Playing the Indian Card

Saturday, August 17, 2019

The Fire This Time

St. Dymphna

Luke’s gospel is uncompromising. This Sunday’s reading:

Jesus said to his disciples:
“I have come to set the earth on fire,
and how I wish it were already blazing!
There is a baptism with which I must be baptized,
and how great is my anguish until it is accomplished!
Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth?
No, I tell you, but rather division.
From now on a household of five will be divided,
three against two and two against three;
a father will be divided against his son
and a son against his father,
a mother against her daughter
and a daughter against her mother,
a mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law
and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.”

So much for “gentle Jesus, meek and mild.” As Andrew Klavan has observed, he is nowhere in the gospels.

I have heard this passage described repeatedly as “challenging.” Followed by a sermon that did not challenge, but avoided mentioning what the passage actually says: Jesus is against peace and family values.

We should not be surprised. Either is an idolatry, the more dangerous for being so apparently desirable, and so seductive. This is what evil always is: God created all things good. Evil consists of valuing a lesser good over a greater.

Sex is good; and so the temptation is to elevate sex beyond its procreative station. Material comfort is good. And so the love of money becomes the root of evil. In the same way, family and peace are desirable, and so especially likely to lead to sin. 

Peace in our time.

Neville Chamberlain serenely betrayed Czechoslovakia to Hitler in the name of peace. Lincoln could have had peace and avoided the carnage of the Civil War by guaranteeing the right to slavery. The neighbours of Kitty Genovese opted for peace. As Edmund Burke put it, “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”

And “family” is at least as often as not in rivalry with spiritual values. Family values are pagan values: valuing family relationships beyond the point required by gratitude implies devaluing all those to whom you are not related. It is at base no more admirable than racism.

St. Dymphna’s father demanded that she marry him. That would be the ultimate expression of family values.

Wednesday, August 14, 2019

Salve Regina

Hail, holy queen, mother of mercy; our life, our sweetness, and our hope. To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve. To thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this valley of tears.

We said the prayer daily. Father Joe always objected to it. This is not, he insisted, a valley of tears. To say so is rank ingratitude. He was of the hallelujah chorus:

This is the day that the Lord has made; let us rejoice and be glad in it.

I believe the Salve Regina is right, and the Hallelujah chorus has it wrong.

We are not, after all, in the Garden of Eden, and this present world we inhabit is not the Kingdom of Heaven.

Why not? Why couldn’t God, being all-powerful and all-good, do a better job of it?

Because, surely, a heaven that had bad people in it could not be a heaven. Their activities would subvert it. There was and is a need for a place of trial. Here the tares must be allowed to thrive with the wheat, here there must be sufferings and temptations to sin--so that a heaven is possible. And everyone cannot go there.

For those who experience this present world as a satisfactory world, there must be something wrong. It is not a good sign to have reconciled with an unjust world in which, whatever your own circumstances, others are manifestly suffering. Luke lays it out in the Sermon on the Plain: “Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh.” But “woe to you who laugh now, for you will mourn and weep.”

Tuesday, August 13, 2019

Bernier Comes Out Against Multiculturalism

Multiculturalism: Canada as a human zoo.

Max Bernier’s People’s Party has declared its intention to abolish the Multiculturalism Act. 

Barring unforeseen circumstances, that clinches it for me. If I can get on the rolls, I vote PPC. Multiculturalism is poisonous. I want Canadian culture. If I want Maltese culture, there is always Malta. Why should Canada be the only nation not allowed a culture? Add this to Bernier’s brave stand against the milk and egg cartels; he is owed my support. And, I think, yours too.

Sure, I worry about splitting the anti-Trudeau vote. But Scheer is not a leader. If he were elected, present policies would apparently barely change. They would only be managed more competently. I'm not even sure that's to our advantage, given the policies.

I am astounded that Bernier has not taken off in the polls. But that may be because most people do not pay much attention to such things between elections. He might catch fire in the campaign.

Tulsi Gabbard is a similar case to the south of us. Surely the only reason she has not taken off, after two historically good debate performances, is that nobody is paying much attention yet.

Or else a lot of people still take their lead from whatever they hear or read in the mainstream media.

Sunday, August 11, 2019

Epstein's Eyes Shut

Jeffrey Epstein

I really don’t want to write this post. But I think it would be cowardice not to. I hate to speak of formal conspiracies, because they are intrinsically improbable, and the stuff of paranoia.

But the death of Jeffrey Epstein seems to require it. The level of incompetence required in prison officials in order to allow him to commit suicide in his cell is wildly improbable. At this point, that he was murdered by some group powerful enough to subvert prison management becomes the likeliest explanation.

