Merry Christmas

Today vast numbers of people celebrate the most important event in history, the entry of light into a world ruled by darkness. The Word became flesh and announced that there is such a thing as truth, that love is more powerful than hate, and that overcoming the evil within ourselves is more important than fighting it in others. It is a testament to the wickedness of the world that it tortured and killed such a messenger, but in so doing it proved His point -- the soul can overcome any harm the world might inflict on the body. His words and deeds bring everlasting life to anyone who acknowledges them.

For those on this remarkable day who see only tinsel, presents, and whatever else their hearts desire at the moment, I pity you. You are missing out on a depth of joy that no such things can ever provide.

America No Longer World's Largest Economy

The top spot now belongs to China. Is anyone surprised about this? The only real surprise is that it didn't happen sooner.

America (which is nominally capitalist) now resembles Harrison Bergeron in that it imposes extensive and burdensome controls over every aspect of our lives -- forcible re-distribution of wealth to subsidize business and personal failures, a central bank that arbitrarily sets the interest rate, over 80,000 pages of regulations in the Federal Register, untold numbers of regulations in each of the 50 states, endless lawsuits that produce extortionate settlements or outrageous judgments, and the general inability of the ordinary citizen to plan his affairs given the renegade activity of the warlords calling themselves the government. Indeed, it is almost impossible for an American to set foot outside his door today without breaking some law or incurring some liability. Add to this the stultifying and ubiquitous religion of political correctness, and it's a wonder that we even hold second place.

China (which is nominally communist) is freer than we are, and freedom produces prosperity. It was decades ago when China rejected Maoism and figured out that central planning doesn't work. Millions of people died under the regime of Mao Tse-tung, yet America actively pursues Mao's philosophy. It is no coincidence that a prominent member of the Obama administration praised Mao. This could be the result of ignorance, but it also could be the result of a desire to pursue something other than prosperity (i.e., power).

Fifty Shades Of Grey

This novel and the upcoming movie are not very intriguing in and of themselves. After all, men have porn, so it's only natural that women would have porn as well. Perhaps the only noteworthy aspect of such porn is the different preferences men and women display: whereas men fantasize about random, casual sex with a variety of different women, women fantasize about searching for and captivating a single man who incorporates the chest-thumping swagger of the primitive "alpha" along with the wealth and provisions of the civilized "beta." Both fantasies are incredibly shallow but entirely understandable given men's and women's natures.

What makes Fifty Shades something more than just another piece of fictional trash is the public's reaction to it and the historical context in which it occurs.

For one thing, we find the double standard by which female porn is praised and encouraged whereas male porn is shamed and condemned. Fifty Shades has been heralded as a groundbreaking phenomenon that liberates women from taboos and allows them to explore their repressed desires, the overt suggestion being that women indeed should act like this and "find their Mr. Grey." Now, imagine if a major studio produced a movie about a man who expatriates to Thailand and sleeps with a different young woman every night, discovering the sheer joy he's been missing out on during his boring life of responsible drudgery to support the women and children around him (either in his house or, thanks to modern governmental policies, around the entire country). Would such a film be celebrated? Would it spawn an entire line of merchandise praising men's desire for sexual variety? Would it be the subject of continuous and serious discussion on television talk shows? Would it motivate anyone to lament that men's desires have been ignored for too long? I don't think so. A man who loses himself in porn is viewed as pathetic and irresponsible. Personally, I view women who lose themselves in porn the exact same way, and it's rather funny to notice how unpopular my evenhanded approach is.

The blockbuster popularity of Fifty Shades tells us something even more important: feminism was a lie, or more to the point, a shit test. For you sad sacks who actually believed women wanted equality and who treated them as equals, the joke's on you. You now have irrefutable proof that the vast majority of women prefer to be objects rather than subjects; that they think less of you for your having thought more of them; and that they look either up to you or down on you. Practically every generation of men from the dawn of time up until the Baby Boomers knew this, and it's amazing that so many men forgot it so quickly. It dovetails with the emergence of pop culture and the destruction of actual culture, but you can thank Fifty Shades for a much-needed smack in the face.

As for feminism, it will continue despite Fifty Shades because there will always be a contingent of women who cannot directly manipulate men into provisioning them, so they must commandeer government machinery to obtain such provision by force. And feminism remains popular even among those women who clearly do not live a feminist lifestyle, since the welfare state gives them the provisioning of a civilized "beta" without their having to stoop to sharing a bed with one.

Some have expressed concern about the abusive relationship portrayed in Fifty Shades, but there is nothing unusual or surprising about this aspect of the fantasy. Consider Ray Rice, the NFL football player who was caught on camera knocking out his fiancée. Many people have reacted with confusion that she decided to go ahead and marry him. What they fail to appreciate is that she has a man who 1) is prone to act violently, and 2) whose violence she can trigger. He might own her physically, but she owns him mentally and emotionally, which is far greater and more intoxicating. A worse offense than abuse in her eyes -- one that surely would have motivated her to leave -- is if he didn't let her push his buttons. Violence and outbursts show that he "cares."

I watch all of this with amused detachment. Many men are retreating into video games and Internet porn, while many women are retreating into trashy novels and films, and society keeps sliding back into entropy. I and the rest of us who retain our sanity are the beneficiaries of the Chinese proverb, "may you live in interesting times."

Obama Amnesty Provides Further Insight Into Leftist Dementia

Vox has a good post today explaining the logical consequences of Obama's refusal to enforce the law regarding immigration, such as how a future president could just as easily refuse to prosecute tax dodgers. Granted, I have a great deal of sympathy for tax dodgers, but the point is that Obama abhors them and, when asked point blank in an interview, could not grasp that he had laid a foundation to help them.

This prompted me to make a comment about the nature of leftism that I thought was worth sharing here:

True. Leftists and other barbarians often commit the fallacy of ceteris paribus, or assuming that everything else will remain equal after they've "fixed" whatever they're obsessing over at the moment.

They want to invite foreigners into this country, but never consider that too many will transform the country rather than the foreigners. They want to re-distribute wealth to those in need, but never consider that this will discourage wealth creation and encourage more poverty. They want federal courts to nullify state and local laws they dislike, but never consider that this empowers federal courts to do a host of other things they hate.

The essence of leftism is juvenilism and magical thinking. What's worse, leftists rarely learn from failure but rather cry out that they need even more power to fix everything. 

Think about this in any number of other contexts, and you know it's true. Leftists lack the maturity to grasp reality and conform their actions to it, so they demand that reality change -- usually through brute force, but just as often through the corruption of language (e.g., "racism," "misogyny," "marriage," "family," "equality," ad nauseam). 

Obama Amnesty Speech And The Ongoing Assault On America

Obama committed an impeachable offense on live camera by proclaiming that he would not enforce federal law pertaining to the migration and deportation of foreigners who are illicitly squatting on American soil. This "man" took an oath to discharge his duties to execute the laws and uphold the Constitution, but he is an oath-breaker. His perfidy is matched only by those who tolerate or support his behavior.

Despite my best efforts to avoid listening to this interloper give his amnesty speech, I recently caught snippets of it and had to fight the urge to vomit. We are to believe that America has no ethnic, cultural, or religious history or identity whatsoever, but rather that America is the product of the entire world and held together merely by the ideals of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. These are lies.

If all it takes is devotion to an ideal to make people free and prosperous, there is no need for them to come here  -- they can achieve freedom and prosperity at home while sparing our schools, hospitals, prisons, infrastructure, and environmental quality. The truth, as proved by Obama's own ridiculous assertion, is that America's founding and ideals are the products of a specific people and not readily transferable to foreign lands or peoples. American ideals are exceptional rather than universal. Most people the world over are weak, depraved, dependent, and yearn for strong leaders to provide for and control them. Once again, Obama helps prove this by his frequent denunciations of the Constitution's limitations and his unrelenting assault on the rule of law, which resonate strongly with the faux Americans in our midst and the new ones Obama hopes to engineer. What IS universal is the desire to gorge on the fruits of my ancestors' legacy while ignoring or destroying the tree that grows them. Amnesty, like Obama himself, is an affront to everyone who struggled to build a nation governed by laws rather than men. God only knows how many more rapes, robberies, and murders will occur in the wake of this outrage.

What will it take for people to understand that the modern federal government is a lawless engine of societal destruction? A nation without borders is no longer a nation, and a government that gives aid and comfort to invaders is treasonous. THE NATION IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT. The government is merely an institution created by the nation for a specific and narrow purpose. Now far exceeding its mandate and threatening the nation's very survival, the government must be retired, just as described in the Declaration of Independence.

Observation For The Day

I don't spend much time commenting on daily news because, for the most part, it's a tired manifestation of deeper principles being played out over and over again. There is nothing new under the sun, so I prefer to focus on principles themselves, which give you the tools to understand the various and sundry goings-on in everyday life. 

On that score, I'd like to draw attention to the principle of doublethink, or the simultaneous holding of contradictory beliefs. Orwell identified doublethink as an essential feature of totalitarianism because, after all, consistent application of principles is a major hindrance to the arbitrary exercise of power. Doublethink is all around us today because most people no longer have any principles, have lost the ability to engage in abstraction, and have welcomed totalitarian government as a cure-all for the problems they refuse to confront themselves.

Today's example of doublethink concerns race.

At jury selection during trial, an attorney has a small number of "peremptory challenges" allowing him to dismiss a potential juror without giving a reason. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has declared that an attorney may not use a peremptory challenge to dismiss a potential juror solely on the basis of race, the rationale being that it is unjust to assume that the race of a person will influence his decision-making. Now, it makes little sense to continue using the word "peremptory" for something that clearly is not, and it makes even less sense to prohibit an attorney from supposedly harming his own case with blind prejudice -- after all, if the prejudice is wrong, it will be washed out by experience and attorney self-interest. But doublethink intrudes and demands that this charade continue.

Compounding the intellectual corruption is the Voting Rights Act, which mandates the creation of "majority-minority" districts on the assumption that minorities will demonstrate predictable and uniform behavior, i.e., vote for one of their own rather than on pure merit. So the very thing prohibited at trial is demanded at election time, and for the same ostensible reason of guaranteeing minorities' rights. This is doublethink on steroids.

