2 New Gnosticism Sightings

I realize it’s pretty lame to claim a Gnosticism sighting from the venerable Anti-Gnostic, so to be clear I’m crediting him with this one, and from a Leftist, of all people (I say Leftist, as opposed to Libtard, which Kunstler clearly isn’t). Good catch, AG.

The other is from our allies over at Thermidor, with this gem: The Monte Cassino Option. Here’s the payoff (emphasis mine):

What can be concluded then, in summation? Dreher’s argument is that we must build an ark to endure time and chance. If we take him at his word, we should look to the actual ark that St Benedict built: the abbey of Monte Cassino, mother-church of the monasticism that illuminated Latin Christendom. However, 1,400 years of worship and service was no shield from the United States Army Air Force, which bombed the monastery into powder in 1944 as thousands of British and American troops cheered from the valley below. As a symbol of the murder-suicide of the Christian West, I can think of none more concentrated. Since the Renaissance, Western man has been engaged on an anti-pilgrimage, a quest for the perfect system of centralised control, of all-encompassing efficiency that will confer gnostic power over nature to those in charge. Such an endeavour has struck relentlessly against Christianity, as it must, and the ability of the machine-state to achieve such purposes has increased exponentially alongside its technological, administrative and economic reach. For all of their sincere Christianity, Dreher, Deneen and a great many other social conservatives refuse to see these dynamics. If they did see them, they would be under no illusions about mollifying Leviathan, buying it off or finding some glad, quiet garden where it will not trouble them. That is not the nature of the beast; it never was. Embracing withdrawal is all of a piece with chanting the name of Alexis de Tocqueville like a spell to banish bad juju. In our current times, such a mixture of intellectual evasiveness and jejune romanticism constitutes the Monte Cassino Option: retreating into the abbey cellar in the hope that the bombers will miss or be recalled in mid-flight. In reality, the monks agreed to be evacuated by the Germans long before the bombs dropped.

 

  1. Thank you for naming the Beast.
  2. That last sentence is haunting. Acquiescence. I don’t know the whole story, but I immediately thought “why were they afraid to die? They’re monks.” I need to look into this, because it’s gonna bug me.

 

Advertisements

Major’s Orders

An order from the Major: if any of you out there aren’t reading the American Pravda series, you need to catch up. Long articles, but so damn worth the time.

Clanton vs. Ramos

IN THIS CORNER:

Eric Clanton takes 3-year probation deal in Berkeley rally bike lock assault case

This is from a  Berkeley news source. Long story short, Eric Clanton, an Antifa member, sneaks up to an unarmed man at a protest in Berkeley last year and strikes him with a bike lock. See the video at the link. He busts the guy’s head open. An unarmed man who wasn’t fighting anyone:

A former East Bay college philosophy professor who was charged with four counts of felony assault with a deadly weapon, causing great bodily injury, has taken a deal resulting in three years of probation for an attack at a Berkeley protest last year, court records reveal.

HIS OPPONENT:

Jury Finds Ramos Guilty of Malicious Wounding

Alex Michael Ramos, along with Daniel Patrick Borden, Tyler Watkins Davis and Jacob Scott Goodwin, were arrested after the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville for beating the hell out of DeAndre Harris and friends. Harris and friends were fighting everyone they could, and Harris was armed with a heavy flashlight. I imagine his flashlight weighed more than Eric Clanton’s bike lock:

The jury then considered a punishment for Ramos, which entailed possible fines and a sentencing of somewhere between five and 20 years behind bars. The jury came back with a decision around 5:45 p.m., and recommended a six-year sentence with no fine.

AND IN HIS CORNER:

Jacob Scott Goodwin is guilty in Charlottesville parking garage beating of black man

The jury recommended a sentence of 10 years, with the option of suspending some of the time, and a $20,000 fine. The presiding judge, Richard E. Moore, will set the sentence on Aug. 23. When the court clerk read the jury’s recommendation, Goodwin’s mother let out a loud gasp.

So, the final sentence for the deplorable hateful haters who hate is yet to be determined, but they’ll surely spend a few years in prison for fighting with violent blacks who were attacking them, while Eric Clanton gets probation for sneaking up to an unarmed, innocent man and busting his head open with a bike lock.

By the way, the article about Goodwin was actually titled:

White supremacist is guilty in Charlottesville parking garage beating of black man

Do you think any mainstream news outlet would ever use this title?

