There’s Something About That Hideous Sun Also Rising Over Thor

Leave a reply

Women are what we make them and they are made by the stories we give them and in a time when they are openly reading porn in public, we don’t have quality women. It’s important to evaluate some popular stories and the women they portray.

Thor: The Dark World has got to be the worst of the MCU movies up to Endgame, that isn’t blatantly DEI like Ms. Marvel or that African utopia thing.  And it’s because of Natalie Portman.  She can’t act, she’s a one trick pony like De Niro, only capable of playing an asshole.  Because they are assholes.  Hey did you know she has a degree from Harvard? Of course you did.  So they got the modern bitch for the part, playing herself, and still no one is watching.  There relationship is more ridiculous than Harry Markle. And is mouthing off to a God you supposedly love about your vapid complaints supposed to be endearing?  She contributes nothing and thinks she has a right to demand more.  And she doesn’t even look good standing next to an aging Rene Ruso, more like an irate, ozempic, midget. Just realized they continued this atrocity into another movie, because after Endgame Disney is dead to me. Jane the generic modern degreed entitled, fool, whose story is repeated over and over across this land, but without even the desire for a man. And certainly not kids. So maybe we should be hopeful they at least try to shoehorn this harpy into a romance. But I’m more inclined to be mad that they are leading women to be bad scientists, who think they are entitled to marry a god, while remaining horrible people. Sorry I mean “believe all women”.

Which reminds me of another Jane, one properly put in her place—of exaltation, shaping future immortal souls who are heir to the earth. The story of this Jane is part of a real romance, with an actual character arc, Jane Studdock from C. S. Lewis’ prescient masterpiece That Hideous Strength. She too was a modern degreed woman eschewing children. Her and her husband had some sort of stale agreement slash competition to be in the inner circle. After some crazy dreams, serious pastoring by Ransom, the council of some old woman and the world almost ending, she came around. But there is hope for a romance to be the picture and the key to the world’s ailments. And a child to be the salvation of woman rather than her academic pretending. Thor’s Jane is not in a relationship or happy and certainly doesn’t have kids, without some serious transformation. She witnesses life transforming events and comes out the same bitch on the other side, because our culture thinks women are perfect. God help us. And we know that army of creators at Marvel have it in them. They create lovable characters like Laura Barton who barely appears in the movies for five minutes, but makes every man wish he had a supportive wife like her. We would even take Pepper Potts who spends more screen time supporting Tony, and even her boss babe position is service to him. So why do they keep doubling down on this lie? A lie which was once the lament of a better generation.

And to that generation; in the Sun Also Rises Hemingway creates another tragic female character. But this time not Jane, Ashley Brett, whose name means something like the “Briton in the field next to the ash tree”. And we have a modern tale of chivalry, in the land known for it’s last disillusioned but chivalric knight, Don Quixote. She is a lady, as much of a imaginary figment as Dulcena, but also a bit of a whore. The men are all for it anyway, all willing to pledge their devotion. One is off fighting bulls, another a boxer, a trust funder and a vaunted writer, all willing to fight, to do errands for their lady, but she would not. They all chase her ’til it devours them. Of course Hemingway at least has the sense to realize this is a tragedy. The world wants romance because the world is a romance. And because that is our tradition we have a hard time pointing out that Lady Ashley is a bad person. Which is very similar to the disillusioned response Hemingway plays into about The Great War. Rather than celebrating the heroism of the righteous cause of the war, we just lament that the war has wrecked everything and cast us into this modern malaise. We learned the wrong lesson from the war and we are to learn the wrong lesson from he novel. We aren’t supposed to notice that Brett is evil, and that all the men fought valiantly, we are just supposed to throw up our hands. Chivalry isn’t dead because Western men are not dead, it’s just that women don’t want it.

A flurry of suitors pursuing one women reminded me of There’s Something About Mary. Which is a comedy rather than tragedy, but maybe we should consider that this modern women isn’t all that great either. Her friend-zone list is as long as the list of rich white women drooling over Kamala. She clearly focused on her career over family, and we are supposed to believe she is perfect and everyone around her is a stalker? Despite the fact they rush to her aid whenever they can and act more like servants.  Her one redeeming trait seems to be that she has a retarded brother.  Of course the comedy comes when she marries the humorous Jew rather than turning him away, as Brett turns away Cohn or Spain turned away the Jews. Because apparently the Jews making movies are underdogs and we should sympathize with them?  But maybe we should take what we can get. We make comedies and largely eschew the listless futility of Hemingway. The deep brooding bohemian ideal artist doesn’t really sell, though we have nostalgia for it. That’s a good thing.  What are these guys going to do when they catch Mary? Have a family? More like fetch her whatever she wants. This seems like a worse tragedy. And one more real to most of the people I know.

What we need is the music of the spheres crashing into our planet and making women motherly again as in C. S. Lewis’ work. We need Merlin and some of this deeper magic, we need romance. And for the romance to work we need ladies, not these man-wannabe-whores pretending they can do science in-between bouts of PMS and a liberalism-worse-than-PMS masquerading as reason. We need to get the entwives back by telling our daughters the proper stories. Stories about supporting their men and passing down the great traditions of the West to a myriad of children.  Stories that make good wives and mothers.

