Epstein and the Original Sin

 

I am not posting this story here. I am posting a link to it on SubStack. This is my clever ploy to get you to subscribe to me--for free!-- over there. 

Give it a look.

Are You Mad?

 The lesson of the Rosenhan experiment.

The Mark of Zorro Ranch

 

We will probably be hearing more from the Epstein files for years. Given three million pages, it will take some time for folks to mine it all, even if no more files are released. There will be books written, on different aspects and on the paticipastion of different figures. Already the files seem likely to topple one world leader, Kier Starmer.

A few initial comments from this seat in the peanut gallery.

I see the claim online that Epstein worshippedor ironically pretended to worship the pagan Philistine god Baal. His strange  blue and white island temple structure was referred to by some as a “Baal shrine,” and he had some bank account using “Baal” in the name.

Here I can contribute a bit of knowledge other commentators seem not to have; although it seems simple and obvious enough. This is not conclusive, because Epstein was Jewish and so knew basic Hebrew. “Baal” in Hebrew is a title, not a name. It means “lord” or “master.” A Christian praying in Hebrew would pray to “Baal.” A courtier would call his king “Baal.” We cannot tell from this what god Epstein intended, if any. He might have been referring to himself. 

My next observation at this early point is simply to note that “pedophilia” used to be represented as a problem virtually unique to the Catholic church. While it was indeed a problem in the Catholic church, there was never any reason to suppose it was more common there than elsewhere. By now we know it was at least as common in sports leagues, the Boy Scouts, the public schools. It seems to have been everywhere, at every level of society, and especially common among the loudest critics of the Catholic church.

Perhaps Catholics deserves some reparations; for all the reparations they have already paid out. Why were they charged and persecuted, including the entirely innocent laypeople in the pews, and no one else?

My third observation is deep suspicion to hear that aside from the notorious island, Epstein also owned a remote ranch in New Mexico. It was apparently here that the worst things happened.

That rings a bell.

I have long theorized that Kubrick’s Eyes Wide Shut was an expose.  Kubrick wanted to blow the whistle, but did not feel it was safe to say it outright. And perhaps it was not. He died unexpectedly soon after finishing that movie.

I indeed have previously pointed out that Eyes Wide Shut also did not seem to be the first time Kubrick was trying to blow the whistle on some Hellfire Club among the elites. His 1961 film Lolita was also about pedophilia. In the film, the underage Lolita is spirited away by a group of Hollywood pedophiles—to a remote ranch somewhere in the West. Perhaps New Mexico?

Here is the passage from the book:

“Curious coincidence—…took her to a dude ranch about a day’s drive from Elephant (Elphinstone). Named? Oh, some silly name — Duk Duk Ranch — you know just plain silly — but it did not matter now, anyway, because the place had vanished and disintegrated. Really, she meant, I could not imagine how utterly lush that ranch was, she meant it had everything but everything, even an indoor waterfall. 

…He was a great guy in many respects. But it was all drink and drugs. And, of course, he was a complete freak in sex matters, and his friends were his slaves. I just could not imagine (I, Humbert, could not imagine!) what they all did at Duk Duk Ranch. She refused to take part because she loved him, and he threw her out. 

‘What things?’ 

‘Oh, weird, filthy, fancy things. I mean, he had two girls and two boys, and three or four men, and the idea was for all of us to tangle in the nude while an old woman took movie pictures.’ (Sade’s Justine was twelve at the start.) 

‘What things exactly?’ 

‘Oh, things… Oh, I — really I’ — she uttered the ‘I’ as a subdued cry while she listened to the source of the ache, and for lack of words spread the five fingers of her angularly up-and-down-moving hand. No, she gave it up, she refused to go into particulars with that baby inside her. That made sense. ‘It is of no importance now,’ she said pounding a gray cushion with her fist and then lying back, belly up, on the divan. ‘Crazy things, filthy things. I said no, I’m just not going to [she used, in all insouciance really, a disgusting slang term which, in a literal French translation, would be souffler] your beastly boys, because I want only you. Well, he kicked me out.’

…  ‘Fay had tried to get back to the Ranch — and it just was not there any more — it had burned to the ground, nothing remained, just a charred heap of rubbish. It was so strange, so strange —'"

This seems an odd coincidence. Surely Kubrick, and indeed Vladimir Nabokov before him, could not have known then of Epstein’s “Zorro Ranch”? The novel was published in 1955. Epstein reportedly bought his “Zorro Ranch” only in 1991. 

But Epstein might not have been a one-off, some solitary evil mastermind. More likely he was raised and groomed to his role, plucked from obscurity, by some pre-existing group or invisible institution. He might have been following an established template. 

From 1957 to 1960, Kubrick was under contract to Kirk Douglas. By 1960, they had a bitter falling out.

Recently, following his death, the sister of Natalie Woods has publicly claimed that Douglas sexually assaulted that actress in 1955, when she was only 16.

Was this a one-off? During the pedophilia scandal in the Catholic church, we were assured that pedophilia was never one-off. Pedophiles were incurable. This was why it was culpably wrong of the church to accept claims of repentance and simply reassign accused clergy. The only solution was chemical or physical castration, we were told.

So it seems fair to assume the same of Kirk Douglas. He was presumably a serial pedophile, and a member of a pedophile ring in his day.

Probably then there was some attempt, while Kubrick was under contract, to introduce Kubrick to the ring and its activities. As with the Epstein operation, this would have been a kind of initiation, allowing for blackmail later if anyone strayed from the established path. And so Kubrick became aware of what was going on.

Kubrick broke with Douglas, as noted, in 1960. The next year he filmed Lolita—then left for England, never to return. That move to England might have been career suicide—he deliberately took himself away from all the action in Hollywood.

Perhaps out of disgust. Perhaps fearing for his safety.

An interesting timeline.

Beauty Is Our Duty

 

Today’s gospel reading:

"You are the salt of the earth.
But if salt loses its taste, with what can it be seasoned?
It is no longer good for anything
but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.
You are the light of the world.
A city set on a mountain cannot be hidden.
Nor do they light a lamp and then put it under a bushel basket;
it is set on a lampstand,
where it gives light to all in the house.
Just so, your light must shine before others,
that they may see your good deeds
and glorify your heavenly Father."

This is a critical passage in the Sermon on the Mount, following immediately after the Beatitudes, in which Jesus identifies his flock, the good people of the earth. It is, therefore, the very core of the Christian message.

No sermon I have ever heard gets it right.

What does it mean to be the salt of the earth? What good deeds cause your light to shine?

Not moral deeds, like helping old ladies cross the street, or volunteering at a soup kitchen. You might think so. Everybody seems to think so. But this interpretation is not tenable. For in the same sermon, a few verses on, Jesus says 

“Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. ... But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.” Matthew 6: 1-4.

Now, obviously, God is not going to contradict himself. The deeds he is speaking of doing in full view of as many as possible, letting your light shine like a city on a hill, are obviously not these deeds of righteousness. For all that it is good to do what is morally good, this is not what he is speaking of here.

What else counts as a deed?

Simple hard work? Hard manual labour? This does seem to be the meaning some take from this. But most jobs do not seem to shed light over the world, or give it more flavour. And Martha was told that Mary, in not pitching in with the housework, had chosen the better part.