The real reason, of course, is to increase federal power. By crippling the right of litigants to select a jury, and by crippling the right of citizens in each state to organize their own elections, the federal government retains constant discretion and control over us.

Pierce the fog of doublethink and learn to perceive and apply principles with ruthless consistency. Otherwise stated, free your mind and your posterior will follow.

The Subtext Lurking Beneath Misandrist Television Commercials

This is only one of countless television commercials portraying fathers (and more generally, men) as hopeless idiots who couldn't survive without the practical, wise hand of a female to guide them.

On the surface, everyone appears to know why these commercials exist and why they never portray women in such an insulting manner. Women do most of the shopping and spend most of the money, so it's only natural that advertising would cater to them. Men's rights activists (MRAs) get upset about this and point out that a pecuniary rationale would never protect a misogynistic commercial from a swift and shrill outcry from the XX-chromosome cohort. This argument, however correct, never goes anywhere because of a harsh fact: many (or at least enough) fathers and men ARE hopeless idiots who rely on women to steer them through life. This gives the commercials sufficient legitimacy despite their exaggerated nature. Besides, society expects men to take abuse with a stiff upper lip whereas it indulges the endless and fickle demands of women, so men should just get over it and shut up.

Thus ends the public's dialogue on the subject, which is where my interest begins.

First, it's fascinating to note just how much scorn and resentment women -- in the West, anyway -- appear to harbor toward men. To be so saturated with contempt that even something as ordinary as a television commercial must appeal to it is incredible, and not very flattering. Apparently it's a losing strategy for companies to market socks, diapers, detergents, or car insurance to women on the products' merits alone. No, the companies must stimulate the man-hating sentiment or lose out. If I'm wrong and there is no such widespread hatred for men, women should feel just as insulted by these commercials. After all, while the men in the commercials are directly portrayed as idiots, the women television viewers are indirectly portrayed as bitter harpies and hags who enjoy this stuff. Yet these commercials are continually made, so I suspect they work and that the hatred is real. I also suspect that my noticing it makes me a misogynist, but then again, everything does.

Second, and deeper, is what I perceive as a level of comfort that most people -- men and women -- derive from insulting portrayals of men. This is how men are supposed to be. Whatever scorn women might have for the horny doofus, it is nothing compared to the scorn they have for a man who won't fit this mold, who is intelligent, refined, well-dressed, or considerate. Such a man might not need her to tell him what to do! And maybe she's not nearly as smart as she thinks she is! Well, he must be gay then (just as Kevin Kline's refined character eventually discovered in the film In & Out). Most men are equally swift to condemn as "fags" any men who dare to wander off the plantation this way. Like Uncle Tom, most men wish to keep their masters happy, and the sight of a man who defines himself by something other than women terrifies them.

Republicans Triumph, And The Band Plays On

The Republicans have achieved incredible gains in the mid-term elections. Now imagine all the wonderful things they can do once they have a Republican president! They can finally implement all their small-government ideas and bring us closer to the Constitution as written.

Or not. We've been down this road before, and in recent memory: from 2001 to 2007 the Republicans owned all three branches of government and did as much to destroy the Constitution and America, in as little time, as the Democrats could dream of in their perverted fantasies.

No matter how many times the two major parties toss power back and forth in their little Kabuki dance, most everyone watches in rapt attention on the belief that every exchange signals a new dawn. Yet nothing ever changes. Government continues its steady march toward the total state; it continues spending ever larger amounts than it can afford; it continues operating ever further beyond the boundaries of the Constitution; and the Titanic continues sinking as the band plays on.

There's No Denying It

America is past the point of redemption, at least in its current form. Just read this story about some course offerings at Harvard University, two of which are "What What In The Butt: Anal Sex 101" and "Fifty Shades Of False: Kink, Fantasy, and Fetish." So even America's "elite" universities are churning out thugs and idiots incapable of maintaining civilization. To add insult to injury, they are doing it with my tax dollars, yet another unconstitutional aspect of modern times.

My favorite analogy is to a massive star on the verge of collapse. At a certain point the star crosses a threshold where its core can no longer generate nuclear reactions giving off a net positive of energy; as soon as it begins producing heavier elements (starting with iron), all reactions are a net energy loss, and gravity ultimately wins the battle as the star collapses and explodes. We too are no longer capable of producing people/elements that add to America's lifespan. We produce more takers than creators, more dependent fools than independent educated, and more degenerate scum than morally upright. Look at and listen to the majority of people you run into on a daily basis, and it's undeniable.

Modern America is deeply invested in failure. It is now part of the national DNA, found in virtually every corrupt notion or premise that Americans carry around in their heads, and no amount of browbeating or electioneering can change it. It will run its course, and the job of the remnant is to preserve what is good from the chaos swirling around us.

Enough Of This Pope

When not exhorting Catholics to abandon 2000 years of collective wisdom on a variety of important matters, the current Pope made this asinine comment: "caring for the poor does not make you a communist." Nobody ever said it does, and this defensive reaction is political rather than theological.

What makes someone a communist is browbeating for governments to re-distribute more and more wealth among private citizens, whether to "help the poor" or any other noble-sounding endeavor that is meant to immunize this despicable activity from criticism.  Communist fellow travelers will reflexively spout that there is no such thing as a communist government, since communism represents the stateless society. But how did Marx instruct/predict that communism would be achieved? By growing the state to obscene proportions as an engine to annihilate civil society and all the traditions, beliefs, and "superstitions" holding mankind back from this purely rational and stateless society. Nobody has ever figured out how the state will suddenly vanish after becoming all-powerful, but the allure of Marx is for weak minds unwilling or unable to grasp the constraints of reality.  

Noble ends do not justify ignoble means. To believe they do is to embrace evil, and it is revolting to witness Peter's heir championing such belief. Nothing Christ ever said encouraged using government force to improve people's condition, not spiritually and certainly not materially, the latter having no relevance to Christ's kingdom.

Another Federal Court Shreds The Constitution In The Name Of Gay Marriage

Barely a day goes by that I don't read another story wherein a sanctimonious misfit on a federal court commands the citizens of a state to endorse gay marriage even though they have chosen not to. The most recent instance is from Alaska, to the delight of all those who see themselves as tolerant and right-thinking.

The issue is not gay marriage or whether you're in favor of it. The issue is the Constitution and whether you're in favor of that. It is impossible to read the Constitution or consider the genesis of any of its provisions and conclude that the citizens of a state have no choice but to endorse gay marriage. Right or wrong, the Constitution since its inception allowed states to discourage or even punish homosexual conduct. Only by an amendment or a convention, as outlined in Article V, may the Constitution be altered so radically as to abolish those sorts of laws or require gay marriage.

There are plenty of state laws that I despise and would gladly see overturned, whether they involve asset forfeiture, no-fault divorce, occupational licensing, zoning, minimum-drinking ages, and so on. But here's the thing: I'm mature and intelligent enough not to ask federal officials to intervene and grant my wishes. Only a useful idiot thinks he's advancing the cause of liberty by entreating a single, large government to "free" him from the abuses of multiple, small ones. And only an enemy of the Constitution thinks it's fine and dandy for federal officials to ignore the amendment process and grant themselves the awesome power to modify the Constitution as they see fit. That power belongs to us, not to them, yet so many of you cheer your own disenfranchisement for a few pieces of silver.

Anyone who supports the Alaska decision also supports the federal war on drugs, extraordinary renditions or assassinations of American citizens, undeclared wars, and countless other activities that are clearly unconstitutional yet persist because federal officials have re-imagined what the Constitution allows. You're not tolerant. You're not right-thinking. You're dictatorial and suicidal.

I'm A Cat Person

Though I've always loved dogs, lately I've come to realize that I'm more of a cat person and will likely get a cat if I ever own a pet again. Whenever I meet a new cat, it likes me, and the owner is often surprised because the cat usually doesn't like anyone. I bring this up not because it's late and I have nothing better to talk about; the distinction between dog people and cat people is somewhat interesting and worth pausing to observe.

Dogs are wonderful and fun, but far too needy for my taste. Like the cat, I'm the sort of man who does his own thing and doesn't really care what everyone else is up to. I don't play status games or try to prove myself; I don't have to, since I know I'm good at pretty much whatever I do and feel comfortable in my own skin. I am independent and don't yearn for someone else to give me meaning. Some of my greatest challenges in life stem from my expectation that the people around me will be the same, but this is rarely the case. Most people are dog people because they are insecure and crave constant affirmation; having a loving, slavish creature at their side makes them feel safer, less alone, or something.

When I hang out with a cat, it senses our similarities. We don't "need" each other or make incessant demands. For example, when I first meet a cat I don't bother approaching him, but rather I respect his space and let him decide when to approach me. Each of us is a completed being who chooses to share our time with whomever we wish and on our own terms. We are equals who can interact or do our own thing, and it doesn't matter either way. This is not to say there's no affection. To the contrary, there's a great deal of it precisely because it is given out of free will rather than merely through instinct or compulsion.  

So while I enjoy playing with dogs, I think I would truly enjoy living with a cat. Someday.

From Christianity Back To Paganism

Here is another (rough) chapter from my book project, this time shedding light on my frequent use of the word "pagan" or "neo-pagan" to describe modern Western man. Congratulations if you can make it through the whole thing, and enjoy.

Christianity has served as the defining and unifying feature of Western civilization since the latter days of the Roman Empire. Though Christianity has changed in multiple ways since then, at its core resides the belief that God dwelt among us in the flesh and accepted earthly death in order to achieve and provide everlasting life. No one can understand Western civilization, or America, without also understanding this.

