A time for a confessing church: a time to oppose the new Fascists.

The following statement is now accepted. The days when the ministers of the crown were concerned with the opinion of the Bishops of the established church or the moderators of the reformed church is over, instead all things are now seen as political. We may be post-Christian, but what does this mean?

We have stopped being in any sense a truly Christian culture, except insofar as inertia prevents us still from such blasphemies as cannibalism and human sacrifice in the town square. We are now already a post-Christian culture, and daily more and more therefore an anti-Christian culture. Thus there is no longer any possibility of real détente between Christians and secular liberals. Rather, we must prepare for a time of persecution. Our preachers may expect to be met, not with respect, but with hatred.

The first essay worth looking at is Catholic, explicitly so, but it has a peculiarly Anabaptist feel to it. The state has left us, so the engagement with society to reform it — which has been pretty much the American religious project of the last century — has to end. It is not a time when we can engage. There is no more Christendom: there is but Babylon, and from that we must flee. For the state has rejected the cornerstone of faith, and build untruth.

I would argue that such an anti-Christian state requires not the church acceding to its wishes, which happened too much in the last century, but the church confessing its faith.

The civic project has taken as gospel ­Murray’s conviction that the founders “built better than they knew.” But this presupposes the very thing in question: that the state and its institutions are merely juridical and that they neither enforce nor are informed by the ontological and anthropological judgments inherent in their creation. That exactly the opposite has more or less come to pass suggests rather that the founders built worse than they intended, that the founding was in some sense ill-fated. This does not make liberty any less of an ideal or its obvious blessings any less real. It simply suggests a tragic flaw in the American understanding and articulation of it. Nor need this diminish our affection for our country, though it is an endlessly fascinating question, what American patriotism really means today. One can love his country despite its philosophy, provided there is more to the country than its philosophy. Yet it is surely a sign of the impoverishment of common culture and the common good—and an index of the degree to which liberal order has succeeded in establishing itself as both—that we are virtually required to equate love of country with devotion to the animating philosophy of the regime rather than to, say, the tales of our youth, the lay of the land and the bend in the road, and “peace and quiet and good tilled earth.”

This creates a great temptation for protagonists on all sides of the civic project—right, left, and in between—to conflate their Christian obligation to pursue the common good with the task of upholding liberal order, effectively eliminating any daylight between the civic and Christian projects. For example, virtually absent from our lament over the threats to religious freedom in the juridical sense is any mention of that deeper freedom opened up by the transcendent horizon of Christ’s resurrection, though this was a frequent theme of Pope Benedict’s papacy. If we cannot see beyond the juridical meaning of religious freedom to the freedom that the truth itself gives, how then can we expect to exercise this more fundamental freedom when our juridical freedom is denied?

Now, if this is the case, the neoconservative ideas of Spengler fall over. He argues that most societies are not ideological, but tribal. They see their future in the preservation of their society, their culture, knowing full well that all peoples fade and all cultures die. He contrasts this experience — that of the Roman, the Celt, the German, the British and the Russian, with their tribal, national churches and cultic saints (For England and St George, indeed) with both Israel, the true tribe of promise, and America, deliberately founded by the Puritans as a society based on ideas of freedom and liberty under God. But if the state supplants God we do not have a people who look beyond this world with hope: we have the Fascist (The Leninist Soviet system included). Which engenders nor merely poverty, but despair.

I’d like to suggest that, inter alia, it comes down to Ockham’s Triumph: the de facto “establishment” in American public life of the notion that freedom is willfulness, and that willfulness can attach itself to any object, “so long as no one gets hurt” (which “no one” obviously does not include the aborted unborn and the euthanized, simply underscoring the confusions of the age). Ockham’s Triumph has intersected with another aspect of the “worse”: The metaphysical vacuum ably limned by Hanby has been filled by a new Gnosticism (chiefly but not exclusively embodied in the sexual revolution) that teaches that everything in the human condition is plastic and malleable and therefore subject to change by acts of will (like transgendering surgery). The intersection of these two Very Bad Ideas—Freedom-as-Willfulness and the New Gnosticism—produces what Joseph Ratzinger aptly described on April 18, 2005, as the “dictatorship of relativism.” And that dictatorship is the end of democracy, and indeed of any decent civic order.

What we are seeing, instead is the collapse of civil order within the more aggressive (and protected) groups, who consider that either the law is not for them (at the elite end) or the law is an enemy and to be ignored (at the level of the disengaged). The working and middle classes, however, are overly regulated, in part because they have to care for their reputation. Neither the upper class nor the unengaged care. In Alte’s neofeudal version of this, The Kings and Earls are allied with the slaves, against the middle.

