Looking for the dawn of a new day...

...when the accuser becomes the accused; when the hunter becomes the hunted.  That day, is nearly upon us.  The liars and their lies; the haters and their hate, are slowly witnessing thier demise.
I once sat in a classroom and listened to the dribble of a openly gay "feminist" explain that gender was a social construction.  Really?  I quietly thought to myself, "Should I raise my hand and ask her if she and I should look betwen our legs at the 'social construction' we were each born with?"  The Nietzsche haters because of his male chauvenism are really Nietzcheans they simply reversed the genders.  They are just as big of haters with thier hate pointed in the other direction.

So let us call forth a new dawn where the powerful become the weak.  Where the liars with influence (why is it that those with influence are all liars? Could it be that this is the devil's world?  That it has been handed over to him?)

The blindness that we are all affected by -- we sense mongers and gluttons -- is the tragedy of the fall.  Sin is attractive, but he who sins is a slave.  We are a slavish bunch really.  And the elites who have been lying to us for years are the worst of the slaves, who herd the rest of we cows.  We would be better off as cows as then we would at the very least ruminate.

We aren't even allowed to do that.  So let us ride the new momentum to a new era; an era of life and being; an era of truth and existence; an era where real weakness is truly understood; an era where virtue is reborn.  That is the dawn on the horizon if we would collectively think.  Sadly, we'd rather just sense.  So the boozy halo of modernity will drown us.

Always or for the most part...

...things take place in nature.  Aquinas relates that it is the business of the wise man to order, which says something about modern man and his sponteneous panegyric; about his self with the status as changeling.  We are fundamentally unwise.

Reason has four ordering qualities according to Aquinas (Proemium to the Commentary on the Ethics.)

1) Order that reason examines in nature: why does every squirrel collect nuts for the winter?
2) Order of its concepts: why does a subject require a predicate?
3) Order of ethics: why do we have theories of action?
4) Order of mechanics: why does a house not collapse when we put the form of the house as it exists in our minds into the matter of exterior reality?

(1) and (4) are simply devastating to atheism.  We can, like the modern who prefers unintelligible ignorance to truth because alas, ignorance frees the intellectual will, deny both of these.  But mechanism is simply devastating to the atheistic view.  Indeed, mechanism needs to be denied if we want God not to exist.  Simply answer this: If the order reason examines in exterior things is simply the human mind imposing the linkage of sequences on exterior reality, then why does that exterior reality conform to our whims?

If my mind was the creator of order in the abyss of the changeling chaos of exterior reality, then planes, trains, and automobiles would be impossible. If that very order were not "out there," it would not conform to what is "in here."

We could, of course, claim that matter is simply pure potency waiting for the imposition of some form from some being with reason.  That would be too Aristotelian; indeed, that would be too metaphysical for the modern philosopher who has chosen ignorance; who has chosen to cut himself off from paths to knowledge because by legitimately seeking knowledge one is ultimately confronted with immaterial first causes.  So we ought, with the moderns, choose ignorance so as to deny immaterial realities; then we will be big minded; then we will be great souls; then we will be an accepted intellectual.  The toxicity of the modern intelligentia is choking!

Science opposed to wisdom; anti-religion is anti-knowledge; anti-religion, anti-Christ, is the death nail to science.  Indeed, it is the death nail to humanity with real blood in its train.

Answer me this, my modern hater friends:  Why does exterior reality conform to reason's order?  If it does, then we are on the brink of the metaphysical principles of act and potency.  Oh no!  Not the precipice of religion!  No, no, we shall not go!  No, let us stay here exulting our wills and slaying our humanity.  Let us perpetuate the lie that Christ is anti-knowledge!  And with our self-deception let us, the slayers of knowledge, assume the role of open minded knowers.  Meanwhile, with our fascism, we will make Christ the fascist; we will silence and call Him the silencer.  So noble we are!  We, the noble, scientific liars!

Comfortably numb...

Out on this perimeter I walk alone.  Lonely.  The spookiness of the invading real.  These objects arrive unannounced, uninvited, unplanned for, this strange otherness.

After all experience, after sense realism, the wonders of this life come alive.  Yet we are always alone no matter how conjoined we are.  Alone except for the objects that are always there while we wake -- looking, smelling, seeing, touching, sensing.

Never have I felt so alone as now.  Never have I failed so often.  Never have I been a real father.  Not real because I am powerless.  Not real because I have always failed.  Not real because success escapes.  Not real because I cannot provide.