While it is not in vogue to say so, America began as a Christian nation, specifically a Protestant one. Denouncing the Catholic Church as having grown worldly, extravagant, and corrupt, Protestants declared their independence in the sixteenth century and stripped the faith to its essentials. The Bible contained the unvarnished word of God accessible to all, without need for clerical intermediaries. Iconography, pageantry, and even architecture were spurned (and often destroyed) as distracting the mind from the things of God and toward the things of man. So uncompromising and severe was the Protestant spirit that it did not rest on its laurels upon achieving doctrinal independence. Protestants continued to fight against lingering signs of Catholicism around them, notably within the Church of England. Facing persecution, the most devout Protestants soon decided that the only way they could truly practice their faith was to flee a corrupt society and establish a godly one in the New World. Against all odds they did it, crossing an ocean and scratching out an existence in an alien and hostile land. Their grit and drive for independence achieved ultimate victory in their descendants’ revolution against the British Crown, completing the independence of the English-speaking New World from the Old and paving the way for a bold experiment in human affairs: individual freedom nourished by individual responsibility. (Latin America, unfortunately, would come to represent an extension of the Old World rather than a repudiation of it.) The American political system was the natural continuation of the Protestant’s unquenchable thirst for a righteous and self-guided life, made plain by the Declaration of Independence when stating that we are endowed by our Creator with unalienable rights, and that no government may dishonor them. While it’s true that the Constitution established a secular form of government, the nation to be governed was thoroughly Protestant and undertook the democratic experiment as an expression of the Protestant character. It is no accident that as Protestant faith and culture have withered, so have the institutions and liberties once sustained by them.

But whatever distinctions might separate Protestantism from Catholicism, these pale in comparison to the seismic rift between Christianity and what preceded it. This was an even greater revolution in human affairs, vital to almost everything we take for granted today but often fail to remember or appreciate. What might seem ancient history is in fact crucial to current events because paganism is re-asserting itself, threatening to burn the very civilization built on its ashes.

Most people imagine ancient paganism as merely the worship of nature and a pantheon of multiple gods. While paganism certainly incorporated these elements, it signified much more, a mindset hostile to the Christian conception of life and our place in the universe.

The pagan existed entirely in a world of flesh and matter. Reality consisted solely of what is seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or touched, with death representing a bleak end (unless one achieved sufficient exploits to be remembered among the living). Pagan gods, though immortal, were physical and displayed human foibles such as lust, deceit, and avarice, all of which made it rather easy for a Roman emperor such as Caligula to declare himself one. Their strength and beauty made the gods noble despite their pettiness; strength and beauty connoted good, while weakness and ugliness connoted evil. There being nothing beyond what is perceived, questions of truth and justice were just those: questions, not reality. Pontius Pilate’s famous words to Jesus – “What is truth?” – were mockery rather than inquiry. Right and wrong were inherently meaningless to the pagan; there were winners and losers, powerful and weak, gods and humans. The rich and powerful were, by their very status, righteous. Slavery struck the pagan as a natural arrangement whereby the inferior served the superior. The pagan was savage in warfare, mercy being a sign of weakness. Personality (how others perceive you) counted for more than character (what you carry within you). The individual existed only in relation to society, whose governing mechanisms were totalitarian and permeated daily life. Faith consisted of elaborate rituals and open displays of respect for the gods; being perceptive rather than reflective, pagans viewed the early Christians as “atheists” for refusing to genuflect before statues and idols, failing to grasp the transcendental nature of their beliefs.

In summary, the pagan believed that might makes right and that the ends justify the means.

Christianity differs from paganism as day from night. Belief in a single God is an obvious feature shared with Judaism, but Christianity goes further in its rupture from the pagan outlook. Pagans as well as the God of the Old Testament prized earthly victory; in contrast, Jesus Christ and the God of the New Testament bring victory over and above the Earth. The Earth is not the sum total of existence, rather a pale imitation of the ideal world whose spark we all carry within us. Being aware of the ideal, we have a duty to exercise our free will to embrace it and resist our lower, earthly appetites as manifested in sin. Earthly fortunes are completely irrelevant to truth and righteousness. There is one eternal right and one wrong, neither of which depends on earthly status or circumstance. What is within us makes us noble and righteous, not how strong, wealthy, or esteemed we might be. A prince may be wrong while a pauper may be right. By the same measure, an entire empire may be wrong while a destitute carpenter may be right. This is the most liberating concept ever to gain hold in human affairs: the acknowledgment of a universal standard that all are equally accountable to uphold. From the pagan perspective, Jesus was a loser because he meekly surrendered to be tortured and crucified, leaving the Romans in control of earthly affairs. The pagan cannot grasp that Jesus’ victory was spiritual, and thus far greater.

Jesus demonstrated that it is better to sacrifice life in the service of truth, than to sacrifice truth in the service of life. 

By doing this we achieve a higher form of life that is everlasting, as Jesus’ resurrection illustrated. This simple lesson was the key to a new world where might does not make right, but rather where everyone is endowed with a soul and possesses fundamental rights that cannot be disregarded by anyone, high or low.

Other notable aspects of Christianity abound. Mercy and forgiveness show strength, not weakness. To be worldly is degrading; to be in the world, but not of it, is ennobling. Neither displays of piety, strict adherence to rituals, nor good works can make you righteous if, internally, you are vile. The health of your body has no bearing on the health of your soul. The ends do not justify the means. And there are fates far worse than death.

These fundamental notions have informed Western civilization – once known as Christendom – and powered its astonishing success. It is precisely because Western man fixed his gaze beyond the Earth that he proved so capable of mastering it. Rather than squeeze as much personal utility as possible out of a short life, he took the long view and sought to better himself in preparation for the afterlife, practicing virtues such as chastity, fidelity, patience, frugality, mercy, and overall self-restraint. Rather than be trapped in a world of the senses, he unlocked his mind to pursue the unseen and the ideal in all things, revealing invisible secrets of life and the universe. And rather than leave earthly authorities with absolute power to declare what is right and true with every passing season, he undertook a bold mission to understand and uphold what is right and true, demanding that those with authority submit to them. All of these beliefs translate into sound economics, scientific inquiry, limited government, the rule of law, and beauty. The cathedrals, sculptures, songs, paintings, drama, and literature inspired by the Christian mind are exquisite and timeless because they attempt to capture that timeless, ideal world where the Christian yearns to return to. “Why is the heart of a Christian heavy?” queried St. Augustine. “Because he is a pilgrim, and longs for his country.” The pagan smugly basks in the world; the Christian humbly strives to transcend it and, paradoxically, has achieved greater success than any pagan of the ancient world could imagine.

Modern American life has grown increasingly alienated from, and hostile to, Christianity. This is largely the product of scientific and technological wonders that entice us to believe that few mysteries remain and that we can create heaven here on Earth. Though this is often touted as secularism, in truth it signals a return to the worldly and materialistic perspective of pagans, a dynamic that reaches far beyond those particular groups who identify themselves as such.

The revolt against Christianity takes multiple forms, some apparent and others subtle.

On the apparent side, the entire weight of the law and popular culture has been brought to bear against the public expression of Christianity. In a string of decisions beginning in the 1940s, the United States Supreme Court set to building a “wall of separation” between church and state even though nothing in the Constitution requires it. The First Amendment prohibits only Congress from making laws establishing a religion; the States are left free to handle religion however their citizens see fit, and several States went so far as to support official churches for decades after the Constitution’s adoption. As with much of the Bill of Rights, the Court has taken the Fourteenth Amendment – enacted after the Civil War to prohibit States from depriving ex-slaves and their descendants of equal protection or due process of law – and turned it into a weapon for perpetually reviewing and vetoing state laws of which the political class disapproves. Neither the language nor the history of the Fourteenth Amendment calls for such an inversion of the constitutional order, and the framers of that Amendment would become physically sick if they bore witness to how the courts have eviscerated Christianity and American life in their names. It is virtually impossible to say a prayer, wear a cross, display a nativity scene, or even mention Jesus in the public square without inviting a petulant and expensive lawsuit. More and more often the private decisions in regard to hiring, firing, and leasing are coming under attack if founded on religious sentiment. The effects of this scorched-earth campaign are particularly damaging in public schools, where America’s traditions and heritage are bleached of any religious sentiment, thereby alienating new generations from the past and destroying cultural continuity. Piling onto the destruction is “pop” culture, which wages a relentless war against Christians by mocking and insulting them at every turn. Most Americans now come of age almost entirely ignorant of the crucial role that Christianity plays in Western civilization and their own country’s founding; to the extent they are aware of Christianity, such awareness consists of fear and loathing. Anyone who lives his life strictly according to Christianity, and especially anyone who makes value judgments or life choices on that basis, is now a pariah.

Christianity faces another apparent threat no less sinister than its avowed enemies, and perhaps even more so: its practitioners. Having discarded the demanding message to resist this world and strive for the perfection of the next, modern Christians gorge on a saccharine recipe for making themselves at home in the world and deriving maximum benefit from it.

With the Second Vatican Council of the 1960s the Catholic Church signaled an accelerated and unmistakable preoccupation with worldly affairs, reforming the Church to water down its doctrines and make them more palatable to modern, secular tastes. The “cafeteria Catholics” of the United States profess full faith yet dabble in contraception, abortion, fornication, divorce, or any number of other activities that clearly deviate from Church doctrine. Doubling down on these trends, the current Pope has sought and achieved worldly acclaim by denouncing economic freedom, calling for the forcible re-distribution of wealth, and suggesting that the Church takes no position on those who lead a homosexual lifestyle. In so doing, he has rebuked the Ten Commandments and endorsed the sin of avarice to elevate man’s material condition over his spiritual one, and he also has implicitly endorsed a lifestyle that the Church always has viewed as spiritual poison. In a stunning display of capitulation to worldly trends, the University of Notre Dame (a nominally Catholic institution) refused to recognize a student group that identified itself as favoring traditional marriage, i.e., the only kind recognized since the Church’s founding.