Alte triangle
Alte’s neofeudal triangle

But this is not sustainable, because the middle is where the production is: the other classes are drones and parasites. Which is a fairly good description of the coalition that generally gets the left into power, where they try to manage us all. for our own good. As Vanessa once said:

We always end up with precisely the government we deserve, and if we’ve become incompetent to rule ourselves, then it is logical that we will be ruled by other people. Most families are now headless, so the state is doing their duty by stepping up and taking that place.

You may like to think of yourself as a freeman, and not a serf or even an aspiring lesser-noble, but that is actually a role allowed under neofeudalism. You are, you see, an outlaw. You are outside of the bounds of the system. You’ve gone rogue. You have a bounty on your head and it’s really only a matter of time before they trump up charges and drag you in to be hanged.

Unless….

Unless, that is, you manage to create a society outside of the bounds of their creation. A town, perhaps, or a large independent farm. A vibrant community offering some vital service that they are loathe to disturb, and that they choose to negotiate and trade with, rather than simply overrun and subject. It happened then, it can happen now.

We have rejected Christendom, with the organic links and duties that bound that society together. We have forgotten to pray as Chesterton did.

Tie in a living tether
the prince and priest and thrall,
bind all our lives together,
smite us and save us all;
in ire and exultation
aflame with faith, and free,
lift up a living nation,
a single sword to thee.

So be not surprised that the sword is now blunt, the treasury sacked, the culture despoiled, the elite uncaring while the underclass carefully only oppresses the productive, and the future appears bleak. God is not mocked, and we have fallen from a great height. Our society is now post Christian, and thinks it can borrow from a source of capital it denies.

But there is a God, and he will not be mocked.

Love drives out fear.

I was checking the links and noted this comment by Hearthie, from the now dormant traditional Christianity. It is an example of what hospitality means, and plain common sense. Screenshot from 2015-04-25 11:49:30

You know, when the banger with the pitbull chases his dog over to me, it’s not like I don’t feel that fear moment. But I wasn’t targetable at 15 when I went to HS with them, at 40? Puhleeze. Invisibility cloak? I have one. Now, I do choose not to open the ball of wax that starts with “wearing a bandanna to cover my hair” because we have Bloods and Crips wandering around occasionally, and … why take the chance? That’s just dumb. Although they seem to have changed over to wearing sports clothing. -shakes head- I never can keep up with the winds of fashion.

I look like a young Mrs. Santa Claus, the only trouble I’ve had was a guy a couple doors down who tried to stare me down. Really. You’re 8 inches taller than I am, male, have tats on your neck, are dressed in gang clothing and in your early 20s? Really? You’re staring ME down? Doesn’t that make you feel like five inches high? Are you going to kick puppies next?

Fortunately the nice SWAT team took care of my problem about a month later.

Really, I’m not advocating that we talk to the scary guys. And some guys ARE scary. I don’t talk to the crazy homeless guy – but I DO talk to the nice homeless man. (I don’t talk to the scary homeless lady either, let’s do be fair).

We *can* take the chance and be nicer than we have been – it’s a cold cruel world out there, and a smile is a cheap commodity.

Well, I grew up in an area where the Mongrel Mob drank at one pub and Black Power in the pub next door. When I was a skinny geek wearing coke bottle glasses. And I learned to scan streets… carefully, and dress like the locals. It’s called being discreet. But that does not mean that I don’t smile and talk.

And it means that I have listened to the Photog and daughter and sister and let my hair grow out of a crew cut. Because then I look like an aging gangbanger. Which is a different kind of invisibility cloak.

One of the difficult things you have to do with kids ie sxpose them to this stuff under control: to explain — did I say that I’m a geek and the kids have not that different a group of personalities? — exactly why this Maori guy is OK and that one is not. To have some caution and also some wariness.

It’s good practice. For the kind of trolls who live in the senior common room can do more damage to you than the patched men drinking in their refuge.

And it is our duty to be hospitable. To give the daily courtesy of being graceful. With discretion: but to not close off from those within our society. For if we do not let love drive our fear, we become as one with the Anabaptists, sitting in what we think is a small, holy community, fearing the outside, and trying not to remember that evil lives in the heart of all.

Peak academic stupid.

If this kind of arrant assholery occurred among people below the age of consent we would call it child abuse. But since this is a university it is more akin to fraud. A university is supposed to educate. To communicate to a moderately intelligent person, who has shown that they have not merely basic literacy but sufficient understanding of our society to function within it as a citizen — you are supposed to learn how to read and write and add in primary school, and in secondary school enough English and logic and rhetoric and natural philosophy (now called science) to participate within society, voting and the draft included — and expand their understanding of their society by comparing it with others. Including the past.