I have been given a nature.  A strong desire to provide.  A strong desire to philosophize.  A strong desire for wisdom.  A strong desire to please my God.  This nature I have failed.  This life I have failed.  Misery.  Is it simple tragedy?  this existence?

How long, my God, must I wait?  How long, my God, must this perimeter be mine alone?  How long must I be jobless, homeless, hopeless?

"Blessed are the poor."  Not here, not now, not this.

Why have You foresaken me?

Powerless.

I wish for no numbness, but if I must be numbed, I wish for comfortable numbness.

The invasion of the real is suffocating.  Only the God fearing always have oxygen in the face of discomfort.

Hope.

He shall rule over you...

"Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you..." I have written in the past about the radical feminist's masculization of women.  For real feminism we have to attune ourselves to nature.  The modern "feminist" reflects an instantiation of the biblical principle of male rulership. 

By poisoning herself with an anti-fertility pill; by seeking to work to the chagrin of the noble feminine quality of nurturing care; by acquiescing to male sexuality; indeed, by embracing male promiscuous sexuality as opposed to gatekeeping, the modern "feminist" has sought to be ruled by male nature by becoming male herself.  Modern woman, in losing her feminine sexuality, has enslaved herself to male domination.  Of course, the result is unhappiness for all.  Men are slaves to pornographic machines and naked women; women are slaves to abiding by male nature; and once again the proponents of freedom are discovered to be advocates of slave morality.

Who are these "feminists" who have exploded female slavery?  Who are these "feminists" who have indulged male self-indulgence?  Who are these "feminists" who have made the porno nation?  Who are these "feminists" who have increased female abuse?  Who are these "feminists" who have turned women against their children?  Who are these "feminists" who have defeminized women?  What kind of woman, except one who hates her own nature -- who wishes to recreate her own nature -- would destroy motherhood?  That sounds anything but feminine.

"Feminists" themselves, with their will to power, have become men.  The so called free thinking intellectual "feminist" is in reality a proponent of the real slave morality...of Nietzschean morality.  Their will to power has blinded them to real injury; to the creation of real victims. 

Happiness and freedom are in tuning our radio dials to our natures.  When we deviate and become self-creators, the result is static.  The result is misery.  The result is modernity.  The result is an inside out reality.  The result is masculine femininity.

The astute atheist...

is forever a silencer of metaphysics.  Whenever you confront a philosophical atheist, not an atheist-so-that-I-can-have-self-glorification hater of God, their main objection to theism is that there is no testable proof of metaphysical objects.  That is, one by one, they tend to deny all that cannot be seen.  A suitable threat, indeed.

Newman once stated that the world is quickly careening toward two real ideas, those of Catholicism and those of atheism.  Bravo! for that perceptive mind; for that greatest of the modern theologians.  Really, there seem to be only two ideas worthy of our rational assent -- atheism and Catholicism.  Only those two have sufficient rational justifications for their claims, although I am convinced of Catholicism's truth because it seems more rational.

I have only ever found one atheist that I found intellectually satisfiying, and that is Friedrich Nietzsche.  Of course, I find him less satisfying than Thomas Aquinas, who puts to route every error that could ever be.  Nietzsche was an astute atheist because he knew there were two fundamental principles that were the foundation of metaphysics -- logic (it's primary instrument) and what the medievals called "demonstration quia."  That is, the ability to reason from effect to cause.  If we are going to undermine metaphysics, these are the two places to attack.  Only Nietzsche was enough of a philosopher to perceive this -- most atheists tend to be willfully ignorant through a lack of humility in the face of rational evidence.  They tend to cut themselves off from inquiry because they presuppose certain things about reality like, if something cannot be seen it doesn't exist.  What about intellectual concepts?  They have to exist somewhere.  

Aquinas sets up what is needed to find metaphysical objects in his Commentary on the De Trinitate.  We need to be able to reason from effects to cause, and we need the instruments of logic.  Now modern "scientific" atheists fail to see where there principles lead.  They want to affirm, via necessary scientific laws, that causality is essentially linked.  But in affirming an effect's essential link to a cause, they wind up affirming God's existence (which was made ever so evident by Ben Stein in his documentary Expelled.)

So the first option is to deny causality -- but then atheists are faced with some difficult logical pills to swallow like: Why is it that the human mind can recognize intentions in nature?  Why can we derive laws from experience?  Why are events able to be linked in sequence?  Indeed, why does it seem that things take place in nature almost always or for the most part?  If we deny causality its essentiality we should expect the unexpected.  Unless we deny logic too.