What is it that gives savour to the world? What introduces taste to the world? What makes the drabness of the world seem brighter?

The obvious answer is beauty. Beauty brings grace, light, and savour to our lives.

Which is to say, Christians are commanded to produce art. By these fruits you will know them.

It is what we can do, as individuals, to genuinely improve the world. By having an attractive front garden, we are giving joy to every passerby. By painting flowers on the wall of the laundromat we operate; by singing in the choir; by composing rhymes; and, ideally, by letting our light shine as far as possible, by doing it in as public a way as we can. Unlike deeds of charity, best done in secret, in the case of art, exposing the work of beauty to as many people as we can increases the value of the deed.

Jesus is also telling us we have it in us to be artists, if we are God’s people, those described by the Beatitudes. It is significant that Jesus says “you are salt,” not, “you can be salt,” or “you should strive to be salt.” Necessarily, if you are one of God’s chosen, you have been given this gift, the ability to create beauty. 

It is your duty now to use the talents you have been given. See the parable of the talents, Matthew 25:14-30.

You should also cloth the naked, feed the hungry, and visit those in prison. This is also commanded. But this is not enough to justify our existence.  “The poor you will have always with you.”

The Secret Agenda behind "Synodality"

I increasingly sense a great awakening in the culture. Everyone turning back to Christianity and even specifically Catholicism. I see it among celebrities in my internet feeds, and I see it daily among people I encounter. There has been a general collapse of standards in the culture. Many institutions are being discredited by the increased availability of information through the Internet; the Epstein files are now delivering one more mighty blow. People are craving the eternal verities, by which men are men and women are women, and some things are sacred. That is what Christianity, an Catholicism, are there for, and all about. It is the moment for that light to shine from the mountaintops.

And it is unspeakably frustrating that, at this very apocalyptic moment, the church itself is, with Pope Francis’s “synodality,” throwing any and all its traditions into question in favour of following the “continued workings of the Holy Spirit.” No direction, just when the flock is pleading for direction. What can they be thinking?

And under Pope Francis, the Vatican began more aggressively suppressing the traditional liturgy of the church, the Latin mass. Just when people have been flocking to it, when the traditional Latin mass parishes have been the centres of growth within the Church.

 A friend of mine, prominent in the local diocese, condemns “traditionalism” outright, in favour of the “charismatic movement.” As if they are opposed. Traditionalism must be suppressed because it supposedly is intolerant of “the charismatic movement.”

THis came as a surprise to me, as I have always thought of myself as both a traditionalist and a charismatic.

Making me suspect that “charismatic movement” is being used here as some kind of euphemism, a code word for something that dare not speak its name.

In my own parish, a “Beta” course advertised as intended to deepen parishioners’ understanding of their Catholic faith turns out to be a repurposed set of “Life in the Spirit” videos, designed for a charismatic prayer group. They say nothing at all about either doctrine or liturgy, nothing about the sacraments, nothing about the Catechism, but instead stress over and over again the immediate experience of divine forgiveness, the unconditional love of God, and the need to forgive others, with no mention of repentance.

And the catechists for kids in the parish are instructed that they are to convey one message, and one message only: that God loves you.

Why this abject failure of the church hierarchy to read the room and the zeitgeist? Why this failure in the church’s evangelical mission?

I think I suddenly understand why. 

In a recent interview, I heard Milo Yiannopoulos casually claim that all Catholic bishops should be assumed to be gay.

Yiannopoulis is a controversialist; he makes wild claims. And he was himself, until recently, openly homosexual. It is my impression that gays imagine they see fellow gays everywhere.

On the other hand, he has connections, both gay and Catholic. He may well know of what he speaks.

Today, I was listening to a John Henry Westen “Faith and Reason” panel, including one priest, and one panelist remarked, without objection from the others, that probably 70% of the clerical establishment is indeed gay. Westen’s panels are traditionalist, but not sensationalist; he tries to convyr the sense of being fair and balanced.

And if this is true, doesn’t that explain everything? What if the great majority of the current church hierarchy are themselves actively gay. And they are there, in large part, perhaps primarily, for sex. For them, the actual church tradition must be a burden, and in particular a burden on their conscience. It cannot feel good to know you are a hypocrite. 

So they have a vested interest in downplaying and discounting and ideally dispensing with tradition.

 “Synodality” and “the charismatic movement” are their perfect alibis: never mind all those troubling rules and doctrines. They are going with the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is alive and always working; he supersedes tradition, for he is God himself. How can that be wrong?

Fortunately for them, it is easy to conflate “listening to the Holy Spirit” with going with any of your natural urges in the moment. 

And of course, they want to stress that God loves us all unconditionally, as we are; even if this is not Biblical. That means they can continue being actively gay, consciences free. The bad guys are those who would focus on sin. Aren’t they refusing to forgive? Aren’t they denying the infinite love of God?

This all makes sense, too, of the recent history of the church.

In the crisis of faith produced by Vatican II, there was a great falling away of vocations. In that time of “free love” and “if it feels good, do it,” the seminary ranks were probably largely filled with active gays. I know this to be the case for one graduating high school classmate of mine. This generation of novitiates did not take the religion seriously; this was a party opportunity, like joining the navy or merchant marine. But the church needed priests, and was also no doubt influenced by the freewheeling atmosphere of the times.

Under Paul VI and John Paul II, the hierarchy averted their eyes.

This, however, led to the “pedophilia” scandals. The problem was never heterosexual pedophilia. It was homosexual predation on post-adolescent boys, by members of this new cadre of actively homosexual priests. But nobody could say that; it was not politically correct to blame homosexuals.

Faced with the scandals, the cardinals then elected Benedict XVI to restore order and lay down the law. In his sermon to open the conclave, he aggressively condemned pedophilia. And at around this point, according to what I was hearing at the time, the clergy was still only about 30% gay.

But the Sixties and Seventies generation was rapidly rising to become bishops and cardinals and the leaders of seminaries. Within a few years, they were able to neutralize Benedict. He told a visitor that his real authority went no farther than his office door. Finally, he felt obliged to resign, and promise to go along with whomever else the cardinals wanted to choose. The velvet mafia had tipped the balance of power.

Whether or not gay himself, Francis was chosen to take the opposite tack: to support the gay clerics in their “charismatic” approach. And so we now have “synodality” and the suppression of the Latin mass.

The good news is that this may be a generational thing. The Baby Boomer generation of clerics may have been the problem, and now they are aging out of the hierarchy and the net conclave. Granted that they will have done their best to recruit other gays into the priesthood during their tenure. But a shortage of vocations has continued to be a problem, and the seminaries have generally had to take all comers. Meaning, I hear, that young priests under 35 now are almost solidly traditionalist, reflecting the mood of the flock from which they come. Moreover, being gay is now so mainstream that gays have little incentive to become priests as some kind of cover. I hear there is a growing shortage of “progressive” priests to elevate to the hierarchy.

The Holy Spirit may indeed be moving.

The Problem with Democracy

Winston Churchill famously said that democracy was the worst possible form of government—until you consider all the others.

