It's been a long time since I posted, as I stay focused on my life while casting sidelong glances at how society is coming even more unglued. Rather than make a detailed argument or thesis (which would fall on deaf ears anyway), I will offer some random reflections of a sane man inhabiting an insane time.
Why is Western civilization collapsing? The answer is quite simple: because the people inhabiting it are no longer civilized. Your average Westerner today is hedonistic, belligerent, slovenly, profane, smug, spiritually impoverished (in the world and of the world), entitled, yet guilt-ridden for imagined sins committed by his far more impressive ancestors. All the buildings and technology around us are the mere trappings of civilization and are on borrowed time, the same as a body whose soul has fled. Only when those trappings have collapsed and Western people are forced to confront harsh reality will sanity return. The vast majority of people are only as virtuous as they must be to survive (which is to say they are not virtuous at all).
Anyone with a working brain knows it's a bad idea to ingest an experimental substance that lacks any long-term data to support its safety. Some people were compelled to take it in violation of domestic law and the Nuremberg Code, and I feel sorry for them. Other people avidly lined up to take it while attacking those of use who politely declined, and for them I have very little pity. As for the medical establishment, it proved itself to be as corrupt and dishonest as every other major institution today. This is a deep problem that science cannot solve, for it involves metaphysical and spiritual questions regarding the flaws inherent in human nature.
Few things are more pathetic than a self-styled conservative who runs to federal court whenever a state or local law displeases him. All this accomplishes is greater oversight and control by the federal government, whereas a true conservative values decentralization of power as commemorated by the Constitution and the Tenth Amendment. There can be no freedom without independence, even if that independence is exercised unwisely. Conservatives fail to grasp that the Bill of Rights was designed as a check on the federal government rather than the States, who retain independent and plenary power to restrict speech, guns, drugs, and any other number of matters. By enticing conservatives to run to federal court, the powers-that-be have pulled off a judo maneuver by using the enemy's own force against the enemy. If you believe that a federal court can strike down a State's gun laws, you necessarily also believe that a federal court can strike down a State's abortion laws or obscenity laws. You cannot have it both ways. Such principled thinking, though, is beyond the modern and blinkered mind.
Russia supposedly has violated the "rules-based international order" by
invading Ukraine, at least according to the government that has
desecrated the UN Charter and the Nuremberg Principles countless times
since the end of World War II. I detailed several of those examples in
my second book, Unlawful Government: The Gathering Threat Of Global Hegemony,
so forgive me for not taking the hypocritical condemnations of Russia more seriously. If anything, Russia is far more justified in what it is
doing, since it is protecting its ethnic brethren while protecting itself from relentless encroachment by an outdated military alliance and a puppet government on its doorstep. When the federal
government rampages through other countries on a regular basis, it does so
far away from home and with no discernible benefit to the American
people. Besides, Russian force is aimed at preserving a God-fearing society, while American force is aimed at spreading an increasingly Satanic society. Last but not least, the federal government has no business policing the borders of a faraway country. A major purpose of the federal government is to protect America's borders, yet it refuses to do this while wasting taxpayer money on another country completely beyond its mandate. This is the essence of betrayal.
I've been noticing the deepening deterioration of people's ability to communicate in a coherent manner. Even news stories and court filings are littered with misspellings, run-on sentences, improper tenses, pronoun disagreements, and similar errors that make it difficult to decipher what is being said. These are supposed to be professional documents, but they read like a sixth grader's book report. When it comes to emails and text messages, the situation gets even worse. People who cannot speak clearly also cannot think clearly, and there is plenty of evidence for the death of clear thought.
On a related note, profanity assaults my eyes and ears wherever I go. I can barely step out of my front door without hearing gutter talk or seeing it strewn across an automobile or a T-shirt. It's a depressing reminder of how modern man rejects the divine and embraces the animal. After all, profanity concerns animal functions such as urination, defecation, and procreation. We do not do those things in public, so there is no good reason to evoke those images in public either. Then again, I've seen more news stories lately about public defecation, so perhaps more people are being consistently vile.