So, what we must do is deny that logic in some ways corresponds to reality -- we must deny that there are subject and predicates.  If we do this, then the logical conclusions that we derive from experience can also be denied.  Simply put, we can, for instance, deny the idea of a First Mover because having denied the inner logic of movement, that it must be reduced to one if causality is essentially linked, we can deny God.

What it comes down to is that reality must be unintelligible for the atheist worldview to be correct.  Nietzsche is the only atheist I've encountered to recognize this.  Nonetheless, he violates non-contradiction because to destroy logic and causality he had to employ them.  We should expect nonsense if atheism is true, but everything seems to make sense.

So the next time you encounter an atheist make sure he is astute before talking to him.

Free thinkers are dangerous...

...because they don't exist!  One of the most noble lies of our epoch, perhaps even an artistic lie, is that there is such a thing as a "free thinker."  At most, this lie is a psuedonym for anarchy, but then the phrase "free thinker" is only half right.  An anarchist is certainly "free" in an of this world, Hobbesian sense.  We would, however, be remiss if we were dumb enough to call an anarchist a "thinker."

Nietzsche, who if you haven't notice is my favorite philosopher to hate, mostly because he is liberalism's philosopher par excellence, took to calling the instinct of the weak the "herd intinct."  No poet has ever been as masterful regarding style than was Nietzsche.  Few philosophers have been as masterful, either.  Nonetheless, as Augustine tells us, inimitable style does not constitute truth.  What of this herd instinct?

The lie of individualism, of radical individualism as envisaged by the existentialists, is that we can somehow escape the herd.  We have heard it said that there are free thinkers among us; those who can assume the heights of humanity by separating from the general herd; those who can escape their narrative; those who have no material cause.  The prophets who tell us that we are self-creators are the blindest of all because, alas, they fall into a tradition without knowing it!

The key to being a real free thinker is not in becoming a self-creator because we all follow the lead of others as social animals.  The key is knowing who your shepherd is.  The self-proclaimed free thinkers do not realize their shepherd is providence punishing them in their own members.  Let them dream of being those who have separated from the herd; let them dream of living on their isolated island; while they dream, we will watch them follow the beckoning of their lower desires; we will watch them become slaves to the real slave morality.

A free thinker then, knows his shepherd, knows his narrative, and is conscious to who he is.  With Socrates we can say that self-knowledge is the key to free thought.  This, of course, puts the 8% of Catholics who submit to the total authority of the Magisterium square in the category of free thinkers.  Free because they submit to authority -- such strange paradoxes arise for we the godliest of all animials!  Free, because they do not succumb to the torrents of custom; free because they do not offer psuedo-demonstrations for their mere appetites; free because they know they follow.

Tell me of a political party, or a radical individualist, who does all of the following: opposed to abortion, opposed to contraception, opposed to the death penalty, opposed to homelessness, opposed to active euthanasia, opposed to hate in all its guises.  8%, that is all.  They follow, but in following the way, the truth, and the life, they are free.  Free because they are conscious of their tradition. Free because grace sets them free.

Incidentally, Plato warned us of unapologetic poetry and the dangers it posed for animals that seek to live in society.  Plato understood well that we are all part of some herd.  He also understood that we needed the right people shepherding us.  When we listen to the pope, we listen to the one voice of sanity in an insane world; we listen to the voice of reason in the malaise of unreason; we listen to humanity in the onslaught of inhumanity; we listen to the only true voice of freedom.

So, you would be "free thinkers," remember you are part of a tradition.  Remember that you cannot escape your narrative or get out your walking stick for you will be the blind leading the blind.  When the blind lead, we know where we end up -- the pit.

MTV Pedophiles...

I have recently been flirting with the idea that the executive board of most television giants are made up of a bunch of desiring beasts and pedophiles.  In Plato's Republic he makes the interesting claim that the "man of the people" in democratic regimes is the tyrant who promises the rabble -- those who follow their base desires their whole lives -- largesse from the public coffers.  Not only that, but the man of the people himself has a tyrannical soul, where the lower desires rule the other powers of soul.  No amount of blood lust, rape, sexual gratification; indeed, no crime is off limits to the "man of the people."

Aristotle had a similar understanding, most likely because Plato was his teacher, in that he felt most men never refined their tastes and so were dragged about by their lower desires; dragged about by the desires of the flesh.  Strangely enough, if as modern "scientists," we hadn't arrogantly shunned our predecessors, we might learn something from them.