It is not, objectively, a good system. Most people are not wise. Realistically, leaving decisions to the average person will lead to only average results. 

Plato, Confucius, and the American Progressives argued instead for rule by experts, educated to the role. But this runs into the problem of who polices the police; a self-appointed clique with their own vested interests can take over; they can skew the standards to control membership. We see the results in the modern university, or in the PRC: not great.

In a way, democracy really just works as a check and a balance: the experts, the clerisy, inevitably actually control the levers of power. A democratic vote every few years does something to keep them in line.

But can we do better? How about some objective metric to limit the franchise? IQ tests are supposed to be pretty objective and tamper-proof; that’s one option. But it does not sound just: what about the principle of “no taxation without representation”? If a man or woman is paying taxes, they have a natural right to vote on how that money is spent.

It makes sense to use IQ testing to choose immigrants. Not education or income, as is often now done—that favors the elites from poorer countries, where many or most people cannot afford much education. This means we are not really selecting the best. Moreover, poorer countries are generally poor because of a corrupt ruling class. And using these criteria means we are importing that very corruption. IQ by contrast is a decent objective measure of future potential, and the ability to succeed and to contribute. And to vote wisely.

As for current citizens, let’s flip the script on “no taxation without representation.” There is a logical corollary: no representation without taxation. Only those whose tax returns show they are net contributors to the public accounts might get to vote. This is some measure of intelligence, and of sound judgement. 

This would also strengthen the check on the expert clique. Those whose income comes from government would not be eligible to vote by this standard. Allowing them to do so is unfair: they are in effect voting on their own performance.

There is, perhaps, also a necessary tweak to this. We have a problem of depopulation: women are not having children. And basing the vote on income gives them some further incentive to pursue career instead of childrearing. Not good. So we might add an alternative criterion for the vote: having borne or raised two or more children, without resort to public assistance. This, like paying taxes, is a contribution to society at large, and implies a commitment to it.

I suspect this might produce at least marginally better government. And this matters, not just to the quality of life of citizens, but to the future of the nation.

Faith and Reason

 

Descartes, before becoming hoarse

I have recently been accused of cynicism.

Actually, I feel recent revelations in the wider world have taught us all we have been too trusting of what we have been told by authorities of all kinds. Do I need to enumerate examples? The greater availability of information thanks to the internet is showing a lot of our trust to be misplaced: in the media, in “the science,” in the church hierarchy, in the government, in politicians, in the medical establishment, and on and on.

More generally, there is no virtue in just accepting what we have been told is true. I suspect this comes from a perversion of Luther’s concept of “salvation by faith alone.” It is obviously wrong that we are saved by belief, because there is no moral value in that. Choosing a belief is like flipping a coin. And how can we know, without examination, that this or that belief is not from the Evil One?

I embrace Descartes’s approach, Bishop Berkeley's approach, or that of the Buddha: doubt everything it is possible to doubt. This is the moral stance. For unlike arbitrary belief, it requires effort. It is heroic.

Since God is ultimate truth, we are morally obliged to seek truth to the best of our abilities. Reason and free will are of our divine essence, that which elevates us above the animal soul. Reason is the organ that permits us to seek truth, as free will is the organ that permits us to seek the good.

Not to exercise our reason to the fullest extent possible is to turn away from God, and towards some convenient idolatry.

So what is the role of faith? 

Faith is trust, not arbitrary belief. Faith is trust in God. Faith is beyond reason, but never a replacement for it.

No Easy Walk to Freedom

 

I recently shocked someone by pointing out that the ultimate goal of Buddhism is suicide.

“Wait,” she objected. “Isn’t it enlightenment?”

No, that is not Buddhist terminology. The Buddhist goal of the eightfold path is “nirvana.” Nirvana actually means extinction: like the snuffing out of a candle. Actually the opposite of enlightenment.

What you are snuffing out is the self—anatta, anatman, “no self.” 

Hence, literally, the goal is suicide.

This gets complicated when you believe in reincarnation. It is not a simple matter of shooting yourself in the head; you’ll just be born again. It takes many lifetimes to accomplish the task.

I am not sure Buddhism would be as appealing in the West if more Westerners understood this. I think too many embrace Buddhism because they imagine it is an easier path than Christianity. People (wrongly) imagine it lacks a moral code and so any pesky feelings of guilt. 

On the Impatience of Eve

A Catholic friend, whom I could characterize as a Bergoglian, that is, a follower of Pope Francis, asserts that the original sin was impatience and a failure to appreciate the full depth of God’s love. Had Eve only waited, God would have given her and Adam the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. She simply jumped the gun.

I asked at the time if he could give any scriptural support for this claim that God would have given them the fruit later. He demurred.

It makes no sense to me. If God intended all along to give them this fruit, what was the point of first withholding it? Was he training them for obedience, as you would a dog? Does God love us like a pet? Isn’t that rather insulting? It is certainly manipulative.

And what about the pronouncement by Bergoglio himself that God does not, and would never, lead us into temptation, would never tempt us? Surely prohibiting this one tree, for no particular reason but to teach obedience, would be exactly that?

Not an entirely good and loving God, then. Eve would have reason to be suspicious.

Why then did God reserve the fruit of the tree? It cannot have been so arbitrary. It must not have been only to tempt. It must somehow have been necessary.

And it was. God cannot give us free choice, cannot give us free will, without allowing wrong choices to exist. If we cannot make a wrong choice, we cannot make choices. We would indeed be no more than pets or AI bots. Not full persons.

Therefore, in the Garden, there had to be one wrong choice available. It was inevitable, and it is inevitable in the case of each of us, that we will sooner or later make a wrong choice. Eve in this was each of us. Given the ability to think of ourselves as gods in our freedom, it was inevitable, and it is inevitable to each of us, that we sooner or later turn away from God and elevate our ego instead.

It was all inevitable and in the plan.

“O Happy Fault that merited such and so great a Redeemer!”

The Epstein Revelations

 

It is oddly reassuring that the Epstein files, or millions of them, have now come out.

Appalling as some of the revelations are and will be, it is reassuring to know their real scope, and not what imagination might suggest. Nothing can top imagination and rumour. And it is especially reassuring to see that the rich and powerful were not powerful enough in the end to suppress them forever.

It gives hope for the future.

The Beatitudes, Read Carefilly

 

Jack Kerouac: posted without explanation

Seek the LORD, all you humble of the earth,
who have observed his law;
seek justice, seek humility;
perhaps you may be sheltered
on the day of the LORD's anger.
But I will leave as a remnant in your midst
a people humble and lowly,
who shall take refuge in the name of the LORD:
the remnant of Israel.
They shall do no wrong
and speak no lies;
nor shall there be found in their mouths
a deceitful tongue;
they shall pasture and couch their flocks
with none to disturb them.

 Zephanaiah 2:3; 3:12-13

When Jesus saw the crowds, he went up the mountain,
and after he had sat down, his disciples came to him. 
He began to teach them, saying:
"Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are they who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the land.
Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be satisfied.
Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
Blessed are the clean of heart,
for they will see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called children of God.
Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you
and utter every kind of evil against you falsely because of me.
Rejoice and be glad,
for your reward will be great in heaven."