It all makes me think of Stanley Kubrick’s final movie, Eyes Wide Shut, which involves the premise that there is a secret sex cult of the rich and famous—like the one Epstein is claimed to have run. The movie leaves it ambiguous whether this cult will go so far as to kill to preserve its secrecy; but this is a possibility clearly raised. 

The original story on which the movie was based was set in Vienna. Kubrick moved it to New York—the same place from which Epstein was operating.

Did Kubrick know something? Was he issuing a warning? Rather as he called out the madness of the elites in Dr. Strangelove? Veiled, perhaps, because he feared repercussions if he were too explicit?

This may also be why Eyes Wide Shut was his last movie. His wife has said he long wanted to make this film, but was not ready yet. He may have known he was ill when he decided to make it—he died just after filming, but before release—and figured now he could risk it, having less to lose. Or, worse, his sudden death just after finishing the movie might not have been natural, as Epstein’s seems not to have been. And just as the death of one of the characters in the film looks like murder masked as a drug overdose.

Makes a really good conspiracy theory, doesn’t it?

And here’s another faggot for the fire. I just saw a piece pointing out that Andrew Breitbart’s sudden death at 43 of a heart attack followed soon after a tweet that suggested he had some salacious information about such a sex ring:

“How prog-guru John Podesta isn’t household name as world class underage sex slave op cover-upperer defending unspeakable dregs escapes me.”

Less than a month later, he was dead.

There are other such suspicious deaths, if one looks; some keep a tally of what they call the “Clinton body count.”

It does seem plausible, given our lax sexual morals in the last several generations, that such a high-level sex ring is a real thing. Consider the recent #metoo revelations; consider the recent scandal in the US Catholic hierarchy over a homosexual sex ring.

Consider now that we are speaking of people with immense power and a great deal to lose if this all came out in public.

We kidded ourselves in the fifties and sixties that sexual morality had nothing to do with morality in general. But when we dropped our sexual ethics, especially when the upper class and elites did, we implicitly dropped morality in general. This is now perhaps at last dawning in the public consciousness.

The strongest argument against such a conspiracy is that it is improbable that so many people could keep an important secret for a long time.

But then, maybe it was not being kept a secret. Maybe Kubrick was telling us.

Eyes Wide Shut indeed.

Saturday, August 10, 2019

The Culture of Death

Just a quick, common example of how environmentalism has become an anti-human creed implicitly  justifying mass shootings. Friend Xerxes writes, in his latest column:

"At the planetary level, I wonder if we’re becoming a cancer. I don’t like the idea of encouraging deaths. But maybe we should re-think our incessant urge to prolong life indefinitely."

Monday, August 05, 2019

The Growing Toll of Environmentalism

Save our people?

It occurs to me that the entire structure of Pharisaism—in modern times, the education system, the press, the legal system, and the government bureaucracy—is there to inculcate and sustain the shared delusions of the matrix.

A current and critical example is the rash of mass shooters in the US. To read the press and watch the mainstream media, you would think they are all white supremacists and Trump supporters. The manifesto of the Christchurch killer was even aggressively suppressed in order, it seems, to further this idea.

And this is a particularly pernicious example. It is sacrificing innocents to Moloch in order to preserve the power of the powerful. Unless we examine the true causes of these killings, they will no doubt continue and get worse.

None of these killers have been Trump supporters, and none of them have been white supremacists.

Looking at the most recent shootings, in Dayton, El Paso, and Gilroy, and also at Christchurch, what is the real common thread?

It is environmentalism.

All of these killers were animated primarily, it seems, by the idea that human beings are destroying the sacred earth. This gives implicit warrant to kill people.

And, of course, if overpopulation is strangling the planet, it is transparent madness to let all kinds of people into the country. We will then ultimately need to fight them over the last water hole. It is simple urgent survival to keep their numbers down by any means necessary. While it is still possible…

The second consistent thread of thought among these killers seems to be multiculturalism/cultural relativism. This links culture with race, as the Nazis did. If new immigrants flood in, there is no question under multiculturalism and the banning of “cultural appropriation” of their assimilating and becoming like the rest of us. Instead, any large migration is an invasion by a permanently alien entity. Allow enough of them in, then, and necessarily, by this logic, it will end the existing American culture. If you suppose America is even a little better than the average among nations, or have some sentimental attachment to things like Mom, democracy, equality before the law, and apple pie, this would seem to demand action in defense of the country. Sheer self-reservation again demands action before it is too late.

But this idea comes entirely from the left, not the right; at least in North America. The traditional doctrine on the North American right has always been that neither Canada nor America is an ethnic nation, but are founded on certain shared ideas or values—on common culture. This multiculturalism and cultural relativism rejects.

Next to this, a common thread for many of these cases—I do not know if this is true in these present cases—seems to be the effective absence of a father in the home of the killer.

And again, it is the left that is promoting the idea that fathers are unnecessary.

Saturday, August 03, 2019

Contra Relativism

My politically southpawed pal Xerxes has declared of late that he knows nothing for certain. “I am absolutely sure that I can’t be absolutely sure of anything anymore. Life evolves. Knowledge changes. Sooner or later, everything I’m sure of will require reconsideration.”

To the contrary, as Aquinas would say, I maintain there are a series of truths that are self-evident and undeniable:

The truths of mathematics. Two and two will always equal four. The Pythagorean theorem will hold in all relevant cases.

Logical truths. Both A and not-A cannot simultaneously be true. If B follows from A, and C from B, then C follows from A. And so on.

Ethical truths. Kant’s categorical imperative, the golden rule. Although there can be argument over specific cases, we all know in our conscience that all are created equal, and that murder or lying, for example, are morally wrong.

The intrinsic value of truth, good, and beauty. The transcendentals.

Aside from the many other formal proofs of the existence of God, I think it is close to self-evident to the light of reason that there is a complex pattern and organization to the natural world, which forces the conclusion that there is an intelligence that designed it. Therefore, the existence of God seems like certain knowledge, even though some claim to dispute it.

Even were this not so as a logical proposition, the existence of God can be directly experienced, in such a way that it is known with certainty, whether or not one can convey this experience and this certainty to anyone else. Being able to convey this truth is a separate matter from the knowledge itself: I can be certain that I love my wife, without necessarily being able to convince her of this.

From this set of propositions—perhaps there are more self-evident truths that I overlook here, but from these alone—a great deal more can be reliable deduced to be true.

Counter to this, Xerxes cites Heisenberg’s “uncertainly principle” as proving that nothing is certain.

Heisenberg’s principle refers to a specific problem in observing subatomic structures. To apply it outside this context is not legitimate. That is like saying, for a random analogy, that because jaywalking is illegal, all possible human actions are illegal. At most, it tends to throw into doubt the scientistic notion that science is capable of discovering all truth: an unscientific and philosophically false idea in any case.

The same is so for the observer paradox, which Xerxes goes on to cite. This is a problem for science, in its claim of objectivity, not for ontology or for epistemology.

It can indeed be argued that science has little necessary relation to truth in the first place. As Popper, for example, has argued recently, or as did Copernicus at its origin.

Xerxes goes on to endorse what he calls “both/and” reasoning over “either/or.” He seems to here be directly rejecting Aristotle’s Law of Non-Contradiction: that both A and not A cannot simultaneously be true. This is a non-starter. Some choices, of course, are not binary; but even such more complex choices, as we can see from computer architecture, are built on prior binary choices. Consider for analogy a Xerxian computer in which each bit was not either 1 or 0, but both 1 and 0 at the same time. It is intrinsically nonsensical, of course, when so graphically illustrated. And of course, no such computer would function. So too with human judgement.

Which I suspect is the underlying point, here and so often with leftward thought: the motive is a desire to escape all moral judgements. Xerxes goes on, not for the first time, to speak against conventional morality, conventional ideas of good and evil, on the premise that things like water, science, or fossil fuels, are in themselves neither good or bad. Rather, what matters is that they be in the right proportion. Too little water kills; so does too much. And so forth.

This idea of “everything in moderation,” however, cannot work. Because it is immediately self-contradictory: too much moderation is itself immoderate. Moreover, why is moderation preferable? Because it produces good? But then aren’t you being immoderate if you always choose the good?

Xerxes is misrepresenting conventional morality in the first place in implying that it holds anything to be intrinsically evil. God created all things; it follows that all things are intrinsically good. However, you must integrate this with the idea of hierarchy; not all things are equally good. Otherwise there is no way of settling on the "right" proportion of anything. What is right depends on what the goal is—and the goal must itself therefore be seen as having an intrinsic value greater than other possible goals.

Moral judgements are therefore not properly applied to things as things, but to human thoughts or actions. Here it is essential to make moral judgements. Murder is evil; even a little bit of it is evil. Hate is evil; even a little bit of it is evil. Conversely, there is no such thing as too much love of God. Self-evidently, too much good (or virtue) does not become evil. One can argue otherwise, but only by falsifying the proper meaning of “virtue” or “good.” More broadly, evil consists in preferring a lesser to a greater good.

One more typical left-wing thought from Xerxes: he writes that “Individuals are in some way the sum of their relationships.”

That is dangerously misleading without an explicit reference to one’s relationship with God. It is ultimately only this relationship that counts, as any mystic will tell you, and other relationships are of value only to the extent that they conform to this one. Otherwise Xerxes’s ethic here is to “go along to get along,” which is the broad and level road to Hell. It is the ethic that sustained Nazi Germany, or that sustains the Mafia.