Lately there have been numerous news stories about UFOs. While I do believe in the possibility of intelligent and extraterrestrial life, the sudden emphasis on this subject by the powers-that-be is very suspicious. I wager that the current fixation on UFOs is yet another attempt to unify power on the world stage and do away with national and local sovereignty (as with "climate change," COVID, and other hobgoblins). Recall the popular film Independence Day when square-jawed Bill Pullman announces, "We can't be consumed by our petty differences any longer." That's what the powers-that-be really want, a Tower of Babel that they can single-handedly control from on high. This is something else I alluded to in Unlawful Government: The Gathering Threat Of Global Hegemony:
Societies thrive on a unique sense of shared history, as well as on a sense of differentiation from one another; “global society,” however, has no cultural ethos with which to define itself, and no alien culture from which to differentiate itself. The absence of known, hostile societies beyond the sphere of our world frustrates the cohesive spirit that might otherwise give birth to a worldwide identity or corresponding political order.
We are told that sex (biological) and gender (sociological) are totally unrelated. If that's the case, why is it that people who choose to "affirm" their mental gender also feel the need to alter their physical anatomy? The insistence on such a physical alteration is a clear admission that sex and gender are linked. And it so happens that you cannot change your sex. Your chromosomes remain the same no matter how you mutilate yourself. If you were born male, you are and will always be male. If you were born female, you are and will always be female. I have no duty to participate in your insanity.
"Reparations" for slavery is gaining traction lately, and it is overwhelmingly offensive for a host of reasons:
- Slavery is an ancient institution that was wholeheartedly embraced by numerous peoples, including within Africa. The people of the West dabbled in slavery for a short time but then (uniquely) decided to abolish it wherever they could. We deserve gratitude, not punishment.
- The Kingdom of Dahomey (modern-day Benin) is where the West purchased most of its African slaves. It so happens that Dahomey often murdered whatever war prisoners it couldn't manage to sell. The West saved countless lives by purchasing slaves from Dahomey, so their descendants should be grateful that they're alive at all. No good deed goes unpunished.
- There are plenty of Africans who would love to move to the West. Those Africans who made it here should thank their lucky stars, just as Muhammad Ali and Zora Neal Hurston openly did.
- Whatever problems modern blacks suffer in the West are not the result of slavery. Blacks in the West prospered immensely for an entire century after slavery was abolished. The serious problems such as illiteracy, crime, bastardy, etc., erupted with the arrival of the 1960s and the welfare state, which was its own form of (wrongheaded) reparations anyway.
- Whites have treated blacks for better than blacks have treated whites (or how blacks have treated each other). If you consider the rampant violent crime committed by this small demographic in the West, whites are more entitled to reparations than blacks are.
- Even if the whites of yesteryear did something uniquely wrong against blacks (which they didn't), it is a moral abomination to penalize the innocent descendants of those whites. It is even more offensive to penalize large segments of the modern population who are not even descended from those whites.
- Even if I personally could be blamed for the imagined sins of my ancestors, I would gladly accept all of that blame if I could get only half of the credit for all of the good things that my ancestors bestowed on blacks and the world. I would still come out far ahead.
- A punishment imposed by legislation is blatantly unconstitutional as a bill of attainder, prohibited by the explicit language (not tortured precedent) of Article I, Sections 9 and 10.
- Last but not least, modern Americans have no basis to condemn slavery because they wholeheartedly embrace it, day in and day out, with fervent demands for a paternalistic government to take care of them by the use of force. The people who most loudly demand reparations for slavery are the same ones who demand that slavery persist and grow in an even worse way (i.e., public and universal, not private and limited).
Most people who describe themselves as "rebels" are anything but. Such people believe themselves bold when they attack the nuclear family, flout rules, destroy taboos, embrace the profane, and generally allow themselves to be governed by their passions. Yet the only thing this accomplishes is what the wealthy and powerful want, namely the destruction of civil society so that atomized and vulnerable individuals are all that remain. In other words, most "rebels" are useful idiots. A true rebel defies his nature, uses his mind to conquer his passions, thinks for himself, and recognizes the importance of rules and hierarchies to restrict the arbitrary abuse of power. The greatest revolution in modern times was the American Revolution, which was a conservative cause.