We now have a situation where the rabble as Plato and Aristotle understood them are in control of the media.  The moral self-creators who are nothing but slaves to desire, have siezed control of television, music, and cinema to the impending destruction of America.  In one sense they are clever; it is true that most human beings are dragged about by their lower desires -- as alluded to as punishment for the Fall -- and they tend to make a lot of money by showing meida prostitutes and whores scantily clad for a buck.  Would that we gain the whole world and lose our souls?

As a simpleton critic of art, I have become sick with this "market driven" or should I say, "beast driven" art, and the silent tyranny it is imposing on our youth.  They are clever in that they start us young.  Turn on MTV if you want to see half-naked teens slobbering over each other, most likely spreading disease.  I wouldn't be in the least surprised if these execs were pedophiles.  We at least know they are the left arm of Planned Parenthood, who in their "compassion" are undermining parental control.  The tyrants that they are, they realize that the last stand against the tyranny of the lower desires is moral education by parents.  They know that the last fortress to be overcome is the family.  If they conquer there, then the idol state will have total control.

I have always wondered, when I was growing up, why the old white guy Bill Clinton was cool, and the old white guy George Bush was a square? If you asked me, I would say they are both square. I was taught from the beginning by the pedophile execs at MTV that the tryants, those who love making us slaves to lower desires; slaves to the existentialist narrative; would promote one party over another?  It dawned on me as I gained in wisdom that they loved the "men of the people," the tyrants who said anything goes.

Someone needs to tell these peddlers of teen smut, of stupidity parading as intelligence, that they need a new modus operandi.  Of course, they will always have viewers because of man's fallen state, but someone needs to tell them that the "irresponsible" rock star characters are archaic.  For an institution that is supposed to be cutting edge, the "shock value" of "shock rock" is as tired as Elvis' hip wiggle.  We ought to beware of the avant garde, because it really is a pseudonym for irrational smut pretending to be art with no meaning.  It intrigues because we want meaning as seekers of knowledge, but it typically is not art. 

For an industry that thrives on being new, their methods are as old as rock n roll itself.  American music and art is stale!  And the pedophile peddlers of teen porn and of the youthful in character need to wake up.  They won't though, because gaining the whole world is worth more than their souls.  So they will peddle Planned Parenthood's hate, make slaves, and hope for the day when they can silence any and all opposition to their desires.  They cannot wait until the day when dreams uncontrolled by reason become reality; they cannot wait to sink their fangs into all of humanity.  We should wake the drones up to this reality, for rock stars of the existentialist ilk seem to be, when the one swallow of the summer expires, the most miserable of people.  I hope for our sake we wake up, so we ourselves don't become the power-mongering slaves to lower desire.  We won't though, and it will continue to be cool to be irresponsible.  Modernity's worst of foes, responsibility.  We can probably sum up modern culture with the simple phrase -- "Aversion to responsibility." 

Thank you MTV and Planned Parenthood, for teaching us not to think.  Thank you for making us slaves. Thank you for your blind Nietzschean views, and for hearkening the day of the ubermensch.  On that day, when we are herded to the slaughter, I will thank thee for your irrationality.  (Luckily there is still hope for the American people, as they are finally starting to think.  I hope we are not too late.)

The Fall

What precisely happened at the Fall? If we are to believe moderns, it is simply a myth that archaic Christians like myself tend to buy into. Rabble like myself, who do not have any intellectual sophistication about them, accept these myths as a way to deal with the cold tragedy that is reality. Sophistry has never been so loud as today; or is it that in arrogance it has always been dropping sonic booms?


At any rate, in a book I've been composing I have highlighted the two laws that St. Paul tells us about in his letter to the Romans. He gives us the example of the law of the Spirit and the law of the flesh. The one is affirmation and life, and the other is bound to decay. This is one of those passages where I cannot help but see Plato shining through in Paul's doctrine.

Indeed, following John Paul II's catechesis on the Theology of the Body, I started to really recognize what precisely happened at that Fall. He mentions primordial shame, and says that when Adam and Eve hid themsleves from each other, it was because they realized they were subjects with inherent dignity, but at the Fall they started looking upon each other as objects for mere utilitarian gratification.

After having studied classical philosophy, the conclusion dawned on me that we have a way of understanding what took place at the Fall.  Of course, if we ask sophisticated moderns with their "open minds" they will tell us we need to put away the children's stories and start approaching things scientifically.  As if the scientific method, to which we are all now slaves, can tell us the cause of evil in the world?  So let us be unsophisiticated  biblicists and try to find answers wherever they may be, rather than prima facie shutting off avenues to truth based on a hubristic pseudo-sophistication.