 

 

Tate v. Evangellyfish

Leave a reply

Andrew Tate is back at the top of the Conservative hate list after Benny Johnson dared to platform him with Trump Lawyer Alina Habba. No, not the Jewish folk song. Then the reason for hating him came a couple days later when Tate mocked a man for not being able to take care of his sick kid. You know it’s the David French, Mike Pence argument against Trump. It’s like when your wife thinks she is mad at you for the thing that happened after she got mad. Summary of the kerfuffle here.

Anyway, aside from the hypocrisy of supporting Trump and not Tate for the same reasons the Left hates Trump, this reveals some real problems in the American Church. Namely feminism. I have defined the problem of feminism here but I want to update with some examples.

First of all this method of attacking Tate is ridiculous. Men mocking other men is what makes the world work. You mock the new guy on the job for doing dumb stuff and he and all the other guys learn not to do dumb stuff. Everyone is made better. Mockery works because it is based in truth. The truth is that men should be fighting to be the best. The lack of this is why nothing works anymore. Tate is not fake as many Christian simpletons have whined. He holds MMA titles and is ranked in chess. And his followers are not fake. He won chess matches and debates he probably should not have because of his aggression. This is the way the world works. This is what women want which is why Habba has her boobs out and looks as giddy as a school girl. Tate is proving the church wrong in it’s effeminate view of the world. Women don’t want the weak nice guy with a steady job, they want the aggressive winner. Young men are figuring this out as they are constantly lectured by the church ladies to be nice, and they are choosing Tate.

You see the weakness with this approach in the COVID overreaction. All the Christian leaders have been feminized. They never had a rigorous debate, so they caved in to the ridiculous requests to close their churches. Megan Basham wrote a whole book on this, even while she misunderstands the root crisis and bashes Tate. Academic men used to have all but violent debates. This is how the best ideas surface. But then women wanted to come in and be one of the boys. But they can’t, so they cut out the rigorous debate part. And now we have institutions run by the women of both sexes as C. S. Lewis said. He also warned about the sins of women in That Hideous Strength and The Great Divorce, despite people oddly claiming he was a feminist.

“Most men, if free, retire frequently into the society of their own sex: women, if free, do this less often. In modern social life the sexes are more continuously mixed than they were in earlier periods. This probably has many good results: but it has one bad result. Among young people, obviously, it reduces the amount of serious argument about ideas.” C. S. Lewis, Modern Man and his Categories of Thought

Second there are the attacks on Tate for making his money as a pimp. This is somewhat true, but just as disingenuous. He helped women make money by posting naked pictures of themselves. He made many of them rich. What goes on today, on Onlyfans is much worse and I don’t see any legitimate movements to stop this. Can you name the owner of Onlyfans? And the women are signing up in droves to do it, currently 4.1 million. The reality is, that he was exploiting young men for profit. And today he does the opposite. Encouraging young men to man up and take responsibility for themselves and earn as much as they can. This is more repentance than I have ever seen from a modern woman. The guy who was good at manipulating men and women is of course the best to tell men how to be men and women how to be women practically. Just like the Catch Me If You Can check forger is the best at finding–check forgers.

But now Tate supposedly became a Muslim, so throw that on the after-the-fact-hate list. But he became a Muslim because he has only seen a feminized church. This is because Christianity is in a similar position as it was before the Crusades. They were almost pacifist, as they sat and watched Mohammed wipe out half of the civilized world. They realized that they had to man up and fight off this evil heretical horde. And so they did and saved Christendom.

Anyone who looks at the history of Christendom sees this armed debate with Islam as the fundamental and determining thing. We beat off the Pagan of the North and of the East Mongol, Scandinavian and the rest—in the Dark Ages. We assured ourselves on that side, and we had raised the siege against those barbaric besiegers before the year 1000. We had beaten them to their knees in battle; tamed them and baptized them; brought them to heel and to school. But Islam was another matter. It was not pagan; it was a perversion of our own creed. It was not barbaric; it had more learning and better arts than we. It enjoyed our scholarship through its Greek subjects, and lived by a Strange, warped adaptation of out own culture. Its fierce appeal to human equality and to justice, the simplicity of its doctrine, had captured great masses of our own people who continued to work for it and to support it.

The recovery of provinces lost to so powerful an enemy occupied the energies of Christian men for thirty generations; nor is their task yet accomplished. -Hilaire Belloc, Islam and Christendom

The sad reality is that we treat our women worse than the Mohammedans do. When was the last time a Mohammedan country let their women be raped by foreigners on a mass scale like what is currently happening in Sweden, Norway, England and God knows where else? Which religion encourages their women to put off marriage and go out and sleep with more guys that my grandmother had even met? Which religion encourages the women to leave their husbands and children and go chase some Hollywood fantasy instead of being a good mother? Which country makes their men so effeminate (an abomination in Scripture) that the women don’t want them? Which religion has women who are the least happy of all time, over half of whom are on anti-depressants? We need some repentance here people.

