Noah

At the polar opposite of God's Not Dead, a humble yet profound movie, we find Noah, a glitzy and depraved one (once again duplicating the dynamics of individuals -- the more there is without, the less there is within). The depravity here is the inversion of a timeless story. Whereas the Noah of literature warned of and endured God's wrath at humanity's overweening pride, the Noah of Hollywood trumpets and delivers Gaia's wrath at humanity's carnivorism and strip mining. In other words, Noah has been repackaged to fit the modern, neo-pagan mindset that worships body (either man's or the planet's) over soul. According to this mindset, for example, a vulgar and unfaithful man is good so long as he eats vegetables and routinely gets checked for STDs. Just think for a moment how senseless this truly is -- would God destroy the Earth out of anger at how man was hurting the Earth? No, God destroyed the Earth out of anger at how man was hurting himself, and Him. The health of the body and the planet is secondary, and disposable, in comparison to the health of the soul.

If there's any good to come from this film, it is that it may serve as a fitting example of the very pride and materialism that God punished in the Biblical telling. Once again, John C. Wright's instincts are on target.

 

God's Not Dead

I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. Granted, it suffers from occasional cheesiness and bad acting, but it goes so against the grain of modern American life that I couldn't help but admire it. Truth be told, I'm astounded that it made it past our "cultural" gatekeepers at all. A college freshman is a devout Christian and finds himself in a philosophy class where the professor -- Kevin Sorbo of Hercules fame -- curtly demands that all students write "God is dead" on slips of paper during the first day of class as a prerequisite to moving forward. The protagonist politely declines. The professor, slightly nonplussed, tells him that he should just write the phrase and check his conscience at the classroom door. When this doesn't work, the professor grows irritated and announces that the protagonist will have to present arguments demonstrating that the concept of God remains valid, and he strongly implies that this will cause the protagonist to flunk the course. The protagonist accepts the challenge despite great risk to his academic career; as he gets to work we are introduced to various other characters who confront their own struggles, and whose paths eventually converge.

A simple enough plot, but several things happen here that fascinate me.

• The film is unabashedly Christian. Most films dealing with faith do so in a bland, dishwatery manner that avoids all mention of Jesus so as to appeal to the widest possible audience (think Oh, God! and its sequels, Bruce Almighty, Contact, etc.). Not this movie. If you're an atheist or a member of any other religious faith, this movie will bother you, and it should -- "I came not to bring peace, but to bring a sword."

• Regardless of whether you agree with the protagonist's faith, the fact that he refuses to compromise his beliefs or to say what he does not believe remains highly inspiring, all the more so because of the serious consequences he faces. In our neo-pagan times, the concept of endangering your interests for the sake of principle is alien, and I'm glad to see this sort of virtue dusted off.

• The protagonist has a girlfriend who is his childhood sweetheart and who wishes to marry him, yet she is utterly unsympathetic to what he is doing because it might jeopardize his ability to go to law school. She pleads, threatens, and eventually dumps him precisely because of his noble traits, yet he is undeterred and never supplicates or tries to get her back. This is one of the only instances where I've seen a movie portray an ordinary woman (not a ridiculous supervillain) in a negative light, and it's about damn time. While the books remain very out of balance with rampant misandry in the media, this was a refreshing counterpoint to the near-universal portrayal of women as angelic and blameless. Art should imitate life, and here it does.

• Kevin Sorbo comes across very convincingly as the smug, vain, leftist professor whose only god is himself. He exudes contempt for the very Christianity that built the university system he teaches in, not to mention the civilization whose prosperity and orderliness he takes for granted. Like so many today, he is a patricide against the builders of our world. He also reacts belligerently to the protagonist for daring to think critically and to present capable arguments (i.e., the very purpose of higher education). Yes, he is a caricature, but an accurate one who epitomizes the pygmies and trolls teaching in modern universities.

• The protagonist makes a point in one of his arguments that I've tried to make in vain for a long time, as follows: if there is no God, then there is no truth, no right, and no wrong, meaning there is no basis for the professor to claim being right, and no need for a university system. Everything becomes merely a matter of the will (i.e., might makes right), which is the law of the jungle and completely incompatible with humanity, intellect, and civilization. Small wonder that all three are collapsing now that the struts of religious faith have been removed.

So in the final analysis, while this movie lacks the glamor and sleek production values of so many others, it has something they do not: a soul. In an odd way, this mirrors many a Christian's own status in the world.    