The Gospel reading for this Sunday mass is the absolute heart of the Christian message: the Beatitudes. Paired with a similar first reading from the Old Testament.

First question: what does “blessed” mean? Obviously not “happy” or “joyful”; for “blessed are they who mourn.” Jesus says what blessed means in the first beatitude: “for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” And this is repeated after the last beatitude: “for your reward will be great in heaven.” They will find reward in eternity. These are the ones who will get to heaven, and be exalted in heaven.

When it comes to “Blessed are the meek,” Jesus seems to promise them instead the Earth: “for they will inherit the land [the earth].” But note the word “inherit.” That means not the present earth, but a future earth, when someone dies. This refers to the new earth at the end of time.

“See, I will create
    new heavens and a new earth.
The former things will not be remembered”

“Blessed are the poor in spirit”—Luke has simply “poor.” “Poor in spirit” seems to me a more plausible theological formulation than simply “poor.” I can imagine that Luke’s eyewitness source misunderstood or misremembered; it would be easy to do. After all, simply being poor is a gross materialistic measure. Some poor deserve to be poor—the welfare queens, those who are poor because they are lazy. 

“For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: ‘The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.’”

Conversely, some who are wealthy did not seek wealth, but attained it as a byproduct of producing some benefit to mankind. And use it not for their own physical comfort, but to accomplish more.

By “poor in spirit,” I take something like “not motivated by money.” Such people will, usually, also be materially poor.

This is, not incidentally, an argument against the modern attitude that priority should be placed on political acts supposed to eliminate poverty. And this is common event in modern churches. This too puts too much emphasis on money. If it gets you into heaven, poverty is not a bad thing; the Franciscans seek it. It is charity that is the good thing: not because it ends poverty, but because it ennobles the soul of the giver. It is something due one’s brother.

The poor you will have always with you.

“Blessed are they who mourn.” I love to point this one out. So much for “happy happy joy joy” Christianity. If you are happy in and with this world, your mind is not in the right place. You should be yearning for heaven. Here we are living in exile, in the valley of soul-making. 

It is true that elsewhere Paul says “Rejoice in the Lord always.” But that is not “rejoice always”; that is, “keep your mind always with the Lord, to keep your spirits up.”

This has important implications for the modern psychiatric concept of “depression.” Insofar as it is used to describe a state of chronic sorrow, this is to pathologize sanity. Any sensitive and intelligent person should be sad. 

"Pain and suffering are always inevitable for a large intelligence and a deep heart. The really great men must, I think, have great sadness on earth."--Dostoevsky

“Blessed are the meek.” This is the most difficult beatitude, I think. “Meek” is not a great translation from the original Greek, which means something more like “restrained” or “reserved.” It does not carry the implication of timidity that “meek” does in English.

I’d take it as “those who do not seek power or attention.” This meshes well with the promised reward: they will inherit the Earth. And it parallels “blessed are the poor in spirit.” Blessed are those not motivated by money, and blessed are those not motivated by power. 

“Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness.” This puts paid to the modern idea that universal forgiveness is the core Christian message. To hunger and thirst for righteousness is the opposite of forgiving and forgetting, or of wanting to be forgiven. 

Moreover, this promises that God too is not forgiving. For they shall be satisfied.

One should not be motivated by money or power. One should be motivated by righteousness, by a sense of justice.

This is neatly followed by “blessed are the merciful.” Making the distinction between mercy and mere forgiveness. Mercy is not unqualified forgiveness of a fault. Merriam-Webster: “mercy: leniency, or restraint (as in imposing punishment) shown especially to an offender or to one subject to the power of another.”

It comes into play when one is in a position to exact punishment. One does not forgive, but exacts a milder punishment than one could enforce.

Unqualified forgiveness or unconditional love is not merciful. It is not kind. It kills the soul of the other.

“Blessed are the clean [or pure] of heart.” This echoes Jesus’s command to love God “with your whole heart.” Being pure, unadulterated, all of one substance, means being of one mind, unclouded by doubts or qualifications or exceptions. This is directly counter to the modern condemnation of “religious extremism” and promotion of relativism and ambiguity over conviction.

God will spit out the lukewarm. Ambiguity is a vice, not a virtue.

“Blessed are the peacemakers.” As noted in a recent post, this does not mean pacifism. Pacifism, a refusal to fight, leads to and endorses war and strife. Think for a moment of your own inevitable experience in the grade 3 schoolyard. If a kid refuses to stand up for himself, does this discourage the bully? Does refusing to step in for the victim discourage the bully?

 It does not mean diplomacy either. Diplomacy sometimes averts war; sometimes it causes it. In either case, it involves a certain level of dishonesty, of compromise of principle. This cannot tally with our first reading, from Zephaniah: 

“They shall do no wrong
and speak no lies;
nor shall there be found in their mouths
a deceitful tongue”

It means keeping the peace. Who keeps the peace? The umpire, the referee, the judge, the police. Peacekeeping means setting and honouring clear rules, clear boundaries. Not crossing borders. “Good fences make good neighbours.”

“Blessed are those who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness.” This goes against the common tendency to measure morality by “community standards”; to see conformity as morality. If you are righteous, you will be persecuted for it. If you get along with everybody, you are not a good person. And this is necessarily true. If being good brought you good in this world, everyone would be good simply out of self-interest. It is only when doing what is right goes against your self-interest that it is a righteous deed and a moral act.

This truth is echoed in Jesus’s admonition to keep to the narrow gate: “For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.”

So you cannot get to heaven by going along to get along.

“Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you
and utter every kind of evil against you falsely because of me.”

It follows that the good people of the earth will not be those widely celebrated as good. People famous for being good ought to be held in the greatest suspicion. To the contrary, being genuinely good will attract horrible false accusations from bad people. If someone is commonly portrayed as awful, or mad, without clear evidence, this is the best evidence that they are genuinely good and honourable people.

I will refrain from giving examples, because they will necessarily be controversial and demand justification. Ponder this for yourself.

Catherine O'Hara Dead

Catherine O’Hara has died. This is sad for her many fans. But I am offended by the media inevitably referring to this as her “tragic death.”

We all die. Death ends every life. If every death is tragic, every life ends in tragedy. Do we really believe that? Is our vision so narrow?

O’Hara lived to the age of 71: that is a full life, the Biblically alotted threescore and ten. Although we may have become accustomed to people living longer, it is enough. In historical or international terms, it is already an accomplishment to have lived that long. 

O’Hara bore and raised two children. That’s a good return on investment: given one life, she produced two more. That is already a great legacy.

She died, according to her agent, “after a brief illness.” It sounds as though she did not go through prolonged suffering. Given that we all need to go, that’s the best way to go. A good death.

And although she did do well, and became famous, Catherine O’Hara spent her life not just trying to make money and acquire things, but in the arts, using the gifts God gave her to the fullest to bring light into other lives. She let her light shine, as we are told to do by our Lord. She stayed salty; she did not lose her savor to the last. She died in harness, still acting, singing, and performing.

Given her talents, we can assume life was not easy for her. It is not easy for most of us; it is the vale of soul-making. Beauty in the arts comes only through pain. Why would she want to linger, if something infinitely better was waiting for her?