As for Protestants – whose refusal to compromise with the world once motivated them to break with the Catholic Church and strike out across oceans and continents – they have grown as cozy with the world as pigs in slop. Points of doctrine have been compromised to maintain popular appeal, again whether it’s fornication, abortion, homosexuality, divorce, or more and more frequently, female pastors. Protestant “mega-churches” draw thousands of members to hear that God loves them no matter what they think or do. Gone are the sternness and simplicity of Protestantism's early days, which once reminded believers of their fallen nature and encouraged them to ignore their surroundings in order to focus on the transcendent. Perhaps the epitome of modern American “worship” is Saddleback Church, a lavish religious theme park that entices the senses with every modern contrivance and guarantees that nobody attending will experience a moment of self-criticism or contemplation. The overt goal is to make people comfortable and happy, not to call them to account or help them understand that pain is an inextricable feature of earthly existence. Rick Warren, who heads the church, shares Pope Francis’s penchant for getting along in the world and fixating on man’s material condition, and he has improved his own quite considerably. This refusal to denounce or even grapple with sin might feed the body, but it leaves the soul starving. And the only people whom modern American Christianity routinely denounces are its founders, namely heterosexual men. Fearful of criticizing women, pastors blame every relationship failure on men, re-inventing Genesis to portray Eve as free of sin or of responsibility for her actions. Divorce now supposedly results from the husband’s sinful refusal to lead his wife, but never from the wife’s sinful refusal to submit to her husband. Men are browbeaten to improve themselves and marry regardless of women's suitability for marriage, while women are never instructed to keep themselves suitable.

Christianity is therefore under assault from enemies within and without. But the return to paganism is far broader and deeper, an entire sense of life better suited to the days before Christ. This sense wears a thousand faces but is unified in its insistence that the here and now is all that matters.

Modern man believes himself too sophisticated for God, but in fact he is too primitive. A renewed pantheon of physical gods captivates the senses and has replaced the transcendent God who captivated the soul. Now soulless, man embraces tangible gods such as celebrities, politicians, scientists, and superheroes.

Celebrities such as musicians, actors, and professional athletes lead a godlike existence of rapt attention, if not outright worship, from the mundanes who crave to be in their midst. The widespread hunger for their wealth and fame bespeaks a profound fear that there is no hereafter, and that only through earthly exploits and notoriety can one achieve significance or even meaning. This was the same perspective shared by the ancients. In the eyes of God, you are unique and eternal because you have a soul. In the eyes of the renewed pagan, you are unique and eternal if you have admirers or, in Internet parlance, “followers.”

Politicians also have achieved godlike status because of a distorted social compact that now charges government with preserving life at all costs, even at the expense of liberty and justice. This compact manifests most clearly in the ritual plunder by the welfare state, which regards theft as honorable if done to feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, or care for the sick. Such crimes are no less offensive if done pursuant to a vote, and likely even more so. Especially offensive is when the perpetrators of these crimes invoke Christ as their guide, for Christ instructed how to live through the exercise of your free will – not how to force others to live through demolishing theirs. Socialism grows all the more attractive to a spiritually-impoverished people who find it praiseworthy that government shreds principles to rescue the flesh, and the supreme irony is that the end result is both spiritual and material poverty. Even short of socialism, the regulations that pervade all aspects of our lives in the vain quest to preserve life accomplish only the destruction of it in any meaningful sense. A life worth living is free and fraught with danger, each of us tasked with taking responsibility for his choices; modern life is slavish and prophylactic, with the politician assuming responsibility for everything under the sun. The obscene power and worship surrounding the modern presidency in particular represents a rebuke to every noble Christian impulse that once animated American life, a life where the president was a distant prefect rather than a ubiquitous Olympian. This phenomenon likely has its roots in the Civil War, which baptized in blood the new religion whereby a president is “great” only insofar as he destroys life, liberty, and property in the name of a lofty objective. Presidents today live beyond the reach of law and increasingly implement their will through unilateral action, with no pretense of constitutional process. But such tyranny gratifies modern pagans, who crave a supreme leader with the ability to take swift and decisive action unhindered by laws or principles. Indeed, most people today prefer to be ruled by gods, than to rule themselves in accordance with God.

And of course there are scientists, the priestly class whose supposed mastery of the physical world makes them the final authority on all issues of importance. But a serious problem with modern science is that it has abandoned the spirit of inquiry, innovation, or the earnest and objective pursuit of facts. Such values are transcendent by their very nature, and modern scientists lack transcendence as much as everyone else, falling into a dogmatism that prizes consensus over inquiry; government funding over market risk; and peer review over original thought. Legitimate questions surrounding anthropogenic global warming, infant vaccination, the theory of evolution, racial and sexual distinctions, DDT, and a host of other subjects are deemed closed to all analysis or discussion. Another serious problem with modern science is its pretension of disproving religious questions or rendering them unimportant. Science can tell us what atoms are made of, not why. Science can tell us what is lethal, not when it is just to kill. Science can tell us how the human fetus grows, not whether or when it is just to abort it. Despite this clear distinction between questions of fact and questions of ultimate truth, scientists increasingly presume to tell us what public policies to adopt and what personal beliefs to espouse. This reflects yet again a pagan view that all things great and small may be reduced to matter, defying the existence of the immaterial soul or of eternal truth. Once again, though, modern man is all too happy to entrust scientists and their cousins, the “experts,” with answering the questions that we have grown too lazy to contemplate for ourselves. Whether it's science, economics, public policy, or even the care of his own children, modern man thus surrenders his duty as a being crafted in God's image to ascertain the truth, now believing himself only a mass of flesh who lacks the ability to grasp truth in the manner claimed by the credentialed gods who speak to him through the television set.

Even the modern fascination with superheroes betrays a pagan outlook. Here we have a godlike figure – or Messiah, if you will – who does not meekly surrender the flesh to preserve the soul, but rather brazenly wields supernatural powers to crush his enemies and keep everyone safe from physical harm. It makes no difference what sort of existence the protected lead, so long as the superhero is there to ensure that they can continue living unmolested. As such, the superhero does not challenge people or motivate them to resist the evil lurking within; quite the opposite, as the superhero vindicates people's natural prejudice to believe that evil lurks only without, particularly in the form of monsters or supervillains who threaten to disrupt their tranquil and unexamined lives. The popular superhero Thor drops all pretense and struts about as an actual pagan god who overcomes adversity with his invincible hammer, thus satisfying the test of godhood demanded by Caiaphas at the crucifixion. Most likely, the modern deification of the military – even to the point of honoring the flag and the uniform within the sacred confines of the church – has its roots in the worship of the superhero, who protects the body rather than the soul.

Popular culture’s similar fascination with vampires and their superhuman strength, beauty, and immortality reveals yet another elevation of pagan virtues over Christian ones. The love story presented in the Twilight series of books and movies is better described as a lust story, relegating the deep spiritual bond between husband and wife to a superficial physical bond of animals in perpetual heat – the vampire “loves” the woman because she smells good, while the woman “loves” the vampire because he is strong and beautiful.

We also have a new morality that, once again, regards the physical as the measure of all things. A Christian understands that a healthy body is no substitute for an unhealthy soul, and that the words coming out of a man's mouth are far more important than the food or drink going into it. Today we have regressed to the pagan notion that physical health equates to purity and goodness. This makes sense because it’s much easier. The adulteress who never touches a cigarette is considered superior to the faithful wife who smokes. The man who hops from one woman’s bed to another is considered moral so long as he scrupulously wears a condom and gets routine checks for STDs. The vulgar vegetarian is considered superior to the gentleman carnivore. Thus modern man displays a sort of Puritanic barbarism, i.e., the insistence that we are animals and must be healthy and vigorous ones at that. Questions of honor likewise take a back seat to physical safety; whereas dueling once typified a manly culture where honor must be paid with life if necessary, now even a boxing match can’t take place without government approval and extensive safety precautions.

The fixation on the physical again manifests itself in the exploding popularity of tattoos and piercings, whose history in the West was once limited to various seedy subcultures. Now that actual culture has been wiped out by the steady onslaught of artificial sounds and images from the Great Stereopticon, people venture to obtain ever more bizarre tattoos and piercings in a desperate attempt to find meaning and announce to the world that they are unique. There being no invisible or eternal God, there is no invisible or eternal self, only what the transitory denizens of the world can see.

Environmentalism is yet another facet of this obsession with the physical world, a refusal to come to grips with our and the planet's mortality. There being no eternity for the pagan, Earth represents the only possible heaven, so he demands that it be kept pristine as if the Garden of Eden. Once again, this demand flattens all competing concerns of human liberty or dignity, which have no meaning for the pagan, and whose only measuring stick is flesh. Since we are all "animals," we have no greater claim to exist than do snail darters or spotted owls, and the full force of governments worldwide may be harnessed to prevent man from exercising his free will. Ignored is that the random violence of nature and the cosmos inflicts far more damage than man could ever match, and that Earth will burn to a crisp as the Sun continually swells. Such truths, however, are distant and abstract; in the pagan’s mind they cannot compete with the flocks of birds, pods of whales, or herds of buffalo in his immediate line of sight. Epitomizing this myopic outlook is the 2014 film Noah starring Russell Crowe, which re-interprets man's sinfulness as disrespect for the planet rather than disobedience to God.

Then there is the obsession with youth. What is young, fresh, or hip matters more than anything old or out of style. The elderly now pathetically mimic the dress, habits, and slang of the young in order to remain relevant to modern minds. Wisdom gained through age is discounted as an obstacle or inconvenience to the demands of here and now, with the young declaring themselves independent from the past and immune to the lessons of history. While the young always have felt this way, it is a recent phenomenon that society indulges this hubris and allows it to flourish, so much so that it has now assumed the status of public policy. The 1960s saw the most privileged and pampered generation in history curse its ancestors and seize the power of the state to eradicate all lingering unfairness from life, in the process bringing us to ruin. The abject failure of the Baby Boomers hasn't slowed them one bit; to the contrary, they gnaw at the remaining sinews of law, tradition, and decorum on the belief that they are all that separate us from Nirvana, unleashing a feral leftism that seeks out heretics more fervidly and efficiently than the Spanish Inquisition. The personal is political, mirroring the ancients' incapacity for imagining a private life apart from the public sphere.