Antifa terrorist takes 3-year probation deal in Berkeley rally bike lock assault case

This is where we are folks. Ramos, Borden, Davis and Goodwin are political prisoners, while every possible allowance is given to the criminals on the left, and I haven’t even started with DeAndre Harris. Or James Fields, for that matter.

I know that it’s always been about Who/Whom. When will our people realize that we’re the Whom. It sucks to be the Whom. It’s dangerous to be the Whom. We could be the Who, but it’ll take a lot more will than the Right has shown up to this point.

The Meaning of Meaninglessness

The other day I had a thought:

If something is, it is that thing absolutely, because if it’s not, then it could be anything, which means it’s really nothing.

I might have been a little drunk at the time. But I stumbled on!

For something to mean anything, it has to be out of our reach, out of our control.

The Preacher had a sermon about this, about vanity / futility / meaninglessness. Russell Kirk wrote something about every generation having to re-express the timeless truths, or the truths die. I think that’s true, but why is that so? The Preacher had something to say about that, too, but not really the why. Somehow, it’s about how these truths are packaged, mainly by language but also shaped by personal experience which is shaped by cultural experiences. How a truth burrowed its way into your father’s heart won’t get as deep for you, his son. It has to be re-expressed, again and again and again. Truth is slippery that way. Put another way, some things we believe with our heads but not with our hearts. The best is when both believe, but if I have to choose, I’ll choose the heart, but it won’t be without pain.

***

1054 is given as the date of the Great Schism, when the Eastern portion of Christendom broke with the Western portion, centered in Rome. Of course, the Eastern portion says it’s the other way around, but shut up. The two primary causes of the Schism were Primus Inter Pares (First Among Equals, meaning Christendom is rightfully lead by the Patriarch of Rome, the Pope), and Filioque. The Filioque controversy had been brewing for some time, and it’s something that most people today, even Christians, find pretty silly. It refers to the relationship of the Son (Filioque) and the Father in the procession of the third person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit. Does the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father, or from both the Father and Son? The Nicene Creed of 325 didn’t mention the procession of the Holy Spirit, but that procession was mentioned in the Council of Constantinople, and it’s been argued about ever since.

I say that most people find this silly, mainly because it seems like they could have come to an agreement about it at some point. Scripture is a little ambiguous about it, but seems to side with Filioque (if you care to look it up, here are some verses: John 14:16, 15:26, 16:7, 16:13-15, Galatians 4:6, Romans 8:9, and Philippians 1:19) but you also have to deal with language issues. The Greek word for “procession” has a different meaning than the Latin word, procedere. Still, over the course of half a millennium, it seems like they could come to some sort of agreement. It kind of seems like the argument over how many angels can break dance on the head of a pin.

I say it goes way deeper, though. This is about existence itself. For a Christian, there’s nothing more basic to existence than the Godhead, the fount of all existence. So, based on all we know, is the Godhead a hierarchy, or are they co-equal? In other words, hierarchy or equality? It’s ironic that the side arguing for hierarchy within the Godhead, the Eastern side, argued against hierarchy in the Church (they opposed Primus Inter Pares, and eventually broke away from the head of the Church, Rome), while the Western portion argued for the co-equality of the Father and Son, while defending Primus Inter Pares within Christendom.

In the West, was this the beginning? The little pebble on top of the mountain that toppled over and slid, causing more to slide, and eventually became the avalanche of Equality Uber Alles Gnostic Heretical Clown World that we’re buried under? Was this the nail?

Which brings me to another event in Church history, the schism of the Old Believers with the Russian Orthodox Church, starting in the middle of the 17th century. It began when Patriarch Nikon of Moscow made some small changes to the Russian Orthodox liturgy, in an effort to bring their worship in line with the worship of the Greek Orthodox churches. Here’s a few of the changes:

  • Sign of the Cross – changed from two fingers to three
  • Alleluia – changed from two to three
  • Creed – changed from “And in the Holy Spirit, the True Lord and Giver of Life” to “And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life”

Again, sounds kind of silly, doesn’t it? The Old Believers were severely persecuted, shunned, excommunicated. Lives were lost, or destroyed. Did it have to come to that?

Again, the real issue is much deeper. The contention was over Tradition itself. The Old Believers maintained that Tradition, if it’s Tradition at all, is not to be changed on a whim, on the basis of the opinion of some guy (even if that some guy is the Patriarch, God’s representative for that particular patch of Earth). Tradition, to them, has more authority than any human authority, and can only be changed under dire circumstances for universally agreed upon reasons.