It is perverse, profane, and disrespectful to her memory to call this a tragedy.

On Forgiveness and Repentance

 

I recently attended another “Life in the Spirit” session put on by my local Catholic diocese. It was all about forgiveness: the need to forgive yourself and others. 

We have had no session on repentance. 

I fear this is to put the cart before the horse. You can’t have one without the other, and the import of the session and the course seems to be that you can.

Notice the progression in the New Testament: first John the Baptist, then Jesus. First repentance, then salvation. One must make the ways straight for the Lord.

“In those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the wilderness of Judea and saying, ‘Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.’”

In the session I attended, forgiveness was claimed to heal illness—not just your “mental health,” either. One story was of a woman who, once she forgave her neighbour, was cured of a goiter within a week. And it was of course claimed to improve your relationships.

This is selling it for other than religious reasons. This is selling it as psychology, as worldly wisdom. A Christian as Christian is supposed to do things because they are right, and out of love of God, not because they are good for our health or our finances. Why this approach?

I think they are doing this because the idea of forgiveness without repentance cannot be justified philosophically or theologically. It violates our sense of natural justice, which is to say of the Good. And God is perfect Good, Truth, and Beauty. So you cannot sell it as righteous, as the morally right thing.

“Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after righteousness” – says Jesus in the Beatitudes. This hunger is incompatible with unconditional forgiveness.

The speaker of course had his Biblical references. But they were partial, and misleadingi.

Their killer claim was that Jesus forgave his own killers from the cross—as they were killing him. How’s that for unconditional forgiveness?

But they are ignoring the second half of that sentence: “Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do.” This condition implies that their actions are objectively unforgivable. They are excused by ignorance. This is the principle used to test for a mortal sin.

"Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent." - CCC

To be guilty of the sin, you must be aware of the significance of what you are doing. In the case of the crucifixion, the soldiers were just doing their job, and presumably did not know he was an innocent man, much less that he was God incarnate.

The second Biblical warrant cited for forgiveness without repentance was the parable of the unmerciful servant, Matthew 18:21-35. Forgiven a debt by his master, he will not forgive a debt owed to him. 

But they omit his repentance:

“His fellow servant fell to his knees and begged him, ‘Be patient with me, and I will pay it back.’”

Imagine the debtor had denied the debt. Doesn’t that make a difference?

Forgiveness, as such, is not the Christian message. Jesus is not forgiving of the Pharisees, scribes, or Sadducees. 

“You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Produce fruit in keeping with repentance.”

He is not forgiving of the moneychangers at the temple. John the Baptist is not forgiving of Herod Antipas; and Jesus fully endorses John the Baptist. 

To understand the injustice of this doctrine of forgiveness without repentance, imagine your government is exterminating Jews. Are you obliged to quietly forgive? How about if you are Jewish? That is a way to stay healthy and safe, but it is not the moral way.

Imagine your community is practicing slavery. Forgive and do nothing? 

Imagine Kitty Genovese is being raped and murdered in your stairwell. Forgive and do nothing?

No—beyond a right and duty of self-defense, you have a right to fight evil when you see it around you. “None so guilty as the innocent bystander.” Consider the saintly models of St. Michael, St. George, or St. Joan of Arc. 

When nothing can be done, when the evil is beyond our power to end, the proper attitude is not forgiveness, but resignation. To turn the other cheek. “Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord.” We try to shame the perpetrator, let go and let God, and try to get on with our lives.

When the guilty party admits their guilt and tries to make good, then we must forgive.

“If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.”

Witness the sacrament of Reconciliation: to be forgiven by God himself, we must be sincerely sorry, resolve not to commit the same sin again, and must accept some penance. This is God’s way, and he models it to be our way.

And what is not repaid by penance in this life, must be made up in Purgatory.

It is not a mercy to forgive someone their sin who has not sincerely repented. For to do so is to encourage him in his sin, and lead him on the path to Hell. We owe him the duty of fraternal correction.

Vice is an addiction, like alcohol. The more often you do it, the easier it gets to override your conscience. And affirmation by others does not help. 

My own uncle was an alcoholic. His father, my grandfather, was exceptionally mild-mannered, and just put up with it. And, owning a company, he kept his errant son on the payroll so he would not be destitute. He was a model of forgiveness.

Then my grandfather died. My father inherited the company. He fired his older brother.

My uncle told me he is eternally grateful to my father for this. 

There he was, alone in his apartment, with the rent due in two weeks, and no way to pay it. In his desperation, he reached for a book his mother had given him, on St. Luke the Evangelist. He began to read. Through the strength of God, he sobered up, and has remained sober since.

It was cruel to have kept forgiving him for such a long time.

The real motivation for this false gospel is always brought up last. Because, after all, it is shameful. It is the supposed need to forgive “even yourself.”

This is paydirt. Jesus has already paid for all my sins. He loves me unconditionally. Why would I need to change? If anyone points out my sins—they are the bad ones. I can just keep punching my brother in the face, keep swindling him, and that’s all right. If he complains—shame on him. He is failing in his duty to forgive.

It reeks of Pharisaism. 

What's Happening in China?

 

Zhang Youxia

We are living through an interesting time. Things are happening almost too quickly to follow. And it’s a three-ring circus.

Something is clearly happening in China. Reports of large military movements; the usual internet censorship seems to have sprouted holes; emergency measures are clearly in place.

It seems likely that we are in the middle of a conflict splitting the CCP, which may become a civil war or the collapse of the regime. China is historically difficult to hold together, and always capable of collapsing into chaos.

In Iran, we are waiting for another shoe to fall. Latest reports I hear are of a mob storming the ayatollah’s residence. Trump said he had the back of the protesters. He said he would strike if the regime resorted to violence. Reports now are of 30,000 dead. It seems to me Trump must strike Iran now, and must strike decisively. His credibility is on the line.

Consider now the domino effect typical of revolutionary periods. Reports are there was a shortage of noodles in Chinese markets the day after Maduro was captured in Venezuela. One dines on noodles in celebration in China, like champagne or a birthday cake. 

Now imagine the effect on the other if either the Iranian or the Chinese regime falls. 

And there are other obvious dominos. Putin is in a terrible fix in Ukraine, losing more men than were lost by Russia in Afghanistan, a conflict that arguably caused the collapse of the Soviet Union. It seems improbable that he can stay in power much longer. And he has been dependant on Chinese and Iranian support. He has already lost Assad and Syria. 

Cuba was in dire straits economically before Trump’s coup in Venezuela, and heavily dependent on Venezuelan oil and cash. Now that is gone. Without Venezuelan, Russian, or Chinese support, they are there for the taking.

I can imagine the regimes in Iran, China, Russia, and Cuba all falling over the next year or so. Hard to see North Korea and Belarus holding on. It would be a different world; like the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Trump would look brilliant, the great hero. Parties in the democratic world who espouse Trumpish policies would accordingly get another big boost. Farage in the UK, LePen in France, Poilievre in Canada, Wilders in the Netherlands, AfD in Germany, and so on. Each would probably win the next election decisively, and introduce new policies accordingly. In the Middle East, radical Islam would be dead, and there would be a strong impulse to sign on to the Abraham accords. 