The new pagan religion of leftism holds that earthly health and happiness are of supreme importance, and that any means are justified to preserve them. The worst fate imaginable is now death. “If it saves just one life” is the mantra uttered to demolish all concerns of liberty, dignity, justice, or the rule of law, life being paramount no matter how diminished or degraded. Adherence to universal, unbending principles that might stand in the way of earthly joy are now universally denounced as "bigoted," "intolerant," "reactionary," or any number of other epithets. Voicing the platitudes and striking the poses of leftism serve to provide automatic moral superiority over anyone daring to question them; failure to bow before modern pagan gods, or to follow pagan rituals, is condemned now just as it was in ancient Rome. At least the early Christians could seek refuge in catacombs; today there is no safe haven for the communal expression of Christian sentiment, except perhaps once a week in church, yet even there the world has barged in and demanded that the faithful conform to the world. Any Christian who expresses a sincere belief that men and women are fundamentally different and have different callings in life; or that homosexual conduct is sinful; or that sex should not occur outside of marriage; or that man was created rather than randomly evolved; or that Earth belongs to man; or that government cannot encroach upon our rights and duties under God, now does so at his own peril.

Other examples of the pagan mindset fill our modern landscape. We have lavish weddings, but fleeting and impoverished marriages. We treat sex as the highest, and perhaps the only, expression of love. Paradoxically, we regard sex as a mere recreational activity that any consenting persons can and should indulge in at any time. We have divorced the pursuit of wealth from the long-term mission to provide for families or to advance civilization, worshipping instead the thrill of conspicuous consumption, flaunting status and the trappings of wealth while discarding the personal refinement that once accompanied them. We live in the present, dismissing the past and ignoring the future. We regard what is beautiful as good and true, what is ugly as evil and false. We defy the very existence of goodness and truth, embracing a nihilistic postmodernism that declares that might indeed makes right. We show no mercy in war, destroying national sovereignty and attacking civilians in a quest to re-make the world in our image. We thump our chests and loudly demand that others respect us, forgetting that true respect is quietly commanded.

Looking into a modern man’s eyes reveals no nobility, no sense of higher purpose, no connection with fundamental truths and ideals, no shame . . . no soul. What we find instead is an animal devoted to the pursuit of pleasure and material gain, and on whom the great achievements of two thousand years of Christendom are entirely lost. The civilization this animal inhabits remains intact through sheer inertia, but the absence of a Christian sense of life guarantees its ongoing decay and eventual collapse. Perhaps only then, when the technological wonders and false gods of today crumble before his eyes, will he rediscover something more permanent and fundamental.

King For A Day

A comment to my recent post about the growing popularity of secession got me thinking -- I should consider the possibility that we are headed for a full-blown king/Caesar who will smother any secession attempt, at least for the near future. Though I remain confident that technology and the multi-ethnic fault lines in modern America are game changers, what would having a king be like?

Well, it might not be too bad. Hans-Hermann Hoppe explained why monarchy, for all its drawbacks, is preferable to democracy in his interesting book Democracy: The God That Failed. For one thing, there would no longer be the mass delusion that we govern ourselves; having an out-and-out king would clearly demarcate the people from the government. Moreover, at least there is a chance that a good man will be born into kingship, whereas NO chance exists that a good man will become president. The pressures of having to gratify the lowest common denominator and constantly alter one's stance make it impossible for men of character to ascend to high office in a democracy. Finally, kings have an incentive to be good rulers because the nation is their property, which they wish to preserve in good condition for their heirs. Politicians are lowly renters, who have little regard or long-term interest in the property under their fleeting care.

The historical record is pretty clear that kings, for all their faults, govern more wisely and frugally than democracies. America's own last king, George III, imposed taxes that were a micro-faction of the obscene imposts we have to deal with. No king ever plundered or slaughtered as many people as our glorious democracies have; it truly is a tragedy that World War I swept away the last serious monarchies and made the world "safe" for the rapacious form of government dominating the West now.

Only a king, for example, could impose any or all of a number of life-saving measures that the current American public would never vote for, such as the following:

• Shut down hundreds of foreign and domestic military bases, and pare back the military to its proper function, i.e., defending American territory.

• On that same score, seal the border with Mexico by any means necessary and repatriate ALL those who have entered America without advance permission.  

• Remove "birthright" citizenship, which is not authorized by the Constitution anyway. Only those whose parents are American citizens may be considered American citizens at birth.

• Abolish dual citizenship. Those who wish to become naturalized citizens already take an oath abjuring all allegiance to foreign powers, yet for some reason they are allowed to cling to their foreign citizenship and identities. End it and require people to be 100% or 0% American.

• Sever the relationship with Puerto Rico, stop sending tax money to it, and thrust it into independence.

• Terminate all governmental wealth transfers to private citizens, whether it's "bailouts," Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, unemployment compensation, or subsidies for any parasitic industry or academic endeavor. All tax money will be spent solely on government functions and compensation of services duly rendered to the government. Personal responsibility, freedom, innovation, wealth, and charity will explode.

• Eliminate employment laws, which interfere in freedom of contract and make running a business ridiculously expensive. People may hire and fire based on any criteria they wish. As for workplace safety, injuries, and the like, the tort system is more than adequate.

• Eliminate the Civil Rights Act, the Fair Housing Act, the Americans With Disabilities Act, and all other "civil rights" laws, which attack true civil rights such as freedom of contract, private property, and freedom of association.

• Eliminate the income tax, which is far easier when the government isn't spending nearly as much money. Raise revenues as our ancestors did, through tariffs, and accomplish the other noble goal of fostering domestic industry.

• Curtail endless criminal appeals by eliminating so-called habeas corpus review. True habeas corpus takes place when a court demands to review the legality of someone's incarceration. Most habeas corpus today, however, involves serial reviews of a full and fair trial and is not mandated by the Constitution. This allows the likes of Richard Ramirez to hang out on death row for 25 years and receive conjugal visits until dying of natural causes. One trial, one set of appeals, and that's it.

• Eliminate no-fault divorce or, at a minimum, make anyone filing for no-fault divorce presumptively ineligible for alimony, distribution of property, and child custody.

• Eliminate the Federal Reserve and return to a gold-based monetary system, thereby ending the bankers' stranglehold on the economy and the constant devaluation of the money supply.

• Eliminate public schools or, at a minimum, all governmental prescription of educational content.

Does all of this sound farfetched? It shouldn't. This is the way we were under George III and during the first century of our national existence. Incidentally, it's also when we were a growing, moral, and robust country, not a shrinking, debauched, and impoverished one.

More Annoyances

No grand introduction needed. Let's get to it.

• Anyone who exclaims, "it's 2014!" (or whatever year it currently is) to criticize something as unacceptable in our supposedly enlightened times. The object of criticism is usually a lingering vestige of freedom or sanity, such as a golf club that enforces its exclusive membership policy, or a football team whose decades-old name suddenly becomes offensive.

• On webpages allowing for comments, the near-universal default setting of "newest" comments first. The disregard for all things old extends even to here, despite the fact that it makes more sense to read a thread of comments chronologically.

• Invitations stating "please RSVP." Redundant.

• People who fail to grasp that when receiving an RSVP, it is necessary to respond even if they do not plan to attend.

• Anyone who justifies poor grammar or spelling by reaching back several centuries to find an obscure instance of it by someone such as James Boswell or Geoffrey Chaucer. Linguistic evolution is not the same as laziness or ignorance.

• People who cheat at pub trivia.

• In the same vein, pub trivia questions that give senior citizens an unfair advantage by inquiring into events within only their living memory. Ask about things that everyone has firsthand experience of, or of which nobody does. 

• The insistence on calling Indians "Native Americans." They are no more native than anyone else born here, as we all hail from other places and did not magically sprout from the ground. In point of fact, recent archaeology strongly suggests that the Indians were not the first ones to arrive, so they'll have to start calling other peoples "natives" by the metric they currently use. 

• In the same vein, anyone who attempts to dismiss concerns about the hordes of illegal aliens invading America by invoking the Indian experience. At least the Indians had the guts to fight back, which hardly supports rolling out a red carpet.

• The fact that there are no more quiet restaurants. If there isn't loud music or a television blaring, the nearby table full of hyenas will surely destroy any reflective or romantic moments.

• People who curse in public or in mixed company.

Excellent Observations On A Moribund Society

Butler Shaffer has written a stellar article describing the post-civilized savages who increasingly predominate in American life. He also pauses to discuss the Remnant, who retain our human qualities and lay the foundation for a new start after the deadwood has burnt to the ground.

1 In 4 Americans Open To Seceding From The United States

A propos of my last update regarding Scotland -- in which I noted that independence ultimately must be taken rather than requested -- a new poll shows that we are reaching a critical mass of Americans who are willing to secede from the Union. Notice that a critical mass is NOT a majority of the entire country, nor is it even a majority of a seceding state or territory. Rather, a critical mass is an unswerving and devoted minority not interested in compromise, an attitude that always trumps the lukewarm majority.

Independence fever is spreading, and not a moment too soon. A world of multiple, small, competing sovereignties is the only cure for all the ills brought on by imperial hubris.

Scotland Leads The Way To A Better World

Many of my ancestors were Scottish, which is more than a point of historical interest for me. It's a fundamental part of who I am: independent, frugal, stern, Protestant, and slow to anger but implacable when sufficiently provoked (Irish and Latin Americans are often quite the opposite, not merely with regard to their Catholicism, but especially in that they are quick to anger yet can laugh things off the next day -- wrong an Irishman or Latino and you may still wind up friends after swapping a few punches; wrong a Scotsman and you are dead, either in fact or in effect). My people played a major role in the settlement and eventual independence of America, not to mention the South's heroic attempt to remain independent when beset by an industrialized, vulgar, and soulless behemoth that declared jihad against the private slavery of some in order to establish public slavery of all. It's no accident that the St. Andrew's cross adorning the Scottish flag made its mark on behalf of the C.S.A.; the cross is a universal symbol for the uncompromising spirit of independence.