Finally this idea of men competing to be strong, rich, powerful instead of competing to be weak and ineffectual victims, brings me back to the idea of sports. From Classical times to the prewar Universities like Oxford and Cambridge, the idea of the well rounded man drove civilization forward. Mental acuity must be developed but with it, physical strength. Men must be able to think but also to fight with their physical bodies. The civilized replacement for war was sport. And the reality is that these Oxford sportsmen, were the best equipped for war the world has ever seen, which is why they prevailed in both world wars. The sports made them better men. But then the feminists wanted to destroy this too. They shut down all the clubs and boys only schools where men sharpened their minds and then they demanded women’s sports. I have pointed out the silliness of this before.

But no one seems to listen. We keep fighting to get men out of women’s sports, instead of seeing that this Title IX nonsense is the start of our problems.  Women now describe themselves in mostly masculine terms. Where is the proof that making competitive women makes them better mothers and wives? The simple urging of the gospel that we just ignore(Titus 2:4). The reality is that women can’t fight and they can’t do sports which is why our culture is rejecting the physical world and becoming gnostics as NT Wright is always pointing out. “I’m spiritual but not religious.” These are the people who caved to COVID and are now caving to their wives on Andrew Tate, even as their wives wish their husbands were more like him. This is why the church is a joke and why young men are turning to Tate.

It’s a lot like the catholic church before the Reformation. If you don’t want the reformers to happen then clean up your mess. If you don’t like Andrew Tate then get rid of all the feminism yourself.

Further Reading:

The Church Impotent, Leon Podles

C. S. Lewis Letter to Mary Neylan, April 18th, 1940

Evangellyfish

 

C. S. Lewis to Mary Neylan, April 18th, 1940, On Marriage

1 Reply

[Magdalen College]
April 18th 1940

Dear Mrs Neylan
(1) On the marriage service. The three ‘reasons’ for marrying. in modern English are (a) To have children. (b) Because you are very unlikely to succeed in leading a life of total sexual abstinence, and marriage is the only innocent outlet, (c) To be in a partnership.1 What is there to object to in the order in which they are put? The modern tradition is that the proper reason for marrying is is the state described as ‘being. in love’. Now I have nothing to say against being in love: but the Idea that this is or ought to be the exclusive reason or that it can ever be by itself an adequate basis seems to me simply moonshine.

In the first place, many ages, many cultures, and many individuals don’t experience it – and Christianity is for all men, not simply for modern Western Europeans. Secondly, it often unites most unsuitable people. Thirdly, is it not usually transitory? Doesn’t the modern emphasis on ‘love’ lead people either into divorce or into misery, because when that emotion dies down they conclude that their marriage is a ‘failure’, tho’ in fact they have just reached the point at who real marriage begins. Fourthly, it wd. be undesirable, even if it were possible, for people to be ‘in love’ all their lives. What a world it wd. be if most of the people we met were perpetually in this trance!

The Prayer Book therefore begins with something universal and solid – the biological aspect. No one is going to deny that the biological end of the sexual functions is offspring. And this is, on any sane view, of more importance than the feelings of the parents. Your descendants may be alive a million years hence and may number tens of thousands. In this regard marriages are the fountains of History. Surely to put the mere emotional aspects first would be sheer sentimentalism. Then the second reason. Forgive me: but it is simply no good trying to explain this to a woman. The emotional temptations may be worse for women than for men: but the pressure of mere appetite on the male, they simply don’t understand. In this second reason, the Prayer Book is saying ‘If you can’t be chaste (and most of you can’t) the alternative is marriage.’ This may be brutal sense, but, to a man, it is sense, and that’s that. The third reason gives the thing that matters far more than ‘being in love’ and will last and increase, between good people, long after ‘love’ in the popular sense is only as a memory of childhood – the partnership, the loyalty to ‘ the firm ‘, the composite creature. (Remember it is not a cynic but a devoted husband and inconsolable widower, Dr Johnson, who said that a man who has been happy with one woman cd. have been equally happy with anyone of ‘tens of thousands’ of other women.2 i.e. the original attraction will turn out in the end to have been almost accidental: it is what is built up on that, or any other, basis who may have brought the people together that matters.)

Now the second reason involves the whole Christian view of sex. It is all contained in Christ’s saying that two shall be ‘one flesh’.3 He says nothing about two ‘who married for love’: the mere fact of marriage at all – however it came about – sets up the ‘one flesh’. There is a terrible comment on this in I Cor VI 16 ‘he that is joined to a harlot is one flesh’.4 You see? Apparently, if Christianity is true, the mere fact of sexual intercourse sets up between human beings a relation who has, so to speak, transcendental repercussions – some eternal relation is established whether they like it or not.