On a related note, rules are liberating rather than confining. With rules firmly in place, people can plan and carry out their activities with the confidence of knowing that they will not be arbitrarily punished or dispossessed. Tyrants hate rules for this very reason, and it is no accident that clear and firm rules are vanishing from all sectors of public and private life while tyrannical power is increasing. If you pride yourself on breaking rules, you're a villain rather than a hero.
A friend of mine once was preaching about how all humans are the same underneath, with the same color blood, sinew, and bone. This is a noble sentiment designed to convey how any differences among us are only superficial. However, it so happens that virtually the only people who share this sentiment are white. Non-whites do not often think of themselves as part of giant global family, but rather as members of their specific tribe, and they openly express hostility toward me simply for being white. Yes, I was raised to judge people on their merits rather than their physical traits. But if I'm the only one doing this, it's a sucker's bet that paints a giant target on my back. Either we all judge each other on our merits, or we all revert to tribalism and prejudice. Since everyone else has opted out of color-blindness, they cannot demand that I continue practicing it. And for the record, we are not all the same underneath. AI already has proved itself capable of identifying race based merely on X-ray images.
The craziness engulfing the modern West was foreseeable (and actually foreseen) by me and similar thinkers. We are not prophets. Instead, we are people who think in terms of timeless principles, while everyone else fixates on immediate circumstances. For example, if the driver of a speeding car along a straight highway nudges the wheel slightly off-center, I can predict that the car will eventually wind up crashing, while everyone else ignores the danger until it's too late (while attacking me for trying to warn them).
I'm tired of hearing how Westerners should be wracked with guilt for committing "genocide" of the various peoples who dwelled in the Americas before our arrival (and no, they are not indigenous because they came here from somewhere else, as we all did). Those peoples brutalized and slaughtered each other on a regular basis; indeed, they often helped Westerners make war on their rivals. The differences between them and us are that 1) we were far more effective, 2) we were far more merciful, and 3) we actually experience guilt for whatever wrongs we committed. Nobody else expresses guilt for their historical sins or subsidizes the conquered to the pathetic extent we do. If we truly had committed genocide, we wouldn't have to hear all of these pathetic complaints or demands for relief and recognition. Our mercy has earned us perpetual enmity, just as with our unique accomplishment of ending slavery. The childish epithet "colonizer" truly means a civilizer.
One of the reasons I have come to believe in the deep truth of Christianity is that it provokes so much resentment from the world, which is very depraved. Christianity draws unique scorn because it is a unique religion, i.e., it requires internal virtue and reflection, not mere external rituals and utterances. Most people are far too in love with themselves and with sin to uphold personal virtue, so they latch onto "virtuous" political causes that impose burdens on everyone else. It is quite easy to demand an end to "climate change" or "racism" or "homelessness" while patting yourself on the back. It is far more difficult to avoid greed, envy, sloth, gluttony, lechery, wrath, or pride while nobody else seems to notice or care. Christ provoked extreme hatred from the world precisely because he embodied and spoke truth, whereas the world thrives on lies. Every truth teller in history has experienced something quite similar.
On a related note, pride is a sin. Taking pride in sin is compounded sin. Bullying the entire public to celebrate compounded sin for an entire month is despicable. And using taxpayer money to celebrate compounded sin on public property is criminal. Once again, the powerful delight in pushing this garbage because it destroys families and leaves everyone without a moral compass, making them more pliant as consumers, employees, and subjects.