Scotland has been fused with the United Kingdom since 1707 -- longer than the United States has existed -- yet Scotland now is deciding whether to go its own way. Such deliberation is heroic even if it does not produce independence, for the message is that the Scots (and the rest of us) have an undeniable right to make this choice. As the United States and the European Union continue their obscene power-grabbing, more and more people will rightfully consider whether they want to remain a party to it. There is no patriotic duty for Scotland to meekly obey the smug elitists gathered in London or Brussels, who (along with their crony-capitalist friends) are all rather perturbed that a people would dare to consider ruling itself rather than answer to outsiders. Just the same, there is no patriotic duty for Americans to meekly obey the smug elitists gathered in Washington, D.C., whose reign is shorter than the U.K.'s and is now in flagrant violation of the very document (the Constitution) that created it. 

As I've said before, the mega-state is lashing out and growing more brazen precisely because it senses its legitimacy slipping away. Finding itself ever more deprived of oxygen, it scrambles wildly to breathe. For this reason things are poised to become even more repressive and violent in the near future, but this likely signals the grand finale of the nation-state that debuted at Westphalia in 1648. The age of centralization is drawing to a close. The age of decentralization -- with multiple, small, responsive, and humble governments that serve their societies rather than try to rule or transform them -- draws near.

Scotland is on the cutting edge of this revolution, and I hope it follows through. Even if it does not, we should thank Scotland for setting an example and devote ourselves more seriously to asking these questions for ourselves. Waving the Union Jack or the Stars and Stripes around just doesn't cut it anymore and will not shame everyone into silence.

UPDATE:

I've been following some of the debates surrounding the Scottish vote, and one argument against independence I keep running into is this: an independent Scotland would be even further to the left (i.e., less free) than if it remained in the UK. This argument is insidious, for independence and national self-determination are fundamental rights regardless of how wisely or unwisely a people chooses to govern itself. Gandhi smacked down the imperial argument in similar terms when struggling to liberate India from the Raj, explaining that whatever problems India had were for India alone to resolve. To assert that independence is warranted only for people who would govern themselves "properly" is a contradiction in terms, a denial of independence all together. Moreover, it repeats the rationalizations for centralized power that have plagued the United States since the Civil War. Following that massive deprivation of life and liberty in the name of freedom, federal courts have systematically interfered in local matters under the same pretense, destroying our sovereignty while claiming to do us a favor. I hasten to add that both "liberals" and "conservatives" have perpetrated these outrages against independence, running to federal court whenever a local rule or regulation displeases them.

If I had to choose between living in a world with a single libertarian government versus a world with hundreds of non-libertarian ones, I would choose the latter every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Why, especially considering that I prefer a libertarian government to a non-libertarian one? Because when the global libertarian government goes sour -- as it inevitably will -- there is nowhere to run. At least with multiple governments we have options, and the severity of harm any one such government could inflict pales in comparison to what a global government might do to us.

Bottom line, there can be no true or lasting freedom without independence.  

SECOND UPDATE:

It appears Scotland has chosen not to be independent for now, which is fine. What matters is that Scotland's and other nations' choices be honored either way, rather than held up as a casus belli to invade and repress. We have some experience with that here in the U.S., as do the Crimeans who wish to leave the Ukraine.

I should note in passing that America never would have gained independence from Great Britain had the matter been put to a popular vote, since the majority (as always) didn't want to upset the applecart. Even if a majority of Americans had voted to leave, it's unlikely that the Crown would complacently have accepted that outcome. When push comes to shove, independence is something that must be taken rather than requested.

What To Do About The Imperial Presidency?

It seems I'm not the only one who notices that Obama's unilateral declaration of war is illegal and dangerous. I've run into a story over at Time and another story at the New York Times. We already know what all this means: the rule of law is dead, and we are now faced with an elective emperor rather than a public servant. The question is what do we do about it? Here are a couple of ideas.

What should happen first and foremost is that the House of Representatives impeaches Obama for high crimes and misdemeanors, after which the Senate tries and convicts him of same, removing him from office and rendering him prone to criminal prosecution. But good luck with that. The denizens of Capitol Hill have long since cast off their own fealty to the Constitution and their oaths of office. There being no rule of law, legal mechanisms will not take care of this.

No, the proper solution is for everyone else to treat Obama as an outlaw and refuse to obey his orders.

This duty falls primarily on soldiers, whose oath is NOT to blindly obey the president, but rather to uphold the Constitution and defend America against all enemies, foreign and domestic. If the president clearly violates the Constitution, as here, the choice is simple -- either you honor your oath, or you help establish a modern Caesar. Besides, whatever harm ISIS might do to us pales in comparison to the harm an imperial presidency can inflict. This is a true test of bravery, more demanding than trying to kill a designated enemy. Do you have the bravery not to kill when given an illegal order to do so? 

Apart from soldiers, anyone who claims to honor the Constitution or the rule of law has a clear path as well, even if it's not an easy one to walk. Will you speak out against what's happening and refuse to support it, or will you bury your conscience and take the path of least resistance? Are you an American, or a latter-day Roman? Are you a human being with a mind and a soul, or a lump of animated flesh whose only goal is sustenance and daily survival?

Are you free, or a slave?

How Comforting

National Journal has a story today titled "A President Who Ran Promising Peace Cautiously Declares War." The fact that the president is being "cautious" about all this is meant to inspire confidence and calm, yet under the Constitution the president does not have the power to declare war in the first place. It is Congress that owns the war power, as spelled out plainly in Articles I and II of the Constitution and in the emphatic words of the Federalist Papers, which were meant to sell the American people on that document. Here are the words from Federalist 69 of Alexander Hamilton -- a man who himself favored a strong executive branch -- describing how the president's war power is inferior to that of kings or even governors:

The President will have only the occasional command of such part of the militia of the nation as by legislative provision may be called into the actual service of the Union. The king of Great Britain and the governor of New York have at all times the entire command of all the militia within their several jurisdictions. In this article, therefore, the power of the President would be inferior to that of either the monarch or the governor. . . . It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies – all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature.

Sorry, America, you've been had. The president whose office was created by the Constitution is now unhindered by it and may unilaterally initiate war anywhere on the planet, putting you and countless others in immediate jeopardy. Some of you might be comfortable with this, but the sane among us are not. It's important to remember these things especially on this date, when many innocent Americans lost their lives in an act of retaliation (however despicable) against an imperial presidency that has bred anger and resentment around the world ever since the close of World War II, the last time Congress declared war. One does not have to be a "conspiracy theorist" to understand this. To fixate on whether 9/11 was a conspiracy is to miss the forest for the trees; right in plain view is the fact that empires breed terrorism, and that we now occupy an unconstitutional and lawless empire.

Many of Hamilton's contemporaries foresaw the monstrosity being created and opposed it, but they were too few. I would wager that if the Revolutionary generation could have foreseen what now exists -- either the imperial presidency or the general totalitarianism we have to put up with -- many or even most of them would have laid down their arms.

"Misogynist" -- Yet Another Word That Has Lost Its Meaning

In these Orwellian and lowbrow times, words assume a protean quality like jelly, constantly changing shape to suit the political agenda of the moment. Words such as "liberal," "fascist," and "democracy" have been tortured so much that their current usage is the opposite of their actual meaning. For example, "liberal" truly means someone who believes in individual freedom, limited government, and the rule of law, yet it is claimed by people who seek totalitarian and unrestrained government action to smother freedom in the fervid quest for Utopia. "Fascist" was coined by Italian leftists during the interwar years to praise the state as the highest good, symbolizing it with a bundle of sticks (fasces) to demonstrate that collective action is stronger and nobler than individual initiative. Today, the epithet "fascist" is hurled at people on the right who suggest that the government should intervene less in our lives. As for "democracy," the founding fathers denounced it in no uncertain terms as the rule of the mob and precursor to tyranny, yet since World War I it has assumed a holy status that supposedly justifies invading foreign countries to prop it up.

Then there are words whose misuse is so widespread as to become meaningless. One prominent example is "racist," which I'm not sure anyone can define anymore, but which remains quite popular as a weapon to delegitimize any person with whom one disagrees. Another example that is gaining popularity every day is "misogynist," and for much the same reason. Though it's probably a waste of time to try to inject sanity into all this, here is a quick breakdown of who is and is not a misogynist.

Who IS a misogynist?

• Someone who hates women.

Who IS NOT a misogynist?

• Someone who criticizes women or calls them them out on their BS.
• Someone who opposes abortion.
• Someone who believes that women are every bit as capable of sin as men.
• Someone who believes that women should be held accountable for their actions.
• Someone who notices that men and women are fundamentally different, beyond their physiology, and that they tend to have different strengths and weaknesses.
• Someone who refuses to bend or break rules to satisfy a woman.
• Someone who believes that women should receive the same punishment as men for the same crime.
• Someone who denounces no-fault divorce.
• Someone who denounces the current laws pertaining to alimony, property distribution, and custody in the wake of divorce.
• Someone who denounces the widespread, insulting portrayal of men in popular culture.
• Someone who believes in freedom of contract, private property, and freedom of association, even when the exercise of such freedom vexes a woman.
• Someone who believes that government has no business subsidizing birth control, vaccine research, breast-cancer research, or doing much of anything other than keep the peace and protect the border.

The vast majority of men (myself included) are not misogynists. We wouldn't want to live in a world without women. If anyone is a misogynist, it's the white knights and other sackless wonders who act as though women are incapable of sin or shouldn't be held accountable, an approach that reduces women to animals without dignity, souls, or the responsibility that goes with them.

When Anarchy Would Be Better, You Know Things Are Bad

I am not an anarchist, mainly because most anarchists yearn to smash both the state and the natural hierarchical distinctions among people. These goals are contradictory and show anarchists to be useful idiots, for it is precisely the state that seeks to smash hierarchical distinctions and erase culture to pave the way for the "New Man," who has no cultural memory or sentiment but rather will serve the state as soulless automaton. In all honesty, pop culture already has done such an efficient job of destroying real culture that Western governments largely have succeeded in their mission. Even those anarchists who focus solely on smashing the state (e.g., anarcho-capitalists) offer no viable method to resolve civil disputes, fight crime, or enforce general laws in any population larger than a primitive tribe.