This sounds very odd. But is it? After all, if there is an eternal world and if our world is its manifestation, then you would expect bits of it to ‘stick through’ into ours. We are like children pulling the levers of a vast machine of which most is concealed. We see a few little wheels that buzz round on this side when we start it up – but what glorious or frightful processes we are initiating in there, we don’t know. That’s why it is so important to do what we’re told (cf. – what does the Holy Communion imply about the real significance of eating?)

From this all the rest flows. (I) The seriousness of sexual sin and the importance of marriage as ‘a remedy against sin ‘ (I don’t mean, of course, that sins of that sort will not, like others, be forgiven if they are repented, nor that the ‘eternal relations’ who they have set up will not be redeemed . We believe that God will use all repented evil as fuel for fresh good in the end.) (2) The permanence of marriage wh. means that the intention of fidelity matters more than ‘being in love’, (3) The Headship of the Man.

I’m sorry about this – and I feel that my defense of it wd. be more convincing if I were a woman. You see, of course, that if marriage is a permanent relation, intended to produce a kind of new organism (‘the one flesh ‘) there must be a Head. It ‘s only so long as you make It a temporary arrangement dependent on ‘being in love’ and changeable by frequent divorce, that it can be strictly democratic – for, on that view, when they really differ, they part. But if they are not to part, if the thing is like a nation not a club, like an organism not a heap of stones, then, in the long run , one party or other must have the casting vote.

That being so, do you really want the Head to be the woman? In a particular instance, no doubt you may. But do you really want a matriarchal world? Do you really like women in authority? When you seek authority yourself, do you naturally seek it in a woman?

Your phrase about the ‘slave-wife’ is mere rhetoric, because it assumes servile subordination to be the only kind of subordination. Aristotle cd. have taught you better. ‘The householder governs his slaves despotically. He governs his wife and children as being both free – but he governs the children as a constitutional monarch, and the wife politically5 (i.e. as a democratic magistrate governs a democratic citizen). My own feeling is that the Headship of the husband is necessary to protect the outer world against the family. The female has a strong instinct to fight for its cubs. What do nine women out of ten care about justice to the outer world when the health, or career, or happiness of their own children is at stake? That is why I want a ‘foreign policy’ of the family, so to speak , to be determined by the man: I expect more mercy from him!

Yet this fierce maternal instinct must be preserved , otherwise the enormous sacrifices involved in motherhood wd. never be borne. The Christian scheme, therefore, does not suppress it but protects us defenseless bachelors from its worst ravages! This, however, is only my own idea.

The Headship doctrine is that of Christianity. I take it to be chiefly about man as man and woman as woman, and therefore about husbands and wives, since it is only in marriage that they meet as epitomes of their sex. Notice that in 1 Cor XI just after the bit about the man being the Head, St Paul goes on to add the baffling reservation (v. 11) that the sexes ‘ in the Lord’ don’t have any separate existence. I have no idea what this means: but I take it it must imply that the existence of a man or woman is not exhausted by the fact of being male or female, but that they exist in many other modes. I mean, you may be a citizen, a musician, a teacher etc as well as a woman, and you needn’t transfer to all these personalities everything that is said about you as wife qua wife.

I think that is the answer to your view that the Headship doctrine wd. prevent women going in for education. St Paul is not a system maker, you know. As a Jew, he must, for instance, have believed that a man ought to honour and obey his Mother: but he doesn’t stop and put that in when talking about the man being Head in marriage.

As for Martha & Mary, either Christ and St Paul are inconsistent here, or they are not. I f they’ re not, then, whether you can see how or not, St Paul ‘s doctrine can’t have the sense you give it. If they are inconsistent, then the authority of Christ of course completely overrides that of St Paul. In either event, you needn’t bother.

I very strongly agree that it’s no use trying to create a ‘feeling’. But’ what fee ling do you want to have? Isn ‘t your problem one of thought, not feeling? The question is ‘ Is Christianity true – or even, is there some truth mixed up in it?’ The thing in reading Macdonald is not to try to have the feelings he has, but to notice whether the whole thing does or does not agree with such perceptions (I mean, about good & evil etc) as you’ll already have – and, where it doesn’t, whether it or you are right.

Term begins on Saturday next. If you and the gudeman cd. come and lunch with me on the following Saturday (27th) it wd. suit admirably. Let me know (address to College).

Thank you for taking my mind off the war for an hour or so!

Yours sincerely

C. S. Lewis

P.S. I do n’t think the Marriage Service is ascetic, and I think your real objection to it may be that it’s not prudish enough! The service is not a place for celebrating the flesh, but for making a solemn agreement in the presence of God and of society – an agreement which involves a good many other things besides the flesh.

Distinguish the Church from the bedroom and don’t be silly! Wd. you really think it suitable for erotic excitement to be expressed by the young couple while visiting the family solicitor, while asking their parents’ blessing, while bidding good-bye to the old home? If not, then why when asking God’s blessing? Do you think a grace before meals should be so written as actually to make the mouth water? If we began holidays with a religious service, wd. you take your bathing suit to Church, and practice a few golf strokes in the choir?

‘Sober and godly matrons’6 may be a stickler, if you haven’t read the English School: but you ought to know that all the associations you are putting into it are modern and accidental. It means ‘Married women (matrons) who are religious (godly) and have something better and happier to think about than jazz and lipstick (sober).’ But you must know that as well as I do

 

  1. Lewis is citing the service fo the ‘Solemnization of Matrimony’ in the Book of Common Prayer: ‘First, it was ordained for the procreation of children…Secondly, It was ordained for the remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication…Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other.’ [↩]
  2. Boswell, The Life of Samuel Johnson, vol. II , 22 March 1776, p. 46 1: ‘ Boswell. ” Pray, Sir, do you not suppose that there are fifty women in the world, with any one of whom a man may be as happy, as with anyone woman in particular.” Johnson. “Ay, Sir, fifty thousand.'” [↩]
  3. Matthew 19:5 [↩]
  4. I Corinthians 6:16 [↩]
  5. Aristotle, Politics, 1252a. [↩]
  6. In one of the prayers of the Marriage Service the minister prays ‘ that this woman may be loving and amiable, faithful and obedient to her husband; and in all quietness, sobriety, and peace, be a follower of holy and godly matrons.’ [↩]

Bozeman is the Best Crazy Hole in the Country!

Leave a reply

I firmly believe that the group of people in universities are the dumbest most worthless group of people ever assembled.  Not only have they never done anything real but they have never met anyone who has done anything real, including their professors.  They live in a blizzard of lies, never having to be tested by any sort of reality.  As Thomas Sowell points out in his wonderful book Intellectuals and Society, they maintain false views on almost everything collectively.  While there are still a few holdouts in schools of engineering, those are going away quickly.  Racial quotas and the corruptions from the other fields of thinking, such as the idea that math is racist, have rendered even these students worthless.

Even the poorest white trash, redneck, cracker, hillbilly in the mountains of wherever deals with far more reality than these kids, because they have to.  If your jury-rigged vehicle doesn’t work you don’t get to town to convert your welfare check into Coke. If your cobbled-together dwelling doesn’t accord with reality you may freeze to death.  But in a University, you live in a bubble protected from any sort of reality.  You are free to entertain ideas that are completely insane, such as communism, darwinism, social justice theory, modern psychology, trans theory, and on and on. Have you heard of the USSR? Venezuela?  Where is the missing link?  Thank Darwin for Hitler and Planned Parenthood.  Look into the failed President of Harvard, not to mention social justice hires like Kamala.  Where are the benefits of modern psychology, no people group ever has had such bad mental health.  And how many mass murderers do we need to create on anti-depressants?  And worst of all, look up videos of people who cut of their genitals, real successful.  

A good working definition of a mental disorder is, someone who is out of alignment with reality.  Universities are increasingly radically liberal and all studies show that liberals are far more likely to have mental disorders, by their own admission.  The amount of drugs they consume prescription and illicit, confirms this.  In addition most studies about happiness indicate these people are the least happy group of people of any group ever, including people in concentration camps.

And this is all to be expected. Their worldview is a little bit like an Alabama town after a hurricane.  A little of this mixed with a little of that in a completely incoherent blend of irreconcilable nonsense. Despite the notion that this makes them uniquely individual, most of them seem to share the exact same mix of nonsense.  They not only share the same views on everything, but they will recite the same talking points.  All while demanding you respect their individuality.  So they even lack the most basic human fact of human agency. You can’t design a system based on attacking Creator God and then expect to have a coherent view of the world.  And a successful civilization requires men who are well versed in all areas of life not just hyper specialists with blinders.  I’m not sure how this could be more clear after the COVID disaster.  

And the hyper practical view of the world isn’t helping either.  “Will you be able to get a job in literature” says the fool.  We all need a working understanding of literature if we are not to be tossed too and fro by every stupid idea.  We all need a correct  view of history if we are to know where we came from and where we are going.  We need at least an indirect view of philosophy if we are to have accurate categories in which to put our thoughts.  And of course we need a proper understanding of Theology.  Why are we here?  What is the point?  Why do bad things happen.  The humanities matter.  Universities matter, we need to value and cultivate intelligent people.  But now we are doing the opposite.  The intelligent people left, and all we have now are the worst of fools, giving each other accolades, spending our money and driving Western Civilization into wall. 

Racism is New

Leave a reply

Of course words are always changing and the ideas behind them shift.  As C. S Lewis pointed out words generally lose their unique descriptive power and degenerate into synonyms of ‘good’ or ‘bad’.  And Owen Barfield points out that the refreshment of language takes place through poetic connections.  But today we have militant abuse of language to gain power.

What now? Favored races?!

There is no ‘reverse racism’. Now for the first time we have racism, before we had stereotyping an Darwin.

Before, most black people were a certain way and so the whole race was viewed that way. In his attempt to put a gloss on atheism Darwin suggested that things turn into other things, and that the previous things were inferior. Hitler and Planned Parenthood thought they would help this process along.

Phase two was the overreaction to Hitler, which was multiculturalism, but we kept the Planned Parenthood part. And people who opposed this were also called racist, but they too were just generalizing.