On another related note, a lot of modern people reject Christianity (and all supernatural religion) because it is "irrational." But human beings are irrational by our very nature. The question isn't whether to be rational versus irrational. The question is what type of irrationality will you allow to govern your life. Will it be a constructive irrationality or a destructive irrationality? The historical record is quite clear that Christianity is a constructive type of irrationality, as shown by the unequaled prosperity, beauty, and humanity of Western civilization (and by the way, Christianity is what inspired the abolition of chattel slavery). People who reject Christianity are hardly rational by comparison, as they flock to various flavors of insanity such as socialism, anthropegenic global warming, transexuality, or the notion that two plus two can equal five. "When a man stops believing in God, he does not then believe in nothing. He becomes capable of believing in anything."
I have run into a large amount of literature online discussing the "socio-sexual hierarchy" and how men can be designated as "alphas," "betas," or any number of other labels to determine where on the totem pole they sit. This hierarchy is portrayed as patriarchal and a force for male empowerment, but it is the exact opposite. After all, the totem pole is built around what women want and what women find attractive, thereby motivating men to value or devalue themselves based on women's feelings. This is obvious matriarchy, which is downright dangerous because women adore what is worst in men rather than what is best. A patriarchy imposes what is necessary to maintain a just and virtuous society, regardless of (and often contrary to) what women want
On a related note, the "alphas" need to consider for a moment the deeper reasons that women prefer them. Women view themselves as superior to men (more intelligent, perceptive, beautiful, etc.). The chest-thumping "alpha" reinforces women's narcissistic view rather than challenges it, since he is governed by his impulses and makes for a very useful weapon or beast of burden. To borrow from H.G. Wells, women see themselves as refined Eloi and men as brutish Morlocks. What truly intimidates women is the self-possessed and intelligent man who will not be manipulated by them, but rather will follow his principles and his conscience regardless of what women want. This sort of man threatens the matriarchy that the "alpha" unwittingly supports.
The Supreme Court actually did something right by overturning Roe v. Wade and recognizing that the States retain the power to deal with this issue however they see fit. A lot of idiotic conservatives won't leave well enough alone and want to federalize the issue with nationwide restrictions, committing the very sin that Roe was guilty of (usurping the power of the States and destroying their independence). As for the morality of abortion, I will say that it perfectly represents the modern demand for freedom without responsibility. If you engage in behavior that results in a pregnancy, you have exercised your rights and now must embrace your responsibility. If you don't want such a responsibility, do not engage in the behavior that might create it. Rights and responsibilities are a package deal. If you try to get rid of one, you will also have to get rid of the other (i.e., throwing the baby out with the bathwater).
People who oppose tipping are pathetic. Your money is what pays the servers' salaries. The only question is whether you will retain some discretion over how much you pay, or whether you will surrender that discretion to someone else. It's no wonder that Europeans hate tipping, as they dislike having to make decisions for themselves and always prefer to delegate power to someone else. The self-starters left Europe centuries ago, leaving it even more lazy and corrupt today.
Remote workers who are employees have no right to resist going back into the office. I'm a remote worker, but I earned that right because I took the plunge to become my own boss. If you're an employee, you work at the pleasure of others, so ditch the entitlement and return to the office unless you're willing to take the chances I did.
What happened on January 6, 2021, was not an insurrection. The owners of this country (i.e., the people) paid a visit to their employees (i.e., the elected representatives) because the employees had gone rogue. An insurrection is when the servant disobeys the master, and the elected representatives are servants. They are the ones who engage in insurrection when disregarding the Constitution on a daily basis, and who (in 2020) gave aid and comfort to thugs around the country who were attacking us, the masters.
America began as a Protestant nation, which has important religious as well as legal implications. For instance, a Protestant does not rely on a priest in a black robe to tell him what is God's law. By the same token, a Protestant does not rely on a jurist in a black robe to tell him what is man's law. In both cases the Protestant is willing and able to think for himself. As Protestantism has faded, so has people's willingness or ability to think for themselves when confronted by weighty matters. Consider how the latest Supreme Court decision is always touted as "the law of the land," which is an abject lie because we can and should come to our own conclusions about these things. The court is merely one branch of the government and inferior to the law of the land, which is the Constitution that we can read and understand for ourselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment