the expressions of thoughts, and none of the above “circumstances” can be said to be circumstantial, but all very meaningfully enacted according to very specific and suicidal doctrines, there stands declaration above all these: that Americans, no longer capable of even calling themselves Americans — or as it can be proven later, any nation whatsoever — have forfeited their grip upon reality, and thus beg replacement by any invaders with any sense of cohesion and at least a hint of spirit.
That statement, as the title heralds, is the Boston interfaith vigil. (more…)
27. April 2013
The future of the Republican party — this is what they say of you, dear Hispanics; but for better or for worse has yet to be seen.
My suspicion has nothing to do with your capabilities, nor with your civility — for I know many work hard, and still more behave respectably. But looking beyond these two lies another issue far deeper than the ability to labor and abide by law, and that issue concerns the problem of lower faction.
What we mustn’t do is craft a moral system like Kant’s, and say that if a rule can be universally considered “good,” then we must guide ourselves by it. That kind of thinking led him to write an abominable essay about how, if a serial killer comes looking for our friend, and we have the option of lying, we should tell the killer the truth.
What we must consider instead, is something far more along the lines of Jonathan Edwards or Tocqueville: the realization that the good of the faction itself is subordinate to something higher; something tapping not simply into our sense of belonging to groups, but into our sense of what it is to be man. In short, we must as Tocqueville wrote adopt a platform of higher faction, a faction for the promotion of true ideals, and not conform to lesser factions, which exist for the sole purpose of self-progagation.
If we consider what it means to do otherwise, we find ourselves an example very quickly. For there exist two kinds of aim in the world: the first, for the betterment of mankind — universal benevolence. But the moment we step away from that universal goodness, the laws of nature — of Scripture, of conscience — we begin to say that what’s good for my group, however that group is defined, is good simply because it benefits my group. The larger the faction is, of course, the more noble the behavior appears; but in reality, the behavior still violates the silent but irrepressible fact that all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. And when the factions become so small, that the factitious nature becomes obvious — be it simply for company, family, or most obvious of all, the self — it is then humanity recognizes the behaviors most easily as entirely immoral. For this is the difference between moral and immoral behaviors: morality encompasses the rights of others, and most importantly the will of God; immorality values the self or faction above all else. Small faction is the spirit of Pontius Pilate — terrified of his own demise, and caring little for the rights of an innocent Jew — sending Jesus Christ to be crucified. Small faction is the
This isn’t necessarily to say that man must in all circumstances grant everyone exactly the same rights of citizenship: obviously, for society to function harmoniously, certain rights and privileges must be extremely lopsided in the pursuit of government. The policeman and the legislator and the citizen may be permitted far different actions, but all necessarily; and certain of these privileges and licenses require the habitual examination known as the election season, to determine whether or not the trustees have used their licenses for the public good or for personal gain. As well, the citizen and the non-citizen must be afforded different rights; not simply because one is a man and another isn’t — that is to say, one has unalienable rights and the other doesn’t — but rather because if the higher faction is to exist for the defense and propagation of higher principles (ie, those pertaining to the true justice toward mankind), then it must have some way of defending itself against the world. For if the world had already proven itself capable of harmonious integration, then no smaller governments would be necessary.
The problem with Hispanics — and I speak this gently, noting very well that my Hispanic family is likely to read this — is that Hispanics do not necessarily want what’s good for mankind. They don’t speak in high ideals, or protest for the laws of nature, or rally for America’s founding principles. Rather, through decades of shouting and bullying and government pandering, what Americans — who are mostly white — have seen is an invading people advancing for the sole sake of the invaders. And there is no such moral aim as the advancement of black, or brown, or white; nothing that we know of God says anything of the sort. But there is a such thing as the advancement of universal justice — the Laws of God — unalienable rights — Christian brotherhood not for the sake of unity itself, but within unity of purpose. What Americans need is higher faction; what they get from minority parties is the lowest of the low: the coercion of government used to rob families of heirlooms and the constant derision of true unalienable rights as “racist.” What we want is Hispanics who speak the laws of the universe, but yet not even really Hispanics: what we (and by “we” I mean “traditional Americans”) want is real men, Godly men, thoughtful men, of whatever color, to whom acquisition means far less than human brotherhood.
The following statement is going to get me quite a bit of trouble, but it must be said because there’s been a lot of talk about unalienable rights, and how those rights are only good for the promotion of whites. However one looks at it, the recognition of unalienable rights doesn’t really protect everyone: it protects good people. Now, I do not mean to say that all white men are good, or that the majority of modern white men are good, or even that today’s increasingly effeminate and ignorant white men even thrive better under the establishment of unalienable rights. But what I will say is that if the Laws of God, the laws of nature, whatever we call them, serve the purposes of only a particular group, then that group should by all means thrive according to them. And if another group comes along as claims they can’t do as well within that eternally-righteous and universally-applicable framework, and that they need to trample those rights to get ahead, well then we must say that that invasive group is unfit for the caretaking of the human race. That is, especially if they aren’t presently citizens, they have no right to citizenship in the nation of high-ideals. Whether this is the case with Hispanics in America, or whites in Africa, or Eskimos in Timbuktu means no difference. A party of high ideals has a right to remain supreme at any given moment; they alone deserve success. And despite present-day American failures, we can easily say that America is more firmly based upon unalienable rights than say, Mexico.