Meantime, Elon Musk is predicting a great burst of increased productivity due to AI, leading to an unprecedented increase in general wealth; and he is speaking of the near term.

We could be seeing the birth pangs of a golden age.

Why Francis Suppressed the Latin Mass

A friend is a fan of the late Pope Francis and his synodal way. He supports the suppression of the Latin mass. This has never made any sense to me. Why is it a problem, when it was the traditional form of the liturgy for hundreds of years, and dozens of other non-standard liturgies are well-established. 

It is, my friend says, because it causes schism in the Church. 

This makes no sense to me. If one group is continuing to do as they always did—traditionalists, by definition—and another group is starting to do something different, surely it is the innovators who are promoting schism?

And how can a difference in liturgy matter? If there is some theological or doctrinal conflict, surely the proper approach is to address that doctrine, not the liturgy.

The problem, he elucidates, is that traditionalism opposes the charismatic movement within the Church. 

For those who do not know, the “charismatic movement” is a movement to Pentecostal forms of worship within the Catholic church. Lots of singing and laying on of hands, perhaps speaking in tongues. The idea is to evoke the presence of the Holy Spirit. A more free-form style of worship.

This supposed conflict comes as news to me. I have always considered myself both a traditionalist and a charismatic. I love charismatic forms of worship. But again, surelty different liturgical forms can coexist within the Catholic Church, as they always have. Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict both endorsed charismatic prayer, and they are traditionalist heroes. Traditionalism opposes modernism, surely, falling away or turning away from traditional doctrine, not pentecostalism.

But wait... The charismatic movement emphasizes the ongoing action of the Holy Spirit. Francis’s synodality movement is about groups supposedly listening to the Holy Spirit—and then discussing doctrine. 

So this looks like a jump from pentecostalism as a style of worship to something else, something deeper.

Of course, to a traditionalist, this too should be no problem. It is the Holy Spirit who has spoken through the prophets, through the Bible, and through the apostles, to bring us to where we are today. Obviously, the Holy Spirit is not going to suddenly contradict itself. 

The problem is, however, unlike the Bible or the established magisterium, anyone can claim, falsely, to be guided by the Holy Spirit to propose anything he might want. This has been, historically, the case. The Holy Spirit has told some they had the right to take multiple wives, or to overthrow the government of China, or to kill themselves by drinking poisoned Kool-ade. And the Bible warns us of this danger—that there will be false prophets. This is why private revelation has never been allowed to supersede the magisterium. If something proposed goes against the established teaching, that proves it is the demonic voices speaking, not the Holy Spirit. This is how you “test the spirits.”

So far so good—but if this is your position, what is the possible point of holding these synods? As nothing can change, they are a waste of time.

Cardinal Zen made this point at the recent consistory of bishops in Rome: “the continual reference to the Holy Spirit is ridiculous and almost blasphemous. They expect surprises from the Holy Spirit; what surprises? That He should repudiate what He inspired in the Church’s two-thousand-year Tradition?”

In other words, it seems “the synodal way” is an attempt, through the alibi of the charismatic renewal, to smuggle in changes in church doctrine. And when “charismatic renewal” is understood in this sense, it is indeed opposed to traditionalism, and traditionalism must be opposed to it. 

If ...

John Kipling

If you can keep your head when all about you   
    Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,   
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
    But make allowance for their doubting too;   
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
    Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
    And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:
If you can dream—and not make dreams your master;   
    If you can think—and not make thoughts your aim;   
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
    And treat those two impostors just the same;   
If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
    Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
    And stoop and build ’em up with worn-out tools:
If you can make one heap of all your winnings
    And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
    And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
    To serve your turn long after they are gone,   
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
    Except the Will which says to them: ‘Hold on!’
If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,   
    Or walk with Kings—nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
    If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
    With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,   
Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,   
    And—which is more—you’ll be a Man, my son!

Some years ago, Rudyard Kipling’s poem “If” was voted the most popular poem in England. Muhammed Ali reputedly carried it with him wherever he went.

It is framed as a father’s advice to his son—as Kipling’s advice to his own son John.

It has always seemed to me, frankly, abusive. 

For example, right off, 

“If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
    But make allowance for their doubting too;”

Right—so you must trust yourself, yet doubt yourself.

“And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:”
Be good, but not too good; smart, but not too smart?

This kind of moral ambiguity seems to me to be the essence of abusive parenting: setting requirements the child cannot possibly achieve. It is not just that the bar is ridiculously high: it is that the child is here asked to do two contradictory things. This means they can never feel they have got it right, and they remain open to criticism by the parent whenever the mood strikes.

“If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much”

This is surely terrible life advice. In order to form a true and loving bond with anyone, you must be ready to be vulnerable. You must expose yourself to being hurt. You must give your heart fully. This is a recipe for a lonely, isolated life.

But this is the advice you would expect from an abusive parent or partner: don’t ever get too close to anyone but me. I want total control. I don’t want you to escape my clutches.

It is typical of a narcissistic parent to discourage deep relationships outside the family. It is typical of an abusive partner to object to your spending too much time with friends.

The penultimate promise with which the poem almost ends, “yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it” is also troubling. It implies that the objective of life is power, not to be a good person. This is the narcissist’s view. 

And by implication, the parent who is speaking is already a god, for presumably he already is a man. So this is his world and everything that’s in it—and, this being so, there is no room for some second ruler, at least until he dies. The poor kid has no chance.

John Kipling, to whom this poem was addressed, died early in the First World War. He was only sixteen; there was no conscription; and his poor eyesight made him ineligible for service. Nevertheless, his father Rudyard was determined that he must go to war, and pulled strings to make it happen. He died charging a German position in the Battle of Loos.

His father composed this epitaph for him: “If any question why we died, Tell them, because our fathers lied.”

I take this as an admission of guilt—although slightly deflected by use of the plural.

What the Chinese Think of Trump

 

Pax Romana

What does a Chinese man in the street think of Trump’s outrageous bid to take over Greenland? I asked one of my Chinese students.

He thinks Trump should get it.

Isn’t he concerned about American hegemony?

“The world needs a boss. Then fewer countries would start wars.”

And he’s right. He is being logical. This is the same reason we have governments. 

It is moreover the lesson of history: Pax Romana, Pax Britannica. When Rome ruled the Mediterranean, there was general peace, prosperity, and development. When the United Kingdom dominated the globe in the nineteenth century, we had a long period of relative peace. As Yeats described it in "Nineteen Hundred and Nineteen":

All teeth were drawn, all ancient tricks unlearned,
And a great army but a showy thing…

One dominant power preserves the peace. Government is always better than anarchy.

This being so, America’s continued and growing dominance is in the best interests of everyone. Especially since America is a democracy, and guarantees democracy to territories it controls. This means suppression and exploitation is not on the menu. Its dominance is not just in the best interests of America’s usual allies in Canada, Europe, Australia, Israel, the Pacific Rim. It is also in the best interests of the people of Iran, or Russia, or China. 

hy then do the governments of Iran, China, or Russia stand opposed to the USA? Why are hackles raised in Europe or in Canada? Why are leaders like Mark Carney actually turning to China for closer ties? 