But instead of expanding the current liberal arts believe that the correct approach is to return to the kindergarten, and compete as to who can throw the best tantrum. The context of the post is that a person was disciplined for serving mexican food at a Science Fiction meeting because it is raciss against illegal immigrants. The stupid is not merely here, it is enshrined.

And so, once again, students are being encouraged to cultivate a kind of pretentious racial paranoia, in which almost any innocuous thing can, via mental convolution, be associated with some pretext for grievance, however dishonest and opportunistic. Once some mental association has been discovered or contrived, everyone must act as if the innocuous object or action were in reality malicious and/or wounding, whatever the actual intention and regardless of how absurd and/or dishonest the claim of grievance is. Because whatever association of things is in the accuser’s head is assumed to be in everyone else’s head too.

And lo, grammar and punctuation are deemed racist, and paper coffee cups too. And hair, and genteel gardening programmes. And beards, on white men, are harmful and oppressive, and “glorify behaviours typical of people in white hegemonies.”

Yes, it’s ludicrous and pernicious, and not at all accidental. Dr Golz and her peers are in effect saying to students, “You should want to be the guy who bitches about the alleged racist subtext of party snacks. And if you do choose to behave that way, we’ll reward you and flatter you and make you feel important, while making other people jump through clown hoops to appease the feelings you pretend to have.” And the more implausible and contrived the claim of victimhood is, the more status points accrue, supposedly on account of the complainant’s heightened sensitivity and mental prowess. He has fathomed an injustice mere mortals cannot see.

And bewildered onlookers are expected to pretend that this is a high and noble function of an academic institution.

There is a simpler model for this. It was developed in Scotland. You select for professional schools from school or after and intermediate year, and specialize immediately, letting the Arts and Sciences be separate. You keep the places in apprenticeships available, and limit the places at university so that you graduate enough professionals to keep your hospitals, trains and schools running, and allow the very bright to have their sheltered workshop: the Scots sensibly exported them to Oxford and Cambridge.

The Americans allowed the less able take over, drive the true scholars out, and are now racing to the bottom. Parents, if you love your children, keep them away from the academic stupid. Use tertiary education as a trade school only if cheaper alternatives will not suffice.

Love is not cheap. Hate is. [I Jn 3]

There are two parts to this. The first is that the world should hate us. It should hate. For we are the inconvenient ones, we are the ones that continue to be disciplined, we are the ones who preach that there is such a thing as evil and not all can be resolved by projecting the hatred out in what people think is therapy, but is not [1].

Nothing new here. Cain killed Abel because Cain knew Abels acts would be a witness against him. The early church was formed in persecution, in a society that was oppressive, and where pederasty was seen as the highest form of love.

And in particular, we should not hate. Let the evil ones hate. Let them refuse to associate. Let them try to micro regulate. For they are trying to build a hell by their own acts, which they call spirituality or creating heaven on earth.

273_3_7_ 5

For this is the message that you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. We should not be like Cain, who was of the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own deeds were evil and his brother’s righteous. Do not be surprised, brothers, that the world hates you. We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brothers. Whoever does not love abides in death. Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.

By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers. But if anyone has the world’s goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s love abide in him? Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth.

(1 John 3:11-18 ESV)

The handmaiden of hatred is fear. Because we hate, we see all others around us as competition, as enemies, those who we need to control. We will advocate stronger and stronger rules, more monitoring, more cameras, a move to a panoptican state.

There is in your varied comments a hint of fear. Stop fearing and enjoy this exploration of questioning, answering, and thinking through the comments of your intended and you. The less your fear, the more clarity of understanding you will achieve. Every time you are with your potential spouse, sense the thrill of discovery in understanding yourself and another human being. Thank God that you have this opportunity. Again stop fearing.
The beauty of Christianity is that no matter what missteps you or your potential spouse make, your discontent will always be sourced in you. And, your spouse’s discontent will always originate in him. This is the true joy of obedience to Christ. No matter what you may experience from your outer environment which you have no control over, your power is in that you control your inner spiritual environment which you have compete control over. Remember, if your peace is dependent on another’s behavior then you have no true freedom. St. Francis said in a more poetic but more succinct way, it is better to love than be loved, God bless

Now, in this world we are fallen. We need to work with each other. We spend all too long trying to find someone who is perfect, or, worse, make that person perfect. Some of those things that are licit within circumstances are not licit outside of them: war, for instance is organized murder, yet no person should hang a soldier for doing their duty, or the marital act is not a reason to call a wife a sex worker.

The guidance we have within the law is to allow us to love more perfectly. The way we do this will differ. Because we are different. And love is not nice.