But this new thing, of hating people for being white, is racism. It is not generalization gone wrong. It is something else. It is another form of Christian heresy. The problem in the world is not sin, it’s whitey. And the solution is not Jesus dying, it’s whitey dying.

What we really need is the Gospel. We are all one race. And we can all find success under King Jesus. Black people didn’t need to evolve as Darwin thought, they just need the Gospel. And they don’t need to be killed in abortions, they need the Gospel. And if you hate white people you need the Gospel. And the white people forgetting all this need the Gospel.

Why Trans

Leave a reply

In a very real sense the trans movement makes sense. Men are if nothing, logical. Young men have it much harder than young women. Men are valued for what they can produce and women are valued for their beauty, generally. Also how well they get along with people who can give them things. Women have value early in life and men later. Women lose beauty and become more bruised, and opinionated, men gain skills and status. Most men don’t make any real money until they are 40 and it’s a hard climb to get to that point. Which is why the high suicide rate. Especially today all of culture is geared towards women. Our educational system actually tortures boys, for wanting to get a start on being good productive men. Movers and shakers they used to say. Now they have a disease called ADD ADHD ADBS. Women are nice and compliant so they get the grades.

In addition we are rewriting our origin stories to paint a completely false picture of our past where being male is made out to be the biggest crime against humanity. Women are handed accolades and fame just for being women. And now you have millions of young women becoming fabulously wealthy for taking off their clothes online. For having boobs.  The world opens up and rewards immodesty.

Then you have sports. Strangely, far too many young people don’t realize that men are far superior to women athletically. But don’t worry we just won’t talk about it and their ignorance will remain untouched, we’ll call it Title Nine. Except I like popping bubbles. Female college athletes start out less good than half of their classmates, yet they get the awards and medals piled upon them. Why? Did they achieve more than the males? No they were just women. The world opens up and rewards competitive women.

So, a young man looks over the fence and says:  “well if I just pretend to be a woman the world opens up”. And in addition the silly women running things will heap further accolades on me for being a new special category ‘trans’.  Again bad behavior is rewarded.

The reality that proves this to be foolish is a thing far in the past, it requires wisdom and knowledge of history and moral foundation. All of which are pretty scant in young men, by definition. But in the moment it makes sense. Sure cut off your penis it will get you accolades, don’t think about the fact that you might need it later.

The solution is not banning men from women’s sports. It’s a whole generation earlier than than. The solution to the problem is to build a culture where these future realities are instilled from day one. We need to prepare children for the right path and only the right path until it becomes second nature. This individualism and bohemian ideal of letting things happen like the liturgy of the charismatic church is just insane. It is leading to cultural suicide. The solution is pushing back feminism for the older ways. Pushing back the immodest, boss babe.  This experiment has failed.

And it’s no better for the women. All studies show women are less happy than they ever were. Once the easy life and handouts fade in old age, you are dying alone with your cats. Your online fans aren’t taking care of you and your infirmaties. Your company isn’t keeping you warm at night. The robot subscription you pay for every month with your 401k dividends isn’t going to weep at your funeral. Women need to be encouraged to become good wives who become good mothers. This means, modesty, giving yourself to one man and not the internet or your company or your professor or the football team. It also means gaining the real adoration of a real man, not being competitive, but respectful. And in turn he becomes real by having an actual wife to fight for. He achieves the greatness that lifts you both and lifts the whole world. He keeps you warm and gives you children who will care for you long after he is gone. Children who will also carry on your vision and even your DNA to the next generation. Your story does not die with you.

P.S. What about the young women pretending to become men? Well you can’t listen to men or anyone with any sense, because, patriarchy. And you are a heard creature so you follow the heard. And the heard tells you myths of how only men every achieve anything. And you want to follow the heard but also be distinguished from the heard, because you are a confused woman following and trying to get attention in a mass of females. But really the men set the trend, as they do the above. And women wanted that too. And then all of them wanted it. And then they are clawing over each other to have it the mostest. And when you get to the marble in the oatmeal it’s just a cat turd.  And you are alone with breasts or scars, it amounts to the same death cult. And then it’s too late.

 

 

 

 

Wall of Separation

Leave a reply

New Speaker Mike Johnson seems to have offended everyone by suggesting he get’s his worldview from the Bible, the horror. Which is a good sign.  Steven Colbert, supposedly some sort of Christian, mocked him as though applying your faith to your job as a political leader violated the ‘wall of separation’, between church and state.  The strange fact is that our culture holds the tradition of this idea though it’s wrong and based in no fact.  In a sense the tradition is more powerful than the written law.

The phrase isn’t actually in the Constitution, it comes from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote in response to a letter from the Danbury Baptists.  They were concerned that their state didn’t have a codified protection for religious freedom.  As was the case with 11 of the original 13 colonies, they had in effect state churches.  Interesting that Connecticut didn’t really even have a constitution as this point 1802.  What they had was a colonial charter dating back to 1638, which contains a lot of phrases which would make most Christians blush and Colbert would soil himself.  

FORASMUCH as it hath pleased the Almighty God by the wise disposition of his divine providence so to Order and dispose of things that we the Inhabitants and Residents of Windsor, Harteford and Wethersfield are now cohabiting and dwelling in and upon the River of Connecticut and the Lands thereunto adjoining; And well knowing where a people are gathered together the word of God requires that to maintain the peace and union of such a people there should be an orderly and decent Government established according to God, to order and dispose of the affrays of the people at all seasons as occasion shall require; do therefore associate and connive ourselves to be as one Public State or Commonwealth; and do, for ourselves and our Successors and such as shall be adjoined to us at any time hereafter, enter into Combination and Confederation to gather, to maintain and pressure the liberty and purity of the gospel of our Lord Jesus which we now profess, as also the discipline of the Churches, which according to the truth of the said gospel is now practised amongst vs; As also in our Civil Affairs to be guided and governed according to such Laws, Rules, Orders and decrees as shall be made, ordered & decreed, as followeth:

In addition the governor had to be a member of a church and had to swear an oath in the name of Jesus Christ.  Connecticut also passed a number of laws which always sited Old Testament verses.  Including the death penalty for sodomy.  This was their basis of law until 1818, when the adopted a constitution of the type we are more familiar with.  That’s 180 years of theocracy.

But back to Jefferson’s response to the baptists.  Jefferson points out that the U.S. Constitution forbids government from establishing a religion or interfering with someone’s practice of religion, and this is the wall.  It does not prevent Christians from applying their faith to their duty as elected representatives.  As if this phrase from the Bill of Rights was meant to keep religiously things out of the government.  If this were the case it would be a violation of the Constitution.

Let’s look at another phrase from Jefferson’s letter: “that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions”.  

So if you think government is supposed to prevent people who believe certain things from being in government for their opinions you are going against Jefferson’s whole point.  But this is exactly what Colbert is demanding and what your governments down to the local level enforce every day.  We can’t have religion in government.  Well at least not orthodox Christianity.  Their secular religion is fine, Mohammedan religion is fine, other paganisms are fine.  Which is the point, by placing tests on opinion they are setting up a religion.  A secular religion, which most Christians are stupid enough to think is not a religion and is somehow divinely and Constitutionally established.

Let’s look at how Jefferson views religion and  how he bookends the letter:  “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship . . . convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.”

Religious duty is a natural right and has no conflict with social duty.  Social duty, the civil government’s task, as the Apostle Paul points out is to punish evil, not to adjudicate religious doctrine.  The doctrine goes back to Scripture and comes through the tradition of Calvin.  The Baptists echoed this tradition in their letter “that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbors”

Which is to say a lot of things Jefferson doesn’t have to say that were taken for granted.  We an English speaking people who basically live in 18th century Christendom and are tired of all the wars of religion in Europe for the last 200 years, establish a government that has minimal power because apparently we need government so the British don’t wipe us out, go and practice whatever denomination of Christianity you want, work hard and don’t do evil.

But we love evil now and mock anyone who dares tell us other wise as unloving.  Or just one of those crazy Christians who actually belives the Bible.  At least Jefferson believed in the moral teachings of Jesus.  These people are apostate in every way and we will see them in hell.  A phrase which applied incorrectly woudl have got me flogged or fined in a more Christian Connecticut. 

https://billofrightsinstitute.org/primary-sources/danburybaptists

https://www.bartleby.com/lit-hub/american-historical-documents/the-fundamental-orders-of-connecticut/

The Long, Ambiguous History of Connecticut’s Blue Laws

Age of Mission Impossible

Leave a reply

The term AI seems to be all over the place, the richest men talk about it, the ‘smartest’ men talk about it like  everything now using half truths to disguise the reality.  And it pervades entertainment including the latest Mission Impossible movie.  Even though I already saw this movie a decade ago when it was called Age of Ultron.  But the only real wisdom I have seen on the subject comes from Gilbert magazine.  An organization which celebrates the great G. K. Chesterton.  

Mission Impossible Dead Reckoning, The Entity. Dead stupid.

Dr. Peter J. Floriani an aging computer scientist and Chesterton super-fan, points out some of the many problems with the currently developing idea of AI.  Basically machines, even complex computing machines don’t have a mind.  And in an attempt to improvise mind by using ‘random’ numbers they do little more than a Ouija-board or a deck of tarot cards.  But that gets one thinking, if they want a machine to have a mind, where do you look?  You can use the combined information humanity has created, i.e. the internet.  But that’s not a mind, it doesn’t create it’s just elaborate stealing like what the Chinese Communist Party has been doing the last couple decades.  It does not adapt, or respond, an certainly is no source of creative energy or the surprise which is innovation as George Gilder points out.  Knowing what has been is no real predictor of the future.  I suppose you could seed the machine with some sort of animal.  But we all know this is no mind, but an elaborate organic mechanical system of it’s own.  Which leads to the central evil of C. S. Lewis’ planetary books.  