It must be just the ugly sin of envy. If they cannot themselves be the leader, they want to burn it all down. It is weasels fighting in a hole. It is crabs preventing one another from escaping the boiling pot.

In fact, the ideal would be if America conquered and annexed everyone. Then everyone would have a vote on US policy, creating a democratic world government. 

The craziest thing is that Greenland, and Canada, have been offered advance membership, and somehow seem put out by it.

On Burning the Boats of Sin

I recently attended a “Life in the Spirit” —Catholic charismatic—talk. It troubled me; I think it got a critical matter wrong. I fear the speaker misrepresented the scriptures.

His main claim was that, if you accept Jesus as your personal saviour, all your sins are forgiven. You will not be blamed or called to account for your sins. 

“Thanks to the death of Jesus, we also die to sin, because a dead person cannot be blamed for any of his past errors.”

This is clearly not traditional Catholic teaching. What about the sacrament of reconciliation, aka penance? What about purgatory? What about the Last Judgment?

To illustrate, the speaker refers to Cortez burning his ships so his soldiers could not retreat from the conquest of Mexico. Once you accept Jesus, there is just no turning back to sin.

Really? Why then does Paul tell the Philippians to “continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling.” What is the fear? Why the trembling?

According to this new happy happy joy joy version of Catholicism, Jesus’s love is unconditional. So all we need to do is recognize his love, and all is well between us.

But this is contradictory: it seems his love is indeed still conditional, if there is a need for us to recognize it. That is a condition. But does it seem a fair and just condition, worthy of a just and merciful God, to make that the test? We get to heaven just by feeling good about ourselves? And if we instead feel bad about ourselves, we ought to go to hell as punishment?

The speaker does cite scripture. I quote:

“And there is no longer any condemnation for me, that I am in Christ Jesus. This is marvelous. And I don't say it; Paul says it in the epistle to the Romans.”

That is, Romans 8:1: “Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” 

But what does it mean to be “in Christ Jesus”? The speaker would have it that this means accepting Jesus as your saviour. This is not self-evidently so. It might mean taking on the spirit of Jesus, thinking and behaving as Jesus does and did, and as he commands us. And we avoid condemnation only so long as we can remain in this frame of mind.

Seeming to bear out this latter interpretation, further on in the same passage of Philippians, Paul says those who live in Christ Jesus “do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.” “Those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires.” “If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ.”

So it seems to me the speaker in this talk is misrepresenting scripture.

The speaker goes on to give three examples from the Gospels of sinners who had their sins forgiven. But each time, he falsifies the passage in a critical way: he leaves out the need for repentance.

First is the woman taken in adultery, John 8; ‘let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” When no one else will stone her, Jesus sends her off with the command, “go and sin no more.”

The speaker takes this to mean she has been given the power never to sin.

“When she was found out, she knew that the only door open to her was the door of being stoned. But she met Jesus, who is the saving door. … What she needed most was peace. Peace with herself, peace with her accusers, peace in this world…. But now, with his forgiveness, she will be able to overcome sin, and she will do so in peace.”

What she needed, then, was to stop feeling guilty about her sin.

But the gospel says nothing about her inner thoughts, about her needing or finding peace. The one clear indication of her inner thoughts is that, when all her accusers fade away, she remains standing there. Jesus is looking away, at the ground. She refuses to take the obvious opportunity to escape death. She insists on facing judgement, and consents that she deserves death. Only then is she forgiven.

“Teacher,” they said to Jesus, “this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 The law of Moses says to stone her. What do you say?”

6 They were trying to trap him into saying something they could use against him, but Jesus stooped down and wrote in the dust with his finger. 7 They kept demanding an answer, so he stood up again and said, “All right, but let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone!” 8 Then he stooped down again and wrote in the dust.

9 When the accusers heard this, they slipped away one by one, beginning with the oldest, until only Jesus was left in the middle of the crowd with the woman. 10 Then Jesus stood up again and said to the woman, “Where are your accusers? Didn’t even one of them condemn you?”

11 “No, Lord,” she said.

And Jesus said, “Neither do I. Go and sin no more.”

It is not that she found peace, but that she accepted guilt and found remorse.

Zaccheus is our speaker’s second example: the tax collector who climbed a sycamore tree to get a glimpse of Jesus passing by.

 “This man, Zacchaeus,” our interlocutor explains, “regained peace with himself. And not only with himself, the whole family of Zacchaeus, because it says that he [Jesus] ‘entered this house, this family.’ Such was the salvation given by Jesus to Zacchaeus.”

Once again, this false teacher omits the critical detail that Zaccheus repents of his sins—and also offers full restitution and more. “But Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord, ‘Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount.’”

Our false teacher’s third example is The Good Thief. Quoting again: “He is one of the few who call Jesus by name, the thief is very confident and says to him, ‘You are Jesus, which means: you are the Savior, the salvation of God for this world, for me. And I do not ask much of you, I ask only that you remember me when you are in your kingdom, because I know that you are King, I know that crown of thorns is your glory. I know that that cross is your throne. Remember me now when you die, for I know that you have only a few minutes to live. But you are going to sit on the eternal throne of David. So, remember me."

But this is mostly invention. 

The actual passage:

“38 There was a written notice above him, which read: this is the king of the jews.

39 One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: ‘Aren’t you the Messiah? Save yourself and us!’

40 But the other criminal rebuked him. ‘Don’t you fear God,’ he said, ‘since you are under the same sentence? 41 We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.’

42 Then he said, ‘Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.’”

It is not heroic to call someone by their name. Nor is it a striking act of faith for the thief to acknowledge Jesus as king and messiah. That might just as well be mockery. If not, it looks like Pascal’s wager: you never know, and what did the thief have to lose?

But the striking thing is that the thief acknowledges that his sins deserve crucifixion. That is heroic. Not only that— he rebukes the other thief for asking for rescue, because his punishment is just. He will not ask to be saved from punishment; he wants justice.

This is how God combines perfect justice with perfect mercy; only when we are prepared to accept the full measure of punishment can we be forgiven.

For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.

Sometimes helpfully guided by false prophets.

The Beaver that Roared

News is that the Canadian military has drawn up plans for war with the US. And their conclusion? “Canada would be defeated in two days or less and they hope Canadians would organize into counterinsurgency guerrilla groups.”

That’s about what I calculate. Quick tank run over flat terrain to take Winnipeg. Canada is cut in two. Quick tank run over flat terrain to take Vancouver. Canada is cut off from the Pacific. Now send tanks through the broad flat plains of Alberta and Saskatchewan to secure the oilfields and the North. If Eastern Canada is worth the effort, another quick run up the Richelieu to take Montreal cuts the remainder of Canada in two once again. Hook left to take Ottawa.  Canada does not have the vast distances of Russia to buffer an invasion from the South. Easily all over in two days.

Would Canadians launch guerilla warfare? The thought seems laughable to me.

The Simple Case for Greenland

Everyone is getting excited and upset about Trump demanding Greenland. I cannot get excited. If he invades, it is a violation of international law. That would be a bad thing. But if he buys Greenland, I cannot see the harm. It would be good for Greenlanders.