Another Gem Of Insight

I stumbled on another blog post by John C. Wright -- whom I quoted here not long ago -- and was amazed at another of his keen insights regarding modern depravity. It appeared in a lengthy discussion on the deeper significance of The Lord Of The Rings, as follows:

Readers will forgive me if I provide no links and proffer no exhibits: the matter is too disgusting. There is a porn star who at the time of this writing is a Duke University freshman who appeared on a ‘rough sex’ website which portrayed her being choked, spat upon, and insulted during the sex act.

To justify herself in the face of criticism, she has publicly and defiantly stated that true feminism, true liberty and happiness, consists of her ‘ownership’ of her body, which ownership renders her immune from criticism, and hence allows her to do whatever degrading acts she wishes to herself for her own pleasure. She absurdly assumes a moralistic stance to blame the decent people who are disgusted by her acts. She is also a homosexual, and suffers from a crippling self-loathing. People who like themselves don’t act out fantasies of sexual degradation.

Reading the words of this poor, young morally crippled fool is a chore I will spare the reader. I am sure you can find her words through a thousand references on the Internet. I will provide no additional links or pingbacks or clicks-through to such sites. I will, nonetheless, mention the clear absurdity the words convey. She objects in the strongest and most morally elevated language, in fiery tones worthy of Tom Paine and Nathan Hale, that anyone should say demeaning things about her choice of playacting in scenes where she is demeaned. In other words, she enjoys being demeaned, but does not want anyone else to demean her. She is a masochist who does not want to be slapped.

This public spectacle should drive home the point, beyond any denial, that the modern philosophy which the poor brainwashed child innocently repeats is nothing but nihilism.

Nihilism is the philosophy saying that the external world is void of innate meaning or truth. Instead, the external world exists only to slake the appetites, which are themselves the sole and final judge of their own fitness. Since there is no truth, there is no standard by which appetites can be good or bad, wholesome or not, virtuous or vicious. Hence, appetites are absolutely sovereign and not open to question, judgment, prudence, or self restraint.

It must be noted that the nihilist worldview is fundamentally, nay, deliberately dishonest. The nihilists lie, and they know that they are lying, and they want to lie and to rejoice in lies. The only thing they do not want is to be criticized for lying. In the nihilist world, there are allegedly no sins, and hence we are allegedly set free from all the suffocating oppression of moral codes. Despite this, the nihilist world view proposes that there is one sin, and that one is unforgivable: the sin of being ‘judgmental’, that is, the sin of believing sin exists.

How it is that sinning is forgivable, whereas naming the nature of the act and calling it sin is unforgivable remains a mystery of this particular religion as deep as the mystery of the Incarnation.

Because the one sin for Nihilists is the use of reason, and the faculty of judgment which calls some things good or noble and others base or bad, the eternal instinct of the nihilist is to elevate the base and bad and denigrate the good and noble.

More Annoyances

It's been a while since I've posted a laundry list of annoyances, and God knows the list is endless, so here are a few more (perhaps you share some):

• The fact that waitstaff are incredibly attentive when I'm trying to relax and enjoy my meal and/or company, but vanish when I want to pay the check and leave.

• People who claim to know another language but can say only a few phrases in it.

• People who claim to want to learn another language but don't want to work for it.

• Trust funders.

• Ivy Leaguers who think their sheepskins make their opinions irreproachable.

• Men who talk about only sports and sex.

• Women who talk about only celebrities and fashion.

• Another Star Trek movie that urinates on Gene Roddenbery's grave.

• Another "profound" movie about slavery, the Civil War, segregation, or any other subject meant to stoke the fires of white guilt. Newsflash: slavery and discrimination are the rules of human history, and what we are experiencing today is a brief and minor exception (created by white people).

• Any heterosexual male who identifies himself as a liberal, "progressive," or feminist.

• Cars with multiple bumper stickers proclaiming a vapid, feel-good philosophy.

• Trucks with giant, metallic testicles dangling from the rear fender -- an obvious case of overcompensation.

• Sustainability.

• Tolerance.

• Empowerment.

• Synergy.

• Human resources.

• Being a "team player."

• Stretched earlobes.

• Kids in bars.

• People who arrive late.

• The fact that almost half of all children born in the U.S. today are bastards.

• The fact that not even the military remains as a bastion of male honor and distinction.

• The fact that the federal government is more concerned with protecting foreign borders than our own.