In the book that I hope to publish I make the claim that Aristotle's ethics are a philosophic roadmap to reorienting ourselves -- when supplemented by the Gospel virtues -- back to our primordial state.  You see, the classical philosophers dissected the powers of the human soul into three (Plato) or four (Aristotle) parts.  For Plato, there were the reason, spirited, and desiring elements.  For Aristotle there were the intellect, the will, the irascible (responsible for anger and like emotions,) and the concupiscible (desiring) elements of the soul.  Aristotle most blatantly -- without revelation -- suggests what happened at the Fall.  Indeed, the correlation of his statements on the way each of the powers rule, if they have charge of the soul, and what things were probably like before the Fall, should make all of us marvel at Providence.  He says that when reason rules, it rules like a monarch; when the sense powers rule, they rule as tyrants. (See the first book of his Politics.)

This is, then, precisely what happened at the Fall.  Augustine, following Paul, tells us that our disordered desires are providential punishment for our first parent's sin.  So what happened?  Quite simply, it used to be that the intellect and will reigned supreme, properly measuring the lower sense powers so that they could reach their ultimate perfection.  At the Fall, the lower powers rebelled and alas, Eve started looking like a mere body to Adam and vice versa.  Sin, quite simply, in its principle is a disorder of the proper ordering of the soul; it is a lack of perfection of being.

Our Lord tells us "Blessed are the meek" and He means that those who properly measure their passions are happy.  Sounds very compatible to Aristotle, right?  Nietzsche thought so, which led him to lump classical philosphy together with Christianity in his "ascetic ideal."  The greatest atheist there ever was recognized the compatibility -- we should too.

So when we start hearing terms like "slave morality" bantered about, we ought to ask, "Who really is the slave?" The person who allows his reason to self-determine his activity, or the person who is determined by the pull of the passions.  Who is a slave?  The one who can say, "No," or the one who cannot?

So let us be archaic and buy into the so called "myth."  Let us open our minds, instead of pretending to be big minded while cutting off pursuit of the truth.  If the real haters would only allow us to hunt, we might find answers.  They tell us not to join the tourney because it is the activity of simpletons.  I say, let us rise and be on our way.  If you will not look, do not blame me for your blindness.  How the silencers came to be called open has always baffled me? 

Psuedo-sophistication and supposed objectivity of method have silenced a world burgeoning with answers; a poetic world; a plethora of life; a manifold of being; all this blindness in the name of method and a poor one at that!  I mean poor in the true sense of poverty: we are an intellectually starved race with our "science."How long shall we choose to live in the dungy ghetto of a world without God?  How long should we allow these pretenders to cut us off from being?  How long should we continue in our slavery?

Trust is an amazing thing.  Knock and the door will be opened.  We are no longer allowed to even knock.  Indeed, we cannot find the door.  Let us, then, ignore the slave moralists, and be free to be human; be free to live our humanity!  No longer shall the darkness abound. No more silence!

Arguing with atheists...

How often, in this anti-intellectual culture of ours do we really set out about debeting the things that really matter?  As rich aesthetes, I pointed out in my previous post that we do anything and everything to avoid any and all discomfort.  What is worse, as a culture we tend to shy away from intellectual controversies as the real haters have convinced us that silence is better than argument.

On the Catholic Answers Forum there is the real possibility to debate questions of substance.  Indeed, the arguments over there are a breath of fresh air in this silent culture of ours.  At any rate, I have found it interesting as of late that when I argue with atheists, it is much like banging your head against the wall.  It is as if we brow beat one another with neither side budging on their worldviews.

I have become convinced that faith is indeed a theological virtue.  Reason can only take one so far before faith is necessary.  The problem I have with atheists is their dishonesty with themselves.  While they are quick to point out that approaching questions in a philosophical manner from the perspective of there actually being a God produces bias, they are quite blind to their own dogmatism and the conclusions that result from them clouding their reasoning.

Benedict XVI, then Cardinal Ratzinger, raised a few eyebrows in his Introduction to Christianity when he wrote that the ontological status of the category of relation ought to be something scholars start to consider.  Of course he was approaching the question from the perspective of a theologian -- since God Himself is three in one, and there are relations between the three persons of the Trinity -- it follows that relation might mean more than previously thought.  This is not surprising to semioticians or followers of John of St.Thomas, who drew what laid hidden about relation from the depths of Aquinas' writings.  Indeed, if we look around us it is quite easy to see relation as having some substantial role in existence; children are born from relation; ideas are discovered via relation, the theory of realitvity, etc.  We cannot take the scientist out of the science, and he relates to the questions he inquires about.

This idea of relation being fundamental to human understanding seems to get lost on most atheists.  They seem to think the only persons blinded by perspective are those with a theistic viewpoint.  What self-deception! 

The claim goes something like this: "As an atheist, I only trust what I can see.  Since I cannot see God, it follows that I am right in concluding that he does not exist.  You Christians, on the other hand, claim that there is a God and you aim in this direction even though the evidence doesn't support what you claim.  You are reaching for a conclusion that is predetermined.  Whereas we have no predetermined ends, and therefore our reasoning is less biased than yours; indeed, we have no bias at all."

This is rather problematic because they fail to see their own perspectivism, and nine out of ten times, they are hubristic in claiming that only their reasoning is valid.  I have no problem with initiating a study without the supposed bias of God existing.  In philosophy, we look at things in themselves, and follow them where they lead us.  We make our mind's commensurate with the objects in the environment and then judge the conclusions from there.  We move from premise to conclusion based upon experience.

So what do our atheist friends do to allow perspective into their thinking?  They claim only they approach questions of truth with unbiased standards.  The trouble is, they do not follow their premises to the rightful conclusions.  Their assumptions are that "if it cannot be seen, it does not exist."  What do we make of things like the triangle in itself?  or the perfect circle?  or double? or infinity? or a chiliagon (as Descartes says)? or the infinite range of human understanding? or universal concepts? or mathematical concepts? These things do not exist except as mathematical formulations; except as beings of reason.  They cannot be seen.  Sure, we can draw a triangle on the board, but that is not a triangle in itself as it lacks the exact precision of the mathematical formula for a triangle.  Yet we can say that the triangle exists.  We know it exists because of independent verification -- because of relation.  On the atheist view, if it cannot be seen, it does not exist.  So the thinking gets clouded as soon as we reach sciences that are abstracted from matter; as soon as we reach sciences that traverse in both the ens rationis and ens reale categories. 

So the most noble lie invented by modern skeptics and empiricists is that their method is the only method that is not blinded by perspective.  Indeed, we all relate to objects in our environment, and thus perspective can never be removed from questions of truth.  If Christian theologians, and I do not deny that they have, have reached biased conclusions based on a worldview, so have atheists.  Let us put to rest, then, this chimera of absolute objectivity and the hubris of approaching questions without perspective.  Christian realists and atheists realists begin in the same place -- sensible experience -- but the Christian follows the premises it presents to their proper logical (immaterial) conclusions.  The atheist, to uphold his worldview, must deny logical conclusions that are based on things as we experience them. (He will say, for instance, that things have no substances, which ultimately means existence is either monistic or that nothing exists as these are the logical conclusions of such assumptions.  The first is contrary to experience, which is supposedly the atheist trump card, and the latter is simply nonsense. Or he will say all is disorder and chaos, but physical laws in nature testify to the contrary.)  So his method tends to operate on more damaging assumptions.

Faith, then, is a theological virtue.  No amount of brow beating will ever convince an atheist.  The Sedes Sapientiae, however, will.  A Rosary here for our hard hearted brethren will pay many more dividends than some esoteric philosophical debate.  Both are necessary, but reason only carries one so far.  Reason will wade you into the water.  Only grace will allow you to swim.

Sperm donors...

I want to talk a little today about what modern fatherhood has become.  For some reason, in our Nietzschean world, manhood has come to be represented as aversion to responsibility.  We, the rich modern aesthetes, have turned men into cowards and our women into whores.

Ultimately, we can thank a number of cultural streams for the predicament the modern family is in.  As all good Aristotlians know, if we destroy the family we destroy the fundamental unit of society and alas, we ultimately destroy society.  If only we blind knowers; if only we haters of responsibility, would recognize our cowardice, we might come to preserve virtue in this dying culture of ours.

John Paul II, in his last book Memory and Identity  suggested that perhaps the new "ideologies of evil" were more sinister than the old because they covertly attack the very foundation of society.  It used to be that the true pushers of slave morality attacked social institutions such as government bureaucracies and parliaments leveling their hate mongering from the top down.  Remember how when the USSR fell Americans were surprised that the Soviet people were not the problem, but that their leaders were?  The old ideologies of evil attacked men openly via their societal nature.  Not the new snakes; no, their forked tongues whisper to men where they are weakest; their forked tongues whisper while their reason sleeps.  They attack in the concupiscible power -- the power most distorted at the Fall.

Today, fatherhood is treated as a weakness; it is treated as an afterthought.  The new cowards who call themselves strong, have taken to womanizing; to using women and abadoning their children.  What strength!  We, the rich aesthetes will do anything to avoid any and all discomfort, including making cowardice manly.