On the other side, the ROC held that human authority, the Patriarch, carries more weight than Tradition, because who else can ultimately establish, define, interpret, and alter any tradition except legitimate human authority?

My heart’s with the Old Believers on this one. If something is, it is that thing absolutely, because if it’s not, then it could be anything, which means it’s really nothing. For something to mean anything, it has to be out of our reach, out of our control.

***

Our Gnostics have robbed us of meaning. To arbitrarily change something is to eventually destroy it. Either they don’t know that in their arrogance, or they do know that in their malice. In every important aspect of our existence, they’ve changed it, all at the whim of some guy, and not even someone appointed as God’s representative. Just some guy.

Marriage – At the whim of some guy in a black robe, marriage now doesn’t mean what it has meant for all of man’s history. Now it doesn’t just mean a binding commitment between a man and a woman, but also homosexuals, which means that marriage can now mean anything, so increasingly it means nothing. Why get married if it doesn’t mean anything? Why can’t a man marry his goat, or a woman her cat, or a pedo his child-toy? All it would take is some guy in a black robe, apparently. Yes, I know there are nine Justices, but it came down to the tie-breaker, and Roberts was it. Like I said, some guy.

With due respect to Jim, reviving marriage and the fertility rate isn’t just about making it high status again, although that would certainly help, because how do you make something high status that has no meaning? You could prop it up with rewards, but it would never stand on its own.

Money – To have any meaning, money has to represent something real, like gold. Take that away, and it’s whatever some guy says it is, in this case some Bankster in New York or London or Paris. It could be a cabal, but someone’s always in charge. So, however much a dollar is worth is simply the opinion of some guy, which means it’s not real, and there’s way less incentive to save, be responsible, etc., which we’ve proven by being twenty trillion in debt, which we all know really doesn’t mean anything anyway. I think the existential damage is far greater than the economic damage, although time might prove me wrong on that one. Depends on how bad the coming catastrophe is.

Citizenship – If anyone can waltz across the border, squat and drop a baby on our magic dirt and now that child is a citizen… if America is a Proposition Nation and anyone who agrees with those propositions is an American… if our government claims to have no right to enforce its borders…  then the meaning of Citizenship understood for all of man’s history has been changed, which means it could mean anything, and as we all know, now it means nothing. You get the drift.

I don’t see how we could get any more basic than marriage, money and citizenship. Those things are meaningless now. How many other age-old understandings have been altered and thereby rendered meaningless? This is our existential catastrophe. To live our whole lives without anything that sustains us being real, it’s spiritual torture.

Our Gnostics wanted control of these things, and we all know what happens when we snatch control of things that God alone has rightful ownership of. It dies.

Poetry for the Right-Wing Lunatic

For those of us who enjoy poetry, or would like to if it wasn’t fully pozzed, I found via Thermidor a really good site: Arthur Powell’s Atop The Cliffs.

Poetry is a strange thing for me. It’s kind of like music, in that I have no idea sometimes why I like certain poems and not others, or certain poets and not others. I also have to admit that maybe that’s because I’m too dumb to follow some of it, or too distracted to dig in deep, or too shallow, or who the hell knows. But then I’ll run across one that stays with me, and works on me.

I don’t really want to figure this out.

I admit, I like poetry, and sometimes love poetry. For long stretches, though, I’ve given up on it. I’m disgusted by the poz, and the posturing, and the blabber of the Bob Dylan-type horseshit. In the same way, I’ve here and there read poetry from people on the right, and turned away. It’s not that I don’t agree with what they were writing, but it just seemed dull and flat, and didn’t compel me in any way. I wanted to like it, but just couldn’t. It seems to me at those times that the right-wing aspect was forced. I hate it when it’s forced. I’m not looking for Lee Greenwood.

What I’ve read in Atop The Cliffs, I really like, which is a very pleasant surprise for me. I haven’t had time to read them all, because there’s a lot of poetry there, and I’m glad. I can wander in there anytime and find plenty.

I hope you wander over there too.

 

What Is a Witch?

A fine poast, as usual, from F. Roger Devlin: Foreshock: The Alt-Right Introduces Itself

One very small point of contention:

“Everyone knows of certain words (such as “unicorn” and “witch”) to which no reality corresponds, but many fail to see how politically-charged terms get used to smuggle false premises into debates and mystify rather than enlighten.”