• Everyone nattering away on a cellphone in a public place.

• Everyone taking "selfies."

• Everyone who poses for sexual photos but gets offended when other people look at them.

• Another federal law not authorized by the Constitution.

• Another federal regulation not voted on by Congress.

• Another war not declared by Congress.

• Another increase of the debt ceiling.

• Another bailout of a politically-connected business that is inefficient and deserves to die.

...

I could keep going, but I suppose that's enough. Happy St. Patty's Day!

Obama Warns Russia To Respect Ukrainian Sovereignty; World Laughs

You can't make this stuff up. The nominal President of the United States has admonished Russia to allow Ukraine to determine its own future free of outside interference, purporting to uphold the concept of national sovereignty even where a democratically-elected government has been toppled by a coup. Many people are laughing at Obama as a paper tiger, but the real joke is that the United States has no credibility whatsoever on these matters.

First, for the past century the United States has regarded Latin America as its personal playground, whether through financing revolutions or directly toppling heads of state. The 1954 operation against Guatemala's president Arbenz and the 1973 operation against Chile's president Allende -- both of whom were democratically elected -- are merely two of an entire constellation of examples from our immediate neighborhood. And let us not forgot how we toppled Iran's Mossadegh in 1953, another democratically-elected leader, and one who was far outside the Americas. Here, Russia is intervening in the affairs of one of its direct neighbors, and to restore a democratically-elected government rather than topple it. It is ludicrous for the Unites States to object.

Second, the United States has for years stated its policy goal of promoting democracy around the world through the use of military force, shredding the very notion of national sovereignty (which does not hinge on the type of government in question). If we can invade and re-make countries such as Haiti, Afghanistan, Iraq, Serbia, and Libya for the (ostensible) end of promoting democracy, Russia has a legitimate basis to expect that it can do the same.

Third, the United States claims the entire globe as its security sphere, and we have routinely flouted national sovereignty for reasons of "national security" the world over. Drone strikes in Pakistan, incursions into Somalia, assisting rebels in Syria . . . the list goes on and on. Russia confronts a de-stabilized country on its own doorstep, so the invasion into that country counts as an extremely justifiable response according to the United States' own formulation.

And fourth, the United States wants Ukraine to be its sock puppet, just as Russia does, so at best you have moral equivalency here.

What Obama and the rest of the administration forget is that, unlike in domestic matters, you cannot spit on the rule of law and expect everyone meekly to go along with it. No, on the world stage actions have consequences, and what we are witnessing with Russia is a lesson on the true virtue of national sovereignty -- the ability to fight back.

Granted, it remains eminently possible that Obama will intervene (surely without the constitutionally-required declaration of war from Congress), but the fact remains that we live in an ungoverned world where nations compete with each other, for which I am extremely grateful.

UPDATE:

John Kerry talks tough and gives Russia an ultimatum to "join in respecting international law." Yet Russia already has shown far more respect for international law -- after all, Russia has intervened in only one neighboring country to restore a democratically-elected government, whereas the United States has intervened in scores of countries all over the world to topple such governments (and inflicted hundreds of thousands more deaths in the process). If Russia were to take Kerry seriously, it would have to start invading far more countries to get up to speed with what passes for "international law" these days.

The Unique Desire For Freedom

As America sinks ever further into the totalitarian abyss, it occurs to me just how unique the desire for freedom truly is. Freedom requires responsibility, which is where the vast majority of humanity is weak and gets off the bus. America achieved freedom for a time because it was the product of a specific, unique people who were capable of self-reliance and self-restraint. But we opened the floodgates to peoples from around the world, and the old values that built America and made it great have been submerged under a tidal wave of mediocrity.

Looking at the countless grievance groups dappling the scene today, it's easy to conclude that most modern "Americans" hate the very notion of freedom. They do not desire to live in peace and away from government interference. No, for them there are never enough regulations, lawsuits, invasions of property rights, suppressions of freedom of contract, denials of freedom of association, attacks on bourgeois society, or plunders of wealth to make them happy.

Most people are either at your feet or at your throat -- they are either slaves or oppressors; they cannot be free, responsible, independent, and peaceful. My ancestors understood this, and growing numbers of us today are re-awakening to this sad reality of the human condition. Though the institutions my ancestors built may be lost, at least their wisdom isn't, and the time will come to enforce that wisdom once again. Not through slavery, but through separation, exclusion, and expulsion.