Let us inquire about the modern "cool" man.  He has multiple sex partners.  He -- with the great strength of a coward -- asks his utilitarian self-gratifying female ornament to destroy his offspring.  He contracepts.  He wills nothingness and brags that he is strong.  We are terrified of life!  We rich aesthetes; we prefer to avoid our natures all while being subject to it.  We are slaves!

What has happened because of our aversion to life?  We have created real criminals; the great majority of those in prison come from single mother households.  We have created real victims; I needn't mention the silent Holocaust.  And the slave feminist moralists who have succeeded with a syncophantic media in convincing us that marriage is prison and bondage.  These drones have herded us into believing that the seat of society is prison and in so doing they have created real abuse.  Shall we ask them why it is that domestic abuse increases amongst non-married cohabiting couples?  Shall we ask them why it is that children in such arrangements are more likely to be abused?  Shall we ask them why abortion increases wherever contraception increases?  Shall we ask them why divorce has skyrocketed since the invention of their "freedom pill?"

No, no, let us be silent.  Let us be quiet in the face of the real slave morality because alas, it allows us to be determined rather than self-determined; because it allows us to be animals instead of rational.  No, let us be silent because we might offend the sensibilities of someone who dreamt that marriage was bad for society.  Let's not let facts get in the way of our shepherding to the slaughter.

And so, I salute the modern sperm donors who call themselves fathers -- way to live nihilism.  Way to cower in the face of life.  What is even greater, is that you've succeeded in convincing us that weakness is strength.  Enough of this toxic air!  To end the real slave morality we must drive it into the light.  Question with boldness the false dreams and lies of these slave moralists before you yourself become their slave.

We ought all take time to read the prophecy of Humanae Vitae, as then we might open our eyes to the true shepherd; the shepherd of freedom.  Then we might gain true personality, and truly walk alone, by following the true.

Let me tell you about heartache...

...at the loss of gods. Alas! It has finally happened. Public education has been dumbed down enough that we are finally ignorant enough to worship idols! The Protestant narrative has come to its existentialist conclusions; we have become self-makers!

The gods I refer to, of course, are the modern blaspheming politicians -- the parasite Obama being the worst of the worst. This last presidential election we essentially handed the keys to the US Kingdom to a stranger. What is worse, he's a Marxist stranger. A phony Christian, murdering innocents (it is not a human being in th womb), and destroying the greatest Christian kingdom that ever arose. It is no question that, like all the idiotic Marxists before him, Obama thinks the Keynsian system will bring about "fairness" and some kind of panacea on earth. I wonder, have our tyrant politicians ever question the possibility of heaven on earth? Have they ever wondered about human freedom and its limitless possibilities for evil? As men are free, so earthly paradises are impossible. Don't tell this to the self-made, supposed to be public servant, arrogant idols that are now running this country.

It is no wonder millions of Americans have become parasites, as we are now ruled by them. Political parties have destroyed this nation. The new self-made, self-proclaimed royalty (who really deserve to be called prostitutes at best) have gerrymandered their way into arrogant blindness. And we the sheep, being uneducated, swallow the dungwater so as to become parasites ourselves. Bad air!

The last presidential cycle our choices were between the Devil and Beezlebub; thank you for representing the 'will of the people' Democrats and Republicans.

So now, in the interests of fairness, the idol Obama (who else was frightened by the frothing crowds at his inauguration? Who else was frightened by the fawning, idiotic, self-proclaimed intelligentia, drooling over an unknown Marxist?) is creating a parasitical nation, and ruining our children's future. Enough! Academia for too long has barred freedom of thought! Media has for too long silenced opposition voices! Ignorance has become our bliss and we are now ruled by tyrants.

Let me tell you about heartache, as a soon to be father of two, who holds two Masters Degrees, who cannot find work because of some false dream of an ideologue; let me tell you about being a father who cannot provide for his family; let me tell you about false hope in the idol state. Wake up! These liars who make themselves royalty have never walked a day in your shoes; they have never walked in the small one's shoes; they have never treaded where peons tread; they are royalty, these prostitutes and parasites. Wake up! To Obama, Reed, Pelosi, and their ilk, we are but pawns and idiotic rabble, who would be better off if they directed our lives. Tyrants! Destroyers! Haters!

Awake me from this nightmare. Plato's drones now run this country, and the suffering has only just begun.

Phonies...

In honor of Salinger, who with Holden Caufield created one of the greatest social critics in modern America, I would like to take the time to point out America's "phonies." How long will we swallow the dungwater of modern elite culture?