And I think he has a case. Greenland is strategic. And everyone thinks it is right for the US and US taxpayers to carry the freight of defending it, while not benefitting from the territory. 

It does seem this is not fair.

Of course, the same could be said for Canada ...

No representation without taxation?

On Peace

 

“Blessed are the peacemakers,” runs one of the Beatitudes.

But who are the peacemakers? 

One naturally thinks of the Nobel Peace Prize. It is given for making peace, right?

Officially, it is given “to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”

It is dubious that the reduction of standing armies leads to peace. That was a dream of the 1920s—and arguably, World War II was the result. Disarmament is an invitation to invasion.

The logic is akin to the logic of defunding the police.

“The holding and promotion of peace congresses.” Here too we have a problem. Often enough, indeed almost inevitably, the same guys who started the war sign the peace. Yasser Arafat and Menachim Begin are previous laureates: both arguably terrorists.

Among recent laurates were Barack Obama, "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." Which seem invisible to many not on the Nobel committee. And Al Gore, "for efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change.” Whether or not you worry about climate change, what does this have to do with peace? Why not, in this vein, a Peace Prize for campaigning against tooth decay?

People do not seem to have a clear idea of how one makes peace. Perhaps people do not have a clear idea of what peace means.

St. Augustine defines peace properly. Peace is “the tranquility of order.” Peace comes with all things in their proper place, with clear lines, rules, and boundaries: passing on the right, stopping on red. No left turn. One can imagine if no one knew or kept such rules.

Peacemakers are those who establish clear boundaries, advocate for clear boundaries, and administer and enforce them consistently. Those who respect the rules.

The lawgivers, the peace officers, the justices of the peace. The honest referees.

The inclination of our postmodern world is instead to obscure all boundaries: the roles of husband and wife, of men and women; the distinction between male and female; the significance of borders; the distinction between citizen and non-citizen; the distinction between beauty and ugliness; between truth and opinion; even between right and wrong. 

This is satanic. This is pandemonium.

The Art of the Deal

 “Being good in business is the most fascinating kind of art. Making money is art and working is art and good business is the best art.” – Andy Warhol

Everybody except Andy Warhol seems to have missed this obvious fact: entrepreneurship is a form of art. An entrepreneur is a creator; perhaps the most creative of all artists. He works on the biggest canvas: the world. 

I see it every day. Many small local businesses are expressions of an artistic soul.

No, they are not designed to maximize profits. They are designed to make enough money to permit them to exist, in all their beautiful eccentricity. To express their owner’s vision: of what a cocktail should be, of the timeless traditions of the barber shop, of the beauty of old books and magazines.

It is ignorant to suppose that business is about greed. It is about “busy-ness,” that is, making things, getting things done. It is about the work, the craft, the opus, the essay. It is the joy of inventing a work of art that is self-perpetuating, that can live and run.

When asked why he kept creating new businesses, local magnate K.C. Irving responded plainly: “I like to see gears turning.” 

Money is just what makes the next thing possible, the artist’s brush, the writer’s pen

And it is grossly ungrateful not to see how much great entrepreneurs have contributed to American culture. What would America be today without P.T. Barnum? Without Henry Ford? Without Steve Jobs? Without Walt Disney? Without Elon Musk?

The great accomplishment of American culture is the entrepreneur and his art. 

We are now seeing, I believe for the first time since Washington and Jefferson, an entrepreneur in the Oval Office. And it feels as though America is coming into its own.

The Illogicality of Nationalism

Here’s an interesting anomaly of human nature. People everywhere want to emigrate to the USA. Many will risk their lives to get there, in open boats, or over barbed wire, or trusting themselves to cartels and coyotes; to get that precious green card. And yet, when Donald Trump offers union to Greenland, or to Canada, the locals act insulted and truculent. They even threaten to shoot. This does not make sense.

By joining the USA, Canadians, for example, individual would have many more career opportunities. They could expect a higher standard of living. They would have more choices where to live. Apart from Quebec, they risk losing nothing of their culture—by any normal world standard, it is the same culture. They would sacrifice nothing of their freedoms or right to self-govern. America has the same democratic traditions. Indeed, they would probably have better protection for their rights, a more independent judiciary and a longer and stronger human rights tradition. Canada, after all, only got responsible government in the 1840s, and a formal Bill of Rights only in 1960. The courts’ interpretations of the current Charter of Rights and Freedoms has grown problematic. They—we-- would also have greater security against foreign threats from genuinely oppressive governments.

And yet Mark Carney is hurrying off to China, America’s chief adversary, to cut deals that seem not in Canada’s interest, in hopes of countering American influence. Or perhaps just to spite the USA.

This behaviour seems mad and self-destructive.

I think it shows the strength of the nationalist instinct, and how it works against our interests. People are herd animals, if they follow their instincts. But the gospel truth is that all men are brothers. Even Samaritans. Even Americans.

 Appealing to this idolatry of nationalism has let many a corrupt and oppressive government seize and stay in power. 

You might, of course, accuse Trump in turn of being a nationalist, in wanting to annex Canada or Greenland. But that is a separate argument, and an argument for others to consider.

If the Islamic Republic Falls

Iran right now is hell. To keep our hopes up, let’s try to focus on the good things that might come if the regime does fall. For it might very well fall. Trump is honour bound to do his best to bring it down. The darkest hour is just before dawn.

The fall of the Islamist regime could usher in an era of peace across the Middle East. Iran has been subsidizing insurrectionist groups like the Houthis, Hamas, Hezbollah, and more. Without this support, they may evaporate. I think of the effect on the troubles in Northern Ireland when Libya’s Ghaddafi withdrew support. The Abraham Accords show a desire to bury that hatchet in some important quarters. 

Iran might become an ally of Israel again, as it was under the Shah— the Iranians might well be grateful for Israel’s help in overthrowing the Islamist regime. And they could flip from being a sworn enemy of the US to being a strategic regional ally—in Russia’s underbelly.

Russia will have lost a major ally and supplier of weapons for the current war in Ukraine. That might tip the balance.

The example of regime overthrow might also inspire Russians to overthrow Putin as well. Or the Chinese might try to take out Xi.

Along with Venezuela, and domestic supplies, Iran will give the US strong influence in the world oil market. They might be able to use this to exert pressure on China.

Iran might now develop into a prosperous and innovative nation. Under the Shah, they were on a par with Spain. There is a well-educated population, and history gives us many examples of nations that developed quickly after a period of turmoil; the Netherlands gaining independence from Spain, Spain of the Reconquista, Poland after the Berlin Wall fell. Postwar Germany or Japan. Iran’s expertise with drones shows a bit of what they are capable of.

Rumours are that a large proportion of Iranians are secret Christians. This seems plausible. Iran was not that devout before 1979—there was a move under the Shah to promote Zoroastrianism over Islam. The rule of the mullahs might now have broadly discredited Islam in the popular mind. It would be a glorious thing, from my Christian perspective, to see the revival this might become, once the lid is off, perhaps inspiring revivals elsewhere.

It seems likely that the fall of the Islamic Republic will largely discredit the modern ideology of political Islam and global jihad everywhere. The experiment has been tried; it failed. 

Keep on hoping.