Mr. Devlin, a witch is someone (usually a woman) who practices witchcraft. Men who do so are usually referred to as sorcerers. Therefore, “witch” is a word to which reality most definitely corresponds, because there are, and always have been, women and men who practice witchcraft, sorcery, black magic, etc.

I think most people, when they hear or read the word “witch” automatically think of some old hag with a wart on her nose wearing a pointy hat, and yes, that’s cartoonish, but it doesn’t change the fact that a witch is simply someone who practices witchcraft.

A few years ago I did a little informal research on the Salem Witch Trials. The consensus has always been, at least in my lifetime, that the whole episode was caused by some form of mass hysteria, but that explanation doesn’t hold water. From my recollection of the episode:

  • The people of Salem and the surrounding villages were Puritans, which meant they were Calvinists, which meant they were educated. IOW, they weren’t a bunch of backwoods hicks having fundamentalist revivals and handling snakes. They were a sober-minded people. There’s a lot that can be said negatively about Puritans, but they weren’t a bunch of dumbasses.
  • Those who were accused were arrested, questioned, given lawyers, and put on trial. The trials lasted about 3 months. Outside lawyers were brought in, as was an outside judge. So, we’re to believe that this was mass hysteria that lasted for 3 months and affected even the lawyers and judge brought in from somewhere else to investigate the matter? If it was mass hysteria, wouldn’t the accused have been marched straightaway to the middle of town and burned?
  • Speaking of burning, none of those found guilty were burned. Back in the old country that’s what they did with witches, and it was superstitiously believed that the fire would force the evil spirits out of the person. In Salem, the few that were found guilty were hanged, which was the quickest and most humane form of execution at the time.
  • Speaking of execution, witchcraft was a capital offense back then. We may not agree with that, but it doesn’t change the fact that a person could be legally killed if found practicing witchcraft, and this law was approved by wide consensus. Most people had no problem whatsoever of executing a proven witch, for a variety of reasons.
  • I don’t remember the exact number, but I think there were about 30 people accused of witchcraft. Do you know what the penalty was if a person confessed and repented? Nothing. They were set free. That may seem hard to believe, but that’s what happened. Over 20 people confessed and repented, and were set free. If a person was found guilty in court, but denied their guilt, they were executed, which is no different than what we do today. If a person confessed, but didn’t repent, they were executed, because who wants an unrepentant witch around?

Does any of that sound like mass hysteria to you? Me neither. It’s much easier to believe that certain people actually practiced witchcraft, and were found out. There’s nothing new about that, as witchcraft, black magic, etc,. has always found people willing to practice it. Somehow, though, we’ve been fed this idea that there’s no such thing as witches. Even someone as brilliant as F. Roger Devlin casually denied the possibility.

Again, it’s a very small point of contention in an otherwise great poast, so RTWT.

The Case for Open Borders

I got inspired recently, and wrote a couple of really good essays, making the case for Open Borders. The first is The Conservative Case for Open Borders. I submitted this to National Review, with high hopes and fingers crossed. It’s my first foray into conservative punditry, and who knows? Maybe this will turn into a lucrative career in that sphere. They need fresh talent with new ideas, God knows. Here goes:

We need Brown People to pick our cotton. A while back we brought over Black Folks to pick our cotton, but that’s gotten kinda awkward. But hell, Brown folks love it! All you gotta do is stand by the river and hold up a toilet brush, and they come clamberin’ over. We don’t even gotta go fetch ’em. Just yell “Hey Pedro, come over here and clean this toilet! That’s a Job Americans Won’t Do for 2 bucks an hour.”

So far, no word from National Review, but damned if this ain’t Jonah Goldberg worthy.

I try not to put all my eggs in one basket, so I wrote another essay for By Faith magazine called The Christian Case for Open Borders. This is where the true beauty of Open Borders is manifested in all its splendor. It’s not just about all the economic benefits. This is a spiritual opportunity of a lifetime!

When there’s Open Borders, we can be missionaries right here at home! We don’t gotta learn a foreign language, or go to Seminary, or raise support, or go over there to preach the Gospel to ’em on their terms.  We don’t hardly gotta work at all! “Hey Pedro! When you’re shift is over in about 10 hours, I’m gonna share the Gospel with ya, buddy! Gonna sit you down and tell you all about it. But in the meantime, that toilet ain’t gonna clean itself, so git to work, boy.”

Yeah, I’m dreaming big, maybe too big, to think that I might find my place at National Review or By Faith, giants that they are. But if these essays don’t convince them that I deserve a seat at the table, then nothing will. Maybe I just need to start my own think tank.