Let us today focus on a particular manifestation of our existential narrative; America's High School Royalty. How long must we digest the rancid meat of the modern slave drivers in the music and movie industries?

Last night, while prerusing through some photos of the Grammy awards I became aware of another manifestation of the modern herd morality. Showiness; attention mongering; all done to uphold an 'image' whatever each star or starlet wishes to put out there. Hollywood is the epicenter of Goffman's theory that we put on our persona for different people on different occasions. I am certainly okay with eccentricity -- no one wants a dull Marxist atheist world -- except for the very Hollywood uneducated elite.

This is the rub, they think that personality is outward eccentricity; they think that to be someone, you have to be the show. I can appreciate art, where artists have a public persona, but only when they are up front about who they really are. The slave morality peddlers in Hollywood and music, one by one, try to blur the line between reality and art; they make themselves the art in their High School drama. For some reason, as herd members, we inbibe the pretended eccentricity; the phoniness of these "individuals" that are the weakest of the herd. It is but one more example that we live in an existentialist era; our royalty are self-creators of personality seeking to "look" eccentric so as to win praise.

I am willing to admit it is artistic and even intriguing. It wouldn't be problemetic if they actually had to make an apology -- if they weren't such herd members to the latest fashion and trend. The Hollywood eccentric are really peddlers of the Nietzschean slave morality and they don't even know it. Following the latest trend and the latest religion that will die with them. History will see them as the phonies they are; as the slaves they are; as the self-creators they are. We need merely wait.

The problem with modernity is we are all great artists, but we've confused art with life -- just like Nietzsche.

Offering worship to demons...

In the last post, I suggested that I might give details of my own experience of offering worship to demons via pseudo-religion; via personal-preference religion; via my own privatized religion. This modern phenomena of privatized religion, of course, is a result of the Protestant narrative, of which I am firmly rooted in.

Nonetheless, I am probably going to hold off on my own living of the existentialist narrative until the Spirit strengthens me. For now, I have not the courage nor humility to bring my crimes to the light; to bring my slavery to the light. I also find it a waste of time until people are actually reading my blog.

So, today, I offer an anecdote on our modern skeptical culture offering worship to demons through ignorance of God. We are nihilists because of our anti-religion -- the fate of all idolatrous ignorers of God.

I was recently reading here about modern physicists attempting to locate consciousness both within the brain and exterior to it. There hope is to prove the material instantiation of concsiousness, in case the possibility exists of "non-local" consciousness. The language in such documents is technical and one may need a PhD, or at least seminal knowledge of physical terminology as it exists on the quantum level in order to understand this article, and others like it. Indeed, I am no physicist and had my own difficulty deciphering the lingo. In reading it, though, I was struck by the predetermined materialism; by the deafness to Spirit.

So far, the blind materialists have been unable to discover energy consciousness. I cannot say for certain, but I would be willing to guess that they will never "locate" it, and that they are stuck in a vicious circle of "Soctratic optimism". The simpleton nun, or the pious, uneducated farmer, through a humble act of faith, has more knowledge than these PhD's because their humility opens them to the transcendent. They accept the Christian claim on faith!

However, the Christian claim -- indeed the Hellenic western claim -- of the immateriality of the soul is not some simplistic fideism. The Dumb Ox of those stupid "dark ages" (what a noble lie our Enlightenment philosophers taught us) offers a number of logical critiques of the idea that immaterial beings must have material or "energy" components. (I will spare you the arguments here, but check out Caput 49).

Quite simply, what has happened in our skeptical age; in our intellectually defeated age, is that we have let our predetermined outlook on the world determine our scientific inquiry. In some sense, this is unavoidable as we all relate to our world according to our own narratives. Nonetheless, the demons are all too happy when we become ignorers of God because when we do that we become blind followers of them. We turn into animals, which is right where they want us -- the devil would not worship God as man, so he seeks to animalize us. These physicists have reached the limits of their science, and so they posit "conciousness in dark matter," a philosophical speculation indeed, but an illogical one.

I once heard a scientist say, "If we cannot test something, then it is philosophy, not science," What hubris! He said it in a tone insulting of philosophy. It's amazing, though, how these scientists quickly become philosophers when they cannot test their conclusions. Furthermore, they insult philosophy while using it!

Long story short, our skepticism of immateriality has blinded us to our own ignorance. In seeking knowledge without God we become ignorant and in our ignorance we offer worship to demons. The less intelligible the world is, the less intelligence there is to be recognized within it. Without God we become beasts. The devil is wise; but vanquished. We need merely open our eyes.