I suggest you place yourself in Peter’s shoes in John 21:15-19. You have failed in a truly spectacular way, a way which will be remembered for all eternity. You are deeply ashamed of your failure, and the moment you realized what you had done you wept bitterly. You have also been physically separated from Christ and are reunited with Him for the first time. You are so excited to see Him again that you dove into the sea to swim to Him. But before Christ welcomes you back, He strongly rebukes you three times, reminding you of your failure and questioning if you love Him. Only once you demonstrate that you are truly heartbroken does He acknowledge that He knows you are sorry, telling you that because of your repentance you will die a painful and humiliating death.

Do you still think your reaction to the leadership of Jesus in the flesh would always be to automatically want to submit? Isn’t it much more likely you would sometimes at least initially** be hurt and angry, and accuse Him of being unloving and unworthy of your submission?

We are called to love. Which means saying the truth: which means leading or helping, depending on what our role is, and what circumstances. It does not mean acceding to the feelings of the offended, or expecting that the other will make you feel nice or the time, or that your material wants will just be provided. It means being confronted. It involves tears. Peter was going to die, as Christ did, to share in his suffering, and to count that as honour [2]. Love costs.

And that which is free is either grace, which cost someone else, or false.

______________________

1. Psychodynamic therapy involves realizing that your instinctive emotional reactions are wrong, understanding them and changing. Cognitive therapy showed you did not need to find the unconscious: with less effort you can identify errors in your thinking, and change. Both require change. And change hurts.

2. I think the only apostle who was not martyred was John, and he died in exile on Patmos.

Fascism is worse than heresy: the case of Frank Bruni.

Frank Bruni is worse than a heretic. Most heretics are sincere in their error, and firmly believe the delusion they have discovered. Frank believes that the church should change, as if the word of God is immutable.

Moreover, he is ignorant. He neither understands the pederastic ethos of the Greek symposia, nor the neurobiology of behaviour, where everything we do affects our brain.

And is requirement that the church change means we have to rediscover our Bonhoeffer, who resisted the nationalization of the Lutheran church under the NSDAP. I know Godwin’s law — that if you invoke the Nazis you have lost the argument, but when you use the tactics of the Nazis then that you should be called.

Evaluating its sparse invocations of homosexuality, he notes that there wasn’t any awareness back then that same-sex attraction could be a fundamental part of a person’s identity, or that same-sex intimacy could be an expression of love within the context of a nurturing relationship.

“It was understood as a kind of excess, like drunkenness, that a person might engage in if they lost all control, not as a unique identity,” Vines told me, adding that Paul’s rejection of same-sex relations in Romans I was “akin to his rejection of drunkenness or his rejection of gluttony.”

And Vines said that the New Testament, like the Old Testament, outlines bad and good behaviors that almost everyone deems archaic and irrelevant today. Why deem the descriptions of homosexual behavior any differently?

Creech and Mitchell Gold, a prominent furniture maker and gay philanthropist, founded an advocacy group, Faith in America, which aims to mitigate the damage done to L.G.B.T. people by what it calls “religion-based bigotry.”

Gold told me that church leaders must be made “to take homosexuality off the sin list.”

His commandment is worthy — and warranted. All of us, no matter our religious traditions, should know better than to tell gay people that they’re an offense. And that’s precisely what the florists and bakers who want to turn them away are saying to them

Frank you are wrong.

Your sin is an offense. But there is nothing unusual there: my sins are equally offensive.

You miss the point. We call actions offensive. We call people to obey scripture, and do their duty. For duty and honour are hard things, but needed. If we do not have them, we are becoming less than human.

The challenge of this time is twofold: the external enemy is the modern Islamic revolution, that will kill believers. The internal enemy is more noxious, for it wants to regulate our belief.

And that was something met before, as from the Barmen Declaration.

The Church’s commission, upon which its freedom is founded, consists in delivering the message of th free grace of God to all people in Christ’s stead, and therefore in the ministry of his own Word and work through sermon and sacrament. We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church in human arrogance could place the Word and work of the Lord in the service of any arbitrarily chosen desires, purposes, and plans.

My sympathy in all this is those who are gay, with same-sex attraction. Their way within the church is hard but there is a nobility in their choices. We should honour those who give up much for Christ.

But these people are now conscripted into the progressive system, even if they do not want to be them, or be like them. Gay people who think differently are punished even more harshly by the elite than their straight brothers.

So let us call the fascists where we find them, and pray for our brothers and sisters, including those who have no choice but to be celibate.

.

Sodom and Gomorrah in the church.

Bike Bubba said this yesterday, and it makes an introduction for today’s lectionary.

We have reached a point where all that matters is feelings, and the idea that one will correct in private before one brings in witnesses then the church is seen as wrong. Because correction may hurt.

As if we don’t do this at work on a regular basis. A regular basis.