One issue both reasonable Hispanics and Americans must agree upon is this: there is something about America that attracts Hispanics, and what attracts Hispanics did not happen by accident. The kind of people that make a nation great, and are valuable prospects for future citizens are reasonable people; and reasonable people do not believe great nations magically appear. Rather, they know that a special something, something comprising the grace of God, a particular culture, and a coexistent ethic, permit establishment, production, propagation, and defense. And what reasonable Hispanics must then agree upon, is that that something must be defended if glory is to be maintained. It is true: if the principles are eternal, then good men from all nations may reside there; but if it is to remain long a place worthy of residence, then people cannot be allowed in without discrimination. And when a people defend unreasonable immigration — or worse, illegal — then what they do is declare their support for lesser faction, and therefore themselves void of higher principle. If one may say he loves America, he must love it not for the land itself, nor for the color of its inhabitants, nor its present luxuries: he must love it for that special set of ideals which makes it great. And he must be willing to defend it, even should his own family stand in the way.
21. April 2013
I couldn’t have been more than ten when my grandma passed away. I remember her, wasted away, lying on her bed in an aging manufactured home, with an IV in arm, dying of cancer. By that point she’d been so saturated with morphine that conversation was impossible, slurred speech uttering impossibilities and hallucinatory babble, a loving old woman’s mind worn with the onslaught of opiates and an ever-increasing, inescapable misery. I can think of many words to describe the scene, mostly tragic; but brave is certainly not one of them. And unlike so many organizations and people frequently do, I wouldn’t dare use the word brave to describe anyone dying of AIDS, or anyone else battling cancer, or any other person suffering from any other sort of disease, however warm I may appear by doing so. We may perhaps call them stoical, recognizing that certain smile in the face of adversity, and comparing them with the renowned Roman ascetics; but to call them brave is neither fair not true. (more…)
8. April 2013
Supposing evolution were actually true, and that the first pile of primordial soup, ignited by a lightning bolt or some other energetic source, were to suddenly result in life, the first question we should ask should concern the boundary of choice.
For all living organisms, whether great or small, conduct their behaviors according to their own limitations. That is to say, when life begins, it does not begin with the entire universe, but rather with a small portion of it. When that first energetic spark enlivens dead matter (for the sake of argument alone, we will permit this to be possible), it creates a being with a certain territory; meaning that whatever kind of jurisdiction the organism possesses is confined to a particular space. In short, an amoeba extends its power — its will, of sorts — only as far as the amoeba goes. And if by some power of its own, it happens to acquire something beyond it, it still has to convert that non-entity into itself. Before that process, whatever is consumed is beyond the life force of the individual being. When something external is consumed, the organism expands not simply size, but existential jurisdiction. If I’m to borrow some imagery from Spurgeon, we could say that man — mankind, as well — is a river. Every moment he (as well as the whole of mankind) adds more to himself, and every moment some piece slips away. The river itself is still the same river; but it’s the same river in the same sense that it’s an entirely different river.
We can look at the matter in another way entirely. If a man has two hands, they belong to him at present. He can move them at will, feels their every encounter with physical objects, with cold and heat; he uses them to acquire materials beyond himself, and add those materials to his being. But should the arm become detached from him, should that spark of life suddenly be severed from any portion of his body, the severed portion suddenly evades his jurisdiction. Somehow, that severed portion was him, but it isn’t any longer.
To put this another way, Hume spoke rightly that what man is — what he learns he is — is quite different from what he even wills. For a man’s will extends to the movement of his eyes, his hands, his feet. But ask a man to start or stop his kidneys, and he encounters an impassable border within himself, finding that he — or what he considers to be himself — isn’t even subject to his own will; not in any total sense, anyway. No, he lives and breathes and calls his body his own, but he can only dispose of himself, destroy himself; he cannot command some portions to do anything other than die, and even these he must act upon with other subject parts.
Scientists can make all sorts of claims about the first life forms — that they arose out of a lifeless mess, that they evolved into different kinds of organisms –, but whatever claims they make about spontaneous generation, they’ll never be able to avoid explaining how the first organism (or any other) suddenly lived, and knew “this is mine, and that is not.” What life is, is one mystery in itself. Why life chose for itself certain boundaries, is entirely another.
Are we to believe that lightning, animating a pool of liquid, said “live here, and no further?” Are we to believe that lightning, striking a fortuitous arrangement of biomaterial, united those pieces and those pieces alone, ignoring all else? We can easily say, however wrongly, that a spark began life; but that it could grant a particular jurisdiction, a particular and defined unity, perfectly suited to life itself, is an absurdity all its own. What granted us our hands is an act of God, moving through a single cell until we acquired our physical bodies. What granted the first cell its parts is that He spoke, and said “will, feel, move no further.” A heart may be a heart and lungs may be lungs, but to suddenly give them not independent life, but life united under a particular will? A miracle of miracles, inexplicable, the act of an agent intelligent and intentional.
But He, like bidding the sea to stop upon the shore, commands the being to act and be, but be no further.But what was it, what force, what decree made I into we? — no, not even “I.” For I isn’t I when it isn’t even alive. Most living things aren’t even I. Only man can even claim to be a part of the animal kingdom, amd as Chesterton noted,