Some people take the final step to anarchy after stopping at the way station of libertarianism, concluding that limited government is an impossibility, but for me the formula for limited government is rather simple: foster the creation of multiple sovereign countries/governments so that none of them are very powerful and cannot afford to alienate their own tax base. So what if no internal system of laws can restrain government? As long as we make sure that external checks are in place, it makes no difference how powerful and abusive a single government becomes, for the natural balance of power will eventually assert itself.

All that being said, it's rather interesting to notice that sheer anarchy would be better than what we confront right now. Government supposedly exists to guard us from the predations of criminals and foreign enemies, but I ask you what assortment of criminals or enemies could possibly do what government does to us on a daily basis? Consider just some examples:

• Pilfer up to 40% (in European countries, even more) of your income every year.
• Steal vast additional sums of money by smothering interest rates.
• Regulate every aspect of your personal and economic life, regardless of whether you're disturbing anyone else, on pain of fines and/or imprisonment.
• Abduct your children and tell them to resent you and your ancestors.
• Attack, bomb, and kill people around the world, thereby inflaming millions of foreigners to hate or actively attempt to harm you.
• Abduct you and tell you to help attack, bomb, and kill people around the world.
• Force you to subsidize foreign invaders.

Thanks, but no thanks. I'd be much better off if the government retired and left me to the supposed depredations of criminals. This goes even if I were defenseless and not able to resist, which is the case with government; at least with ordinary criminals I could point and shoot.

Dealing With Leftists And Other Barbarians

There's a great article over at Takimag offering advice on how to deal with leftists, i.e., brainwashed masses of people who viciously defend pre-packaged ideas that they refuse to analyze or discuss. From the article [some frank language]:

Try as I may, all the evidence suggests we are on the brink of an ideological Dark Age the likes of which America has never seen. It seems we’re only inches away from living in a world where stating the obvious will be criminalized.

Online, the chief enablers of this situation are the smirking young progtards, who are unwilling to even touch any viewpoint that hasn’t been spoon-fed to them in school or beamed into their eyeballs via TV. Their brains have never hatched a single original idea in their lives. They are mere hollow carriers of infectious ideas, not so much Trojan horses as little pink Trojan ponies. . . .

Bandwagon-riders that they are, they tell everyone who doesn’t think in lockstep with them to “Get with the times,” which is a dishonest way of saying, “Be a conformist like I am.” Hence their smugness as they tilt at windmills that were destroyed generations ago. They are still deluded that they are fighting the power rather than working for it—often without pay or benefits.

It’s one thing to be unwittingly brainwashed, yet quite another to assent to one’s brainwashing once it’s been made clear. These hateful little fuckers are defiantly brainwashed, and whether it’s cognitive dissonance or doublethink or pathological lying, they’ve made it impossible to rationally engage with them. Believe me, I’ve tried. For decades. Honestly. Foolishly.

Just try to have a civilized debate with such a person about any number of topics ranging from abortion, affirmative action, feminism, government spending, the environment, immigration, etc., and see what happens. They will not engage in rational discourse, but rather will attack you. The article goes on to recommend abandoning rational discourse with such people, and I wholeheartedly agree.

Those of you who are civilized need to remember something: leftists and other barbarians view your civility as weakness. You must either avoid them entirely, or engage them on their terms (i.e., without mercy). There are fewer and fewer places left to run away to; at some point, when your back is up against the wall, you're going to have to fight back.

EDIT:

It just occurred to me that in leftist thought, as it were, there is no such thing as objective truth -- everything is merely a clash of competing interests, and truth is nothing more than an artificial construct meant to keep people down. Why should any of us who acknowledge truth and its various branches (honor, reason, justice, mercy, etc.) give the benefit of them to such creatures?

Family Court Gulag Claims Another Victim

And it's Robin Williams. Just recently I cited research in my post The Breakdown Of The Family showing that divorced men are far more likely to commit suicide, and trust me, it's not because of the heartache of losing the ex-spouse. It's because of children and/or massive amounts of wealth stolen away. Though I managed to dodge these nuclear weapons, Robin Williams did not -- he suffered both indignities twice, forcing him to work like a dog to support not only himself and his children, but also two women who had supposedly moved on with their lives. At the age of 63, Robin Williams was still in hock and forced to look for demeaning work.

So a comic genius is ground up in the gears of our insane and brutal family regime, along with countless other men. Reason #1,025 not to indulge in what passes for marriage today.

The Greater The Sin, The More The Ego Will Defend It

There's an interesting blog post by Laurence Vance over at Lewrockwell.com today about the recent death of the last crew member of the Enola Gay. Since nobody remembers history anymore, the Enola Gay was the bomber that nuked Hiroshima toward the end of World War II, an action that many have condemned as 1) unnecessary because the Japanese were already willing to surrender; and 2) Hiroshima was not a military target, but rather full of civilian men, women, and children. In his post, Vance ruefully observes that the crew members were unrepentant the remainder of their lives for what they had done, even though they seemed to grasp the horrific nature of it.

Yet this comes as no surprise to me. No less an authority on evil than Adolf Hitler once remarked, "The greater the lie, the more people will believe it." It sounds paradoxical but makes perfect sense. A little lie is easy to own and carries few consequences. A great lie, however, threatens the foundations of society and people's entire belief systems if exposed. The truth becomes too terrifying to contemplate, which goes a long way toward understanding why humanity attacks (or crucifies) truth-tellers while adoring habitual liars.

My corollary to the lying paradox is this: the greater the sin, the more the ego will defend it. A minor peccadillo can be confessed and overcome with relative ease. With greater sins such as betrayal or murder, however, the ego desperately clasps them to its chest and refuses to admit wrongdoing, since such an admission would cripple the person's self-image. It doesn't matter if the person is caught red-handed or even recorded on camera in a despicable deed; he will deny having done anything wrong, or argue that his transgression was necessary for the greater good.

There are only two exceptions I can think of. First, if the person has strong character and a healthy sense of sin (rare). Second, if the person confronts consequences even worse than confessing, such as a prison sentence or a near-death experience (more common).

The Breakdown Of The Family

My book project exploring the illness plaguing modern America has slowed down due to the stresses of trying to grow my business. But while I may be slow, I am very, very sure. The work will continue. In the meantime, I'll go ahead and share one of the earlier chapters for free (after all, I don't do these things for money, but for necessity and joy).

The whole of human history does not contain a single instance of a group becoming civilized unless it has been absolutely monogamous, nor is there any example of a group retaining its culture after it has adopted less rigorous customs. ~J.D. Unwin, distinguished ethnologist and sociologist

Civilization represents humanity’s rebellion against nature. Nature is feral, amoral, and pitiless, so it is only through persistent defiance of nature that humanity has moved beyond the jungle. To destroy civilization requires no effort, merely relaxation.

Perhaps the most vital bulwark against nature’s chaos is monogamy, enforced by marriage, whereby one man and one woman bind themselves to each other for life and thereby channel their sexual impulses toward the productive ends of building stable families and rearing healthy, civilized children. This arrangement is decidedly unnatural and contrary to men’s and women’s instincts, which if given free rein would make civilization unworkable.

Men have a natural tendency to mate with as many women as possible while expending as little time and energy as necessary. Marriage combats this tendency by obligating a man to invest his energy in his wife and children, ensuring their survival and relieving society at large of carrying this burden. But marriage has an equally important role to play in restraining women, who have a natural tendency to discard one man in favor of another whom she perceives as a superior protector or provider. Men thus are generally reluctant to make a commitment; women, to keep one. Though men endure almost all criticism in the battle of the sexes, it is fair to say that both men and women are polyamorous, with men preferring concurrent variety of women, and women preferring consecutive variety of men.

Absent countervailing restrictions, these tendencies burst forth and result in a small number of powerful men who monopolize the vast majority of women, a pattern observable in the animal kingdom and duplicated in primitive human societies. Masculine energy is diverted and squandered in Darwinian struggle, a deadweight loss of innovation and productivity. Worse, the vast majority of men who lose this struggle are left unattached and have little incentive to work for the betterment of a society that has denied them a genetic future, leaving a powder keg of aimlessness and discontent. And worse still, society loses many of the traits necessary to support and refine it, such as justice, prudence, patience, restraint, intellect, and mercy – all far less likely to be found among the ruthless men who prevail in a pure Darwinian struggle.

Marriage thus offers all men a genetic future and gives them a vested interest in promoting and preserving society. Marriage yokes men’s energy and pulls society forward. Whereas a man previously locked horns with other men for sexual access to women, he now has the security of knowing that his legacy will pass through his wife, who is sworn to him alone. This allows and encourages him to pursue higher endeavors that will enhance his family’s and society’s future, such as medicine, law, art, science, and a general improvement of our understanding of the universe. Rather than peer over his shoulder, the civilized man can gaze onward and upward.

Marriage is the linchpin of a stable family, and a stable family is the linchpin of a stable society. It is through the family that the combined wisdom, language, and traditions (i.e., culture) of society are transmitted to children, who flourish most under the care of both masculine and feminine halves of humanity. The family also is a vital source of identity, pride, and power offsetting the influence of the state; only with robust families can government be restrained to its narrow protective sphere at the far outposts of society.

Apart from these practical concerns, marriage plays a fundamental role in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Marriage is ordained by God as the institution whereby men and women explore the gifts of love and sex. Marriage requires a solemn vow and a conscious act to defy our impulses and pursue a lifelong commitment that only we as humans are capable of. By maintaining that commitment through times of loss, alienation, and temptation we embrace our higher nature and achieve a fulfillment greater than any fleeting pleasure could impart. True love transcends pleasure and comes alive with the deliberate act of cherishing a kindred soul. The ancient Greeks named this purposeful and selfless love agape, distinguishing it from the simpler and impulsive sentiments of eros (lust) and philia (friendship). As G.K. Chesterton once put it, “To love means loving the unlovable. To forgive means pardoning the unpardonable. Faith means believing the unbelievable. Hope means hoping when everything seems hopeless.” This sentiment undergirds Western marriage and civilization.