I grieve when a church dies
, but even more I grieve when a church is killed by the behavior of the leadership. You point to divorce and deceit as a measure of growth in Christ–at times the churches I’ve seen it’s far more basic issues. For example, someone I’d tried to confront per Matthew 18 responded to me by telling me we really ought to leave Matthew 18 out of it.

Um…..what? You might as well try to swim in a dry wash or rappel without rope. Shouldn’t an appreciation of Biblical reconciliation processes be pretty much instinctive for anyone who presumes to fill a pulpit?

Well, within the church, the answer is yes. But within the institution, people consider not that they are there to serve and sacrifice, but to be honoured for their title. To them, church is about ego, not Christ.

And therefore the people turn to their favourite sins, and the land suffers.

Concerning the prophets: My heart is broken within me; all my bones shake; I am like a drunken man, like a man overcome by wine, because of the LORD and because of his holy words. For the land is full of adulterers; because of the curse the land mourns, and the pastures of the wilderness are dried up. Their course is evil, and their might is not right.

“Both prophet and priest are ungodly; even in my house I have found their evil, declares the LORD. Therefore their way shall be to them like slippery paths in the darkness, into which they shall be driven and fall, for I will bring disaster upon them in the year of their punishment, declares the LORD. In the prophets of Samaria I saw an unsavory thing: they prophesied by Baal and led my people Israel astray. But in the prophets of Jerusalem I have seen a horrible thing: they commit adultery and walk in lies; they strengthen the hands of evildoers, so that no one turns from his evil; all of them have become like Sodom to me, and its inhabitants like Gomorrah.”

Therefore thus says the LORD of hosts concerning the prophets: “Behold, I will feed them with bitter food and give them poisoned water to drink, for from the prophets of Jerusalem ungodliness has gone out into all the land.”

(Jeremiah 23:9-15 ESV)

Screenshot from 2015-03-21 14:54:17

At times we get all caught up around buggery and homosexuality, in part because a church that tolerates these things has clearly gone apostate. But they are not the only sins that grieve God. God is angered by our fornication and wrath but more so by us tolerating these and injustice and oppression. Which we now have. There is an end-game to this: and it involves murder, frequently combined with rape: the fate of Lot’s daughters was reflected in the Benjaminites who gang raped a concubine to death.

The Liberal Presbyterians have been taken over by the trolls, and they think it is good.

Screenshot from 2015-03-21 15:00:57

What we forget is that immorality matters, for it corrupts. We hold
(heterosexual men) to very high standards. And we let others have a pass. If we do this, we are fools. We forget that it is not the church that calls people to salvation, but Christ. We forget the church has an owner, and it is not us, but Christ.

And we cannot legislate a change in the covenants Christ has made. For God does not change.

Screenshot from 2015-03-21 15:01:29

What is happening? Well, the faithful are leaving. Right now. We are letting this false church fall. The same tactics did not work in NZ because the alternate reformed churches (such as Grace Presbyterian) are very small and most reformed believers remain within the Presbyterian denomination: we could stop it cold.

Besides, we have more important things to do. Our brothers and sisters in Vanuatu have just been flattened by a cyclone (hurricane for the Americans). Our catholic and orthodox sisters and brothers are being crucified in Syria, while the morons who call themselves Muslims destroy their churches (and any structure older than they can recall) in their pathetic attempt to imitate the Jacobins and form a new year zero.

And our rulers Godly are not.

We need to continually reform. But reformation is not apostasy. Apostasy has two outcomes; a degeneration into perversion, and a depopulation to the point that one is no longer relevant. Do not do either.

It is time for the US reformed to leave the PCUSA. Do not be them, and do not be like them.

Sex is not kettleball exercises.

I’m annoyed. It is a struggle for any of us who have been in a marriage to remain chaste, and remain within the bounds of acceptable and righteous behaviour when courting. Most of the world after a while just moves in together and leaves getting married for when they procreate — or when the family court deem that it has occurred for the purposes of family violence or child support.

But within the church we have to use the standards of God, not this world. And the fact that some of us are not married to the people we love — because it is unwise, because we love the same gender, or (more commonly) because we need to be careful around children, families, and family trusts — we want to have the support of the church in keeping to the standards of the gospel.

To say that us that these are immaterial is being needlessly cruel. Our consciences are seared enough: saying that the conflicts we have not are without meaning removes any significance to the sexual act, making it akin to doing kettleball exercises.

On one hand, nothing. This aligns with our existing core vision: the doors of this church are as wide as the arms of the Savior it proclaims. We remain passionate about having as many people hear the gospel as possible. City Church will continue to receive into membership all those with a credible profession of faith and expect the same commitments represented in their membership vows.