C. S. Lewis and J. R.R. Tolkien made a deal one time that Tolkien would write a time novel and lewis would write a planetary novel.  The result was his three books about Ransom, the Philologist.  And the culminate with that other source of mind, the fabled, ghost in the machine, the demonic. We Christians are not materialists, because we are right and the world is not just material.  Lewis rightly predicts that the worship of the machine will inevitably lead to inviting the demonic to inhabit the machine.  And we are back to all the old paganisms.  Which is why his grasp of the underlying philosophical things really happening in the world, served him so well in his day as well as being prophetic for our day.  He had a real mind, using the wisdom of the past, the examples of history and the truth of God’s word to create something, new different, real, true and beautiful.

Machines are just tools used for an end. And we know there are two sides in this battle Matthew 12:30.  If you are not using these tools for good you are using them for evil.  And generally not admitting the source of agency is a sure sign you are concealing evil agency.  The truth of God is not afraid of being in the light, it does not have to pretend it’s source is spontaneous or mysterious or magical.  Because that’s what good is, it’s appreciating, rightly, what God has done for us.  He is the source of all good gifts.  He bestows on us all sorts of blessing including the blessings of mind and the ability to create or sub-create as Tolkien says.  As Lewis and Tolkien did with their tools, the pen.  Men who shunned even the typewriter and would have been appalled by the machines we have today, as I type on my laptop, could see what was really going on in our day better than we can.  That is intelligence that no artifice can produce.  Artifice, the work of men’s hands, the idol.

Intellect Drives Economies

Leave a reply

George Gilder is so right that we need to stop thinking of economics in purely materialistic terms.  An economic system is not resources, it is human ingenuity, creativity applied to resources.  This is the lie of the ‘indigenous peoples’ that we stole their resources.  Or even the Mexicans we ‘stole’ California from,  and so they missed out on Mexican Hollywood as if they would have made the same use of that piece of desert real-estate as the Christians who founded it.   We know what happens to the person not making use or adding information to their resources.  What they have is taken and given to the one who has more.  Mark 4, Matthew 15 and some other places.  

It’s the twisted thinking behind that family who thinks they have a right to all the pharmaceutical intellectual property generated by developed cell lines from some lady who died of cancer years ago.  As if any of them would have achieved the same scientific heights if they had been in possession of the tumor.  The value wasn’t in the tumor, it was in the intelligence they applied to it.  It’s also the basis for many flawed story lines in time travel movies.  Just because you use Google , doesn’t mean you can go back in time and recreate the successful company and become rich.  Just because you work in the mail room of a company doesn’t mean you can run the company and it’s not fair that the CEO makes more money than you.  Your human carcass and the CEO’s may be equal before the law and equally deserving of the same human dignity.  But that does not mean you are capable of achieving the same things.

It’s why intellectual property is protected in the Constitution, because they rightly saw that encouraging innovation is the key to succes and the breath of Christendom.  “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”

 

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/henriettalacks/

Sodomy Laws

Leave a reply

There seems to be a lot of confusion around the law in Uganda and the application of laws in general.  I recently heard Eric Metaxas mention that Uganda had a death penalty for sodomy which was wrong.  This is really amazing.   Their death pentalty is for agrivated sodomy, basically rape or transmission of STDs.  The death penalty for rape is controversial?  What is wrong with you? Should we give them the death penalty for having a death penalty?  

Whereas Metaxas doesn’t go as far as David French in the worship of pluralism, he is still confused.  Why is it ok and right that we don’t punish things which are clearly evil and have been considered criminal by most people groups for most of time?  It’s pluralism to allow pride parades, but it’s not pluralism to let a small African country pass whatever laws they want?  As Kamala Harris says it’s a bigger country (Russia/USA) attacking a smaller country (Ukraine/Uganda), so basically that’s wrong.  In this case it is wrong, but not because of the size.  

Criminializing sodomy is not a human rights abuse.  Sodomy is a human abuse every time it happens.  It is destructive physically and in every other way.  And a culture which supports this is not healthy.  No healthy sane countries legalize sodomy.  Where is the proof that countries that legalize it become more prosperous?  It is the most blatant form of unfruitfulness.  Looking for butt babies, seriously?  Is this that hard to understand?

Metaxas rightly points out that the basis for rejecting racism can only be found in the Christian God.  By whose authority do secularist reject racism? What is their standard? Of course they don’t have one, other than the peer pressure of other evil people around them.  But is this point by Metaxas just a cheap ploy to play to the sentiments of our people who are currently obsessed with race?  Because this same standard applies to all the other laws too, including sodomy laws.  Imposing things on people is what laws do.  If you are not using God’s laws as a basis for your laws, whose standard are you using?  There is only one other option, that is evil.  Just because groups of people agree on it doesn’t make that standard more valid.  This is God’s world, Christ is reigning on hight at the right hand fo the father.  He and his people have passed sodomy laws for as far back as they could, about 1680 years.

Sodomy is illegal in 32 African countries, you know the one place where the gospel is currently growing.  It was illegal in our country until 2003. Did we have an improvement in morality since then?  Is human flourishing taking off because of this new found ‘freedom’?