For centuries marriage worked because a variety of social and legal norms protected it. On the social side, premarital sex, divorce, adultery, illegitimacy, single parenthood, bachelorhood, and spinsterhood all were frowned upon and carried a heavy stigma. Legal penalties tracked the social mood. Sex outside of marriage (i.e., fornication), seduction, polygamy, and adultery all were crimes. Divorce was allowed only in the event of serious fault such as adultery, abuse, abandonment, or habitual intoxication; moreover, a spouse betrayed by adultery or abandonment could assert a claim for damages against the offending third party. With these social and legal protections firmly in place, marriage could perform its functions of encouraging and rewarding productive behavior; punishing and constraining Darwinian rivalry; esteeming selfless love over selfish lust; providing a stable environment for rearing children; and keeping society civilized rather than allowing it to slide into barbarism.

Which brings us to the present. In the short span of two generations, the relaxation or removal of marital safeguards has transformed us into barbarians.

Beginning in the 1960s, the sexual revolution opened the floodgates of raw desire and flattened all social taboos, making way for a narcissistic outlook that sex is solely a personal matter and that any internal or external sexual restraint is puritanical or outright evil. The only consideration that mattered any longer was whether those engaging in sex consented, nothing else. No longer need sex wait for marriage. No longer need sex be confined to marriage. No longer need shame be visited upon fornicators, adulterers, cads, divorcées, or unwed parents. Civilization was stripped of its crucial investment in sexual relationships, and the animal id roamed free to do as it would.

Removed from its sacred place, sex is now ubiquitous and cheap. Movies, music, television, popular literature, and the Internet blare sex from all quarters. Schoolchildren are taught to engage in “safe sex,” the presumption being there is no use discouraging underage fornication. School teachers are routinely found having dalliances with children. College campuses have become overpriced brothels. Marriage is treated as one option among many to explore love – now interpreted merely as personal joy – and thereby inverts the former understanding that only through marriage could love be explored and nurtured. Love is now merely a commodity to be sampled by voracious consumers who discard lovers and spouses when the novelty fades.

Legal restraints have fallen by the wayside as well. No longer is there any fear of punishment for adulterers; to the contrary, entire industries have sprung up that are devoted to facilitating adultery, and they do so in broad daylight. Perhaps the only legal restraints left with any teeth are the prohibitions against underage sex, incest, and polygamy, yet even these are faltering. As mentioned before, underage sex is openly encouraged and unlikely to be punished, unless perhaps one of the participants is an adult. Even incest now has advocates where the participants are adults. And while it remains illegal to marry more than one person at a time, married people often keep lovers on the side or move from one spouse to another, establishing a sort of de facto polygamy. It is only a matter of time until polygamy is recognized by judicial fiat, against the will of the people, on the fatuous argument that love should never be impeded.

Then there is divorce. What was once a narrow emergency exit is now a yawning void over which every marriage precariously teeters. With the advent of “no-fault” divorce, a mere nudge by either spouse sends the family plummeting into darkness. Rather than submit themselves and their whims to marriage, people now expect marriage to submit itself to them and their whims. In such an environment it is fair to say that marriage no longer even exists – the vows are powerless and meaningless, erased on a moment’s notice, a feature grossly unsuited to the most important of all contracts. Making matters truly perverse is that a spouse may profit from no-fault divorce, subjecting the innocent spouse to both abandonment and punishment under seal of law. While many divorces are a justifiable response to adultery or abuse, many others are frivolous and motivated solely by the narcissistic desire to seek fulfillment through breaking the marital bond, and the innocent spouse has no recourse (not to speak of the children). Post-marital support was designed to protect the innocent, yet now it often rewards the guilty. The fact that one spouse may destroy a family for no good reason yet still reap alimony, child custody, and child support from the innocent spouse – on the threat of fines and imprisonment, no less – is an abomination.

American men are shying away from marriage in greater numbers because they recognize it as a serious threat rather than a reward for devoting themselves to a family. Men have no rights within modern marriage, only responsibilities and potentially massive liabilities. If his wife is considering an abortion, a man has no say in the matter but bears full financial responsibility either way. If his wife gives birth to another man’s child, once again the husband has no choice but to provide support. He can lose his wife and children on a moment’s notice yet be required to continue supporting them as if he were still married, regardless of how good a husband or father he was, and regardless of what his wife’s motives might be. In other words, he is signing a contract that gives his wife open-ended power to destroy his marital rights yet force him to continue shouldering marital responsibilities, even to the point of poverty. The very existence of this threat, no matter how remote, renders modern marriage inherently and thoroughly unjust. And the threat is not remote, for it is well documented that women are much more likely to file for divorce, and they are almost certain to win child custody and financial maintenance when they do. To add insult to injury, popular culture now celebrates adultery and divorce as liberating for women, as showcased in countless novels and films such as The Bridges Of Madison County, The Piano, Thelma & Louise, or Eat, Pray, Love. In the modern imagining, the husband is always at fault for a marriage’s collapse. If the husband commits adultery or abandons his wife, he is responsible for his own actions. If the wife commits adultery or abandons her husband, she is not responsible for her own actions, but rather the husband is responsible for not making her happy. Given such a twisted legal and social landscape, the question isn’t why some men shy from marriage, but rather why any indulge in it. Indeed, a diaspora of single men now devote their energies solely to themselves. The proliferation of “pickup artists” (PUAs), “men going their own way” (MGTOW), and similar refugees represents a growing deadweight loss to society.

In one fell swoop, therefore, modern marriage encourages the worst in us all: in men, the avoidance of commitment; in women, the destruction of it.

Predictably, the family unit has crumbled. Only about half of American adults today are married, down from 72% in 1960. Among young adults from ages 18 to 29 – the prime years for having children – only about 20% are married, down from 59% in 1960. A child born in the United States today has a disgraceful and unprecedented 40% chance of being illegitimate. Census data reveal several other sobering facts:

• 41% of first marriages end in divorce.

• 60% of second marriages end in divorce.

• 73% of third marriages end in divorce.

• The average length of a marriage ending in divorce is only eight years.

• The average age for couples going through a first divorce is only 30 years.

• Half of all children will experience their parents’ divorce.

• 43% of children today are growing up without a father.

• 28% of divorced, single parents live below the poverty line.

Atop all this misery, divorced people (particularly men) are far more likely to commit suicide, perhaps more than twice as much. Though divorced women do not demonstrate a statistically significant increase in suicide, women overall are less happy on this side of the revolution that liberated them from the supposed chains of domesticity. One study indicates that over 25% of American women are taking medication for a mental-health condition. We also are witnessing an explosion of sexually transmitted diseases, with 110 million total infections reported; 20 million new infections reported each year; and half of those new infections among young people aged 15 to 24. And we cannot ignore the fact that single men – as well as men raised in a household with a single parent – are more likely to commit crime.

So, what do we have to show for all our newfound “freedom?” What has the sexual revolution wrought? A wasteland of casual sex, bachelors, spinsters, divorcées, single parents, traumatized children, depression, suicide, sexually-transmitted diseases, crime, and something that statistics cannot measure but is no less certain – the destruction of America’s cultural identity and continuity. Our former “puritanical” restraints are precisely what kept sex noble and productive; those who claimed to liberate sex have degraded it while harming us both spiritually and physically. America would be facing demographic collapse if not for the steady flow of legal and illegal immigrants, whose swelling numbers do nothing to offset our cultural death and, in fact, accelerate it.

Ironically, just as sex supposedly became a private affair between only those engaging in it, government stepped into this soulless void to force other people to pay for it. Government now usurps the role of men and compels them to support women and children to whom they have no family connection. With plundered wealth, government provides food and shelter; government distributes contraceptives; government administers vaccines for STDs; government finances abortions; and government “educates” children in an artificial environment spliced away from any parental input or authority. The welfare state has become so systematic and entrenched that it not only replaces families, but disrupts them from ever taking root because they require values such as cooperation, sacrifice, and self-discipline that Americans have lost the habit of practicing. Why be chaste before marriage if pregnancy can be easily avoided or terminated at public expense? Why get married when government will put a roof over your head and food on the table? Why stay married when you can exile your husband, take his children, and force him to continue supporting you on pain of imprisonment? Government has coarsened us while enslaving us to politicians, bureaucrats, and family-court judges. In paradoxical fashion, women now demand – and are granted – all the fruits of an industrial civilization built by men without any corresponding duties toward men. This cannot last and is a recipe for strife, much of which already has manifested.

As if to dance on the grave of this once-sacred institution, the political and cultural elites now proclaim that marriage cannot be confined to man and woman, but rather must extend to homosexual couples as well. This spiteful iconoclasm is framed as a “civil rights” matter even though nobody has barred homosexuals from marrying each other or imposed legal penalties on them for doing so. To the contrary, the citizens of various states (notably, California) declined to bless such unions with a public seal of approval, choosing not to reward or encourage them. Such a mild refusal was well within the people’s sovereignty under both the Constitution and centuries of civilization, yet the federal government through its courts has declared that we have no say in the matter and must approve of homosexual unions against our will, perpetrating violence and injustice far worse than any confronted by homosexuals. The twisted, unconstitutional, and ahistorical logic demanding that the enhanced public status of marriage be shared by all has no stopping point, for single people and people in polyamorous or incestuous relationships can just as easily demand that their lifestyles be blessed even if the public does not wish to. In all likelihood they will, hastening the process of de-civilization.

Even children, the fruit of union between man and woman, are now held hostage to the modern totalitarian impulse. Homosexuals demand the “right” to adopt children and act as parents, even though adoption is not a right even for heterosexual couples. Adoption always has been merely an act of legislative grace, but there is no grace in our brave new world, merely the insatiable demands of the id.

If we compare marriage to a fire department whose job is to douse the flames of animal instinct, our actions over the past two generations amount to replacing the water with gasoline. We have done far worse than relax our guard against the forces of chaos; we have amplified the chaos in a fit of collective, orgiastic suicide.