On the other hand, we want to be clear what this now means. We will no longer discriminate based on sexual orientation and demand lifelong celibacy as a precondition for joining. For all members, regardless of sexual orientation, we will continue to expect chastity in singleness until marriage. Please pray for our Board as we continue to discuss pastoral practices with our LGBT brothers and sisters in Christ. Pray for our denomination, the Reformed Church in America, as it does the same.

The trouble that these people have, in being “charitable”, is that they are making it more difficult. Difficult for parents: the old rules were very simple, and the corrective actions (ie. if you got a girl pregnant, you married her) were simple. But it required an acceptance of early marriage, that lust is a normal reaction among healthy young people, and thus a certain degree of chaperonage and short courtships.

It may be that we think we are prosperous and we can have other rules. It may be that we can afford other options, such as single men or gay couples having children by surrogacy (for women, it is an easier matter) and we want to have a difficult to enforce system in place to control the at risk behaviour we are accepting among heterosexuals, so they as promiscuous as those who used to be in the demimonde.

But in times of poverty we cannot afford this.

In other words, the bodily health of people like my father is organic in a sense that the health of people like me isn’t. It emerges from the circumstances of their life, whereas for ours it is either tacked on or it is not there at all. There are analogues in almost every facet of the modern’s—and even more so the Millennial’s—experience, I think. Many of the people whose lifestyles no longer include exercise of necessity simply let themselves go. They drink beer and binge watch Netflix in the evenings. They get skinnyfat and wake up at forty on the road to cardiac arrest. In the same way people whose lifestyles no longer demand that they put forth cognitive effort, and precious few do in any compelling sense, often forgo it, let their faculties atrophy, sink into the popcorn-brain confusion of social media stimulation and push-button entertainments. The pageantry of the world passes them by and they comprehendeth it not. There are other analogues as well. Those who don’t need community ties for survival don’t forge them. They subsist on a “significant other” and the occasional office party. Those whom the grocery feeds never learn to produce food. Those who don’t need children to care for them in their dotage don’t have them. And thus all those relationships and pursuits that have been our satisfactions since deepest antiquity, the ancient health of man, go unnoticed by the wayside.

This observation, when you boil it down, is essentially just a paleo critique applied more broadly than our dietary needs. But I think it might do us well to ponder occasionally how “rich” our lives are compared to the norm of almost any historical people. And thus, paradoxically, how difficult it is for us to be righteous, to be complete. Perhaps we are those who laugh now and only later shall we mourn and weep. Perhaps we are those that are full and we shall yet hunger. Perhaps, despite an embarrassment of luxuries and provisions and security, we still struggle to enter the kingdom of God, to be at peace with ourselves, because it takes efforts over and above the quotidian demands of our lives to prevent essential aspects of ourselves from dissolving gradually into obsolescence. It would certainly be a cosmic irony if that were true.

We cannot afford this. We cannot afford to tell as many lies, to spend as much time on propaganda when we are poor. We need an older way of working that organically self organizes us: that old thing called marriage 1.0, for life, with a community supporting it, and the acceptance of those who have unhappy periods: for them the pub was invented.

But the idea of moving from that to some kind of institutional instability has but one result: more people will be single.

Gay marriage is a leftoid equalist project to undermine and eventually to destroy the traditional and biologically heterocentric configuration of marriage. Gay marriage is nothing less than a front in the everlasting equalist war against white male European culture.

Gay marriage is one cultural schism put to use by the Lords of Lies toward the redefinition and de-stigmatization of marriage from an organic mate pair system which safeguards the primacy of paternity assurance to a free-for-all “liberation” that corrodes trust between heterosexual couples and renders hetero beta males wholly prostrate to an antagonistic marriage market stripped of any protections for their particular interests.

Mark my words, a massive elite push to legitimize and maybe even codify polyamory is next on the agenda.

To remove the ability of most to marry and have stability so that some can have a harem (of whatever gender, or whatever combination) is pointlessly cruel to adults. The communities that claimed to have healthy polyamory — such as Centrepoint in Auckland when I was growing up — eventually ended up paying children for the predatory behaviour of adults with children well below the age of consent.

The lies we have at present, in our society are unsustainable. Many of us struggle with the temptations before us. For the church to accede to these things is cruel to all who struggle.

And it makes the church part of the world, whose spirit has never been righteous and holy, but instead opposes that which is good.

Those swimming left do not breed. Chluthu is pleased.

Social welfare is a Ponzi scheme. In a Ponzi scheme, those who pay in at the beginning get their return from those who are paying in 20 years later. It works brilliantly if you are a state and can (a) tax the living hell out of the productive, (b) have a pronatalist policies (AKA family friendly) such as low mortgages for couples with kids, paternal custody by default, and (preferably) (c) limited access to sexual congress outside of the marital bed.

Hey, go to the link if you want the wallpaper.

I have, of course, just described the patriarchy. Chulthu (who is going to appear a lot from now, for the feel of our society is much more akin to the Borg or the nameless horrors than Hobbes’ Leviathan) says this us ungoodthink. But that will backfire.

Governments becoming more and more desperate to get younger people to breed so they can have future slaves to fund their social security eerrrr….”continue the culture and population.”

Sorry socialists.

You let every other culture into our countries.
You CHEERED THEM ON and PREFERRED THEM TO OUR OWN
You pay parasites and punish producers
And good lord, don’t even get me started about what your feminist division has done to men’s desire to pro-create.

No, you created this problem and our future would be children will not be the solution to it. This is where the game ends and any (unfortunate enough children) born to socialist parents are the ones who are going to pay for your idiocy.

I do not understand the left. I really do not. They scream at us that all is not biological but their gender choices and other acceptable sins, then they subvert this. Does not matter, because Chulthu is happy. The gay do not breed easily: and for the straight there is what Ann Coulter called the only sacrament of feminism, abortion.

(Oh, and on the issue of biological tendency and behaviour, for most things, the answer is both.)

Serotonin transport short (s) and long (l) polymorphism and depression symptoms. From Caspi, Science, 2003.
Serotonin transport short (s) and long (l) polymorphism and depression symptoms. From Caspi, Science, 2003.

Underlying the emotion on both sides is the looming and frustratingly unsettled question: Is homosexuality inherent or a choice? Those who consider homosexuality a moral sin naturally prefer to cast it as a choice. The politically correct answer, though, is that gays and lesbians are born that way, case closed, so don’t even think about judging or trying to change them. Yet science has failed to give a definitive answer either way. Nevertheless, it is culturally settled that heterosexuals who consider themselves “enlightened” – nowadays including a great swath of conservatives – embrace the right of gays and lesbians to complete social parity with heterosexuals. Homosexuality is experiencing its first Golden Age – at least for those who live in urban western centres.

However, the gold in the Golden Age may turn quickly to tarnishable gilt if it turns out that homosexuality can be inherent or a choice, as some gays, like Daniel Villarreal seem to believe it is. Progressives can roll their eyes at evangelical Christians who say homosexuality is “catchy,” but here is mainstream writer Sally Kohn pretty well announcing that she believes it is, and that’s a good thing.

Now, the average young Christian has to decide if they are going to (a) live in godly celibacy or (b) seek to live in holy matrimony. In the Catholic and Orthodox, holy celibacy and the monastic life is held as higher and better than secular life: the reformed have but secular life but honour those who choose not to marry.

Those who marry have kids. Supported by their father and mother. With the help of grandparents and the broader church when the kids are younger and need more work and resources.

And this is… works. It works if you are Amish. It works if you are Catholic. It works in places that are very poor. It predates Christ: indeed Christ went to a marriage feast (and famously made wine our of water).

But it is incompatible with double doctorates or the revolution. It is not politically correct.

However, the PC will die for the same reason that the Soviets did: they ran out of other people’s money, and no one believed their lies any further.

Let Chulthu swim left. We will not follow that nameless horror.

Local, Retro?

Doug Ross comments.

We are the generation that gets to witness the end of the American Dream. The numbers that you are about to see tell a story. They tell a story of a once mighty economy that is dying. For decades, the rest of the planet has regarded the United States as “the land of opportunity” where almost anyone can be successful if they are willing to work hard. And when I was growing up, it seemed like almost everyone was living the American Dream. I lived on a “middle class” street and I went to a school where it seemed like almost everyone was middle class. When I was in high school, it was very rare to ever hear of a parent that was unemployed, and virtually every family that I knew had a comfortable home and more than one nice vehicle. But now that has all changed. The “American Dream” has been transformed into a very twisted game of musical chairs. With each passing year, more people are falling out of the middle class, and most of the rest of us are scrambling really hard to keep our own places. Something has gone horribly wrong, and yet Americans are very deeply divided when it comes to finding answers to our problems. We love to point fingers and argue with one another, and meanwhile things just continue to get even worse

Roosh on some basic economics on movies and production values. I’d add that I’m using a two-year old desktop for this, and I think I can get another three years out of it. And I process 36 MP files from digital cameras, and similar scans from my film processor routinely.


When the CD burner, flatbed scanner
, and 1-gig hard drive first came out, I had some spare cash and bought myself an Apple rig. With this system that cost about $20,000 at the time I had an instant graphic design business, purely because no one else could afford the gear.

Within a few years, everyone had Photoshop on a laptop and I sold my rig for a few hundred bucks, although it had earned twenty times what I paid for it in the meantime. Music production, DJ producers, remixes, and even recording a rock band has all become a cost-negative business and the exact same thing is about to happen to the movie business.

Tarts like Jennifer Lawrence and Emma Watson, who like to think of themselves as something special, are really only a notch above disposable porn stars. Real actors belong on a live stage, where very few of today’s breed of stars would last a second. In fact actors like Hugo Weaving (Agent Smith), Patrick Stewart (Star Trek and X-men) and Ian McKellen (Gandalf) were all Shakespearean actors who worked for the love of it, not for the limelight and big bucks. Stewart admits he struggled with the changeover to tedious movie-sets and nearly quit.

We are rapidly getting to the point, much as we did with the music business, where productions costs are so low and technology so high that the stranglehold and inflated prices will no longer be tolerated by the public at large who are being swamped with ever increasing quality and variety. I am sure there are a dozen other business models set to follow Hollywood into the dusty pages of history. Pay attention and be wise

I have not bought an album but to support the band for a while. I’m streaming: if I want really good hifi I get the vinyl out and switch on a stereo that is far better than the first one I bought, and cost half as much.

Tech is now dirt cheap, but it will not feed you, or make your soul sing. The pub did — it is not about the booze: it is about the meeting up. The local orchestra, the local live gigs — support them. Besides, the band does not need a few K to put their music on youtube.

What our economists cannot measure is community: that depends of social capital. Which requires structure and rules. Free Northerner, a century ago women had the vote only in weird places like NZ.

A century ago, most men would have thought the idea of discussing politics, theology, or philosophy with your wife was absurd; those discussions were what you did with your friends at the pub. Your wife was the one who dragged you home when you were too sloshed to distinguish between monarchy and anarchy.

As we get poorer, we will get more local. We will not fly to Fiji or Spain for our holidays, but get the train to Brighton or Lake Hawea (once us Kiwis put the rails back where they were).

Want to hear good music? There are amateur orchestras in most towns: go to their concerts: go to the local high school big sing and be shocked at how good they can be. Want worship that will make you weep? Go to evensong at your local cathedral.

Let the commercial stuff die on the vine. Ignore the new, manufactured bands. Let the good rise to the top through playing organically. You may even find some new music.

Monthly Data and obligatory cat photos.

Ken Perrot at Open Parachute has the NZ blog stats up for the month, and I think the sitemeter has gone flakey because he can’t see my site. But Sitemeter has 6.3 K visits this month, so thanks.

Screenshot from 2015-03-02 18:11:09

WordPress makes things a lot more pretty.

Screenshot from 2015-03-02 18:32:54

Thanks, folks, for the traffic. And a quote from Karl du Fresne, one of the old journos who now blogs. For non Kiwis, Laila Harre is very left wing — she met her husband picking coffee for the Sandinistas, and Matthew Hooten is a market researcher with impeccable Tory connections.

Does that necessarily make her a hypocrite? While I dislike Harre’s politics intensely and always get a quiet thrill when sanctimonious leftists are exposed as closet capitalists, there’s no law that says they must drive 1980 Cortinas and wear track pants. In fact there’s a long tradition of left-leaning political reformers coming from privileged backgrounds.
And while I initially shared my informant’s shock at the suggestion that Harre and Hooton were chums, on reflection I came around to a different point of view.

I thought about my own situation. I have a number of long-standing friends who don’t like my political views, but we don’t let that get in the way. We focus on the likeable qualities we see in each other and generally succeed in setting politics to one side.
Life would be very dull if we fraternised only with people who think like us. It would be like being trapped for life in a Rotary Club meeting.

Let’s assume for a moment that Harre and Hooton really did go skiing together. Who are we to say they shouldn’t enjoy each other’s company?
Skiing with Hooton doesn’t mean having to agree with his politics. In fact the two might learn something from each other. Isn’t that preferable to shouting at each other over an ideological chasm?

The notion that we shouldn’t associate with people who think differently alarms me. Democracy is about the free exchange of ideas, but we retreat into tribal enclaves, erect barricades and refuse to have anything to do with the enemy.
We block our ears and hum loudly when anyone dares express a contrary thought. It’s as if we’re scared of being exposed to ideas that might turn out to be less heinous than we imagined. Groupthink takes over.

This happens on both the Right and the Left and has become noticeably worse since the advent of the Internet. Political blogs and websites provide fortresses where like-minded people can band together, drawing comfort and reassurance from their conformity and angrily repelling all invaders.
Anyone who challenges the consensus becomes the enemy.

Now the obligatory cat photo. This is Stripes, AKA Tripod — who is not one month post amputation.

IMAG0582