Archives For Personal Writings

I recently was entangled in a contentious discussion with a mutual acquaintance in which a political topic was dissected namely whether there is more credence with the social selection versus the Darwinian sexual selection theory. At the conclusion of this discussion the individual proceeded to espouse the belief that I am not only bigoted but not taking politics seriously and thus giving off “bad vibes.” To this balderdash I am perfectly content to not have this individuals approval. I believe that everyone ought to not seek the approval of other men but rather the eternal and this is why I have no qualms with disagreeing with anyone in my life even those I love. On the surface it may seem a bit rigid of me to not concede a point in an attempt to be conciliatory but I believe in standing behind your convictions. If there is anything I have learned from my walk in life as a 21st century Christian is that certain tenets and positions are not going to be wildly accepted by the masses and I accept this reality. In today’s relativistic society we live in it is viewed as a moral imperative to not judge others on their actions or question the popular activist ideologies of the day. The political left leaning ideologies in particular have shown an intolerance to evidence that counters their dogmatic claims about how societies are and function. They place human pleasure, disguised as personal autonomy, higher than anything else. To be accepted in public life as a good person, any man or woman must publicly accede to certain pillars of secular faith, above all personal autonomy in matters of sex and cohabitation, (and drugs). This is why I am not particularly interested in serious political discussions nor do I take them especially serious. Often they involve discussions between opposing views that are so entrenched that neither is willing to step off their ideological cliff into the abyss which leads to a stand still from the start. Moreover these discussions involve a particular party in the discussion appearing to be interested in conversing but in actuality is more interested in attempting to set an ideological trap under the guise of genuinely being interested in your thoughts. These kind of silly games that take place on social media disinterest me which is why I rarely if ever commentate on the postings of others. The political landscapes and evolution of political ideas interests me greatly but in practice it is merely dreary and dull partisan games. Furthermore I see constantly on social media platforms where individuals are clearly far too emotionally invested in the particular topic to discuss it in any meaningful way. This is why although I can empathize with the individual I am addressing I am in large part unable to be that emotionally invested in a position even one where I am personally effected. Many cannot do this.

I thought in this second part I would address another personal happening which is that lately I have had multiple sources relate that I make someone uncomfortable either due to body language or otherwise. This seems to be a new phenomena which I have not really dealt with but I will do my best to explain my thought processes. Firstly I often feel that I am living in a bygone age whilst still trapped in the modern society that we have today. I believe this is in large part manifested by my love of antiques as well as history coupled by the fact I learned the classics in school (Roman and Greek). My rather stoic demeanor was in large part effected by the environments which I lived in and the experiences that I had during my childhood. When I was younger I like many people was a very talkative individual who spoke when it was not wise and refused to be quiet unless told. However this greatly changed as I have matured over the years. I have since become far more introspective of a person and much more prone to thinking than talking. After all countless proverbs give the great wisdom which I agree with that silence is often one of the greatest tools that you can use. vir sapit qui pauca loquitur (that man is wise who talks little),  qui moderatur sermones suos doctus est (He that hath knowledge spareth his words), stultus quoque si tacuerit sapiens putabitur (Even the fool, if he holds his tongue, is considered wise), si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses (If you had kept silent, you would have remained a philosopher.) These are just some examples off the top of my head. This is in large part why I am rather cautious when speaking around groups of people especially if the topic of discussion is something outside of my knowledge or expertise. Unfortunately this approach seems to be getting construed as an inability to conduct conversations or address individuals at all which I believe is utter nonsense. I simply speak when I have something to say and believe that by saying little it magnifies the impact when I do speak. I reject the idea that I must behave in certain ways to appease individuals whose approval I care nothing for. Other than my significant other whom I adore and cherish I have little desire to be predictable for others to digest easily. I see no issue with listening intently to conversations and contributing what I see fit. 

Apologies for the rather long screed but I felt compelled to write these thoughts down as I reflected on this interaction and respective feedback. Perhaps if I can think of more to address I will add a part two.

Advertisements

People who tend to lean more Republican/Conservative more often than not put more focus on the more dogmatic aspects of Christianity. The dogmatic aspects of Christianity are important because they preserve the structure. People who tend to lean more Liberal/Democratic more often than not put more focus on the more spiritual side of Christianity. The spiritual aspects of Christianity are important because they update the structure. Both are important and play their role.

One aspect of the Republican platform, which by the way I’m not advocating, that does I feel speak to Christian values is the concept of personal responsibility. In the end you will need to give an account to God and nobody will be able to vouch for you on your behalf. Ultimate responsibility for your Christ-like walk and faith lies with you. What you will find by studying the political platforms is that both sides have aspects that are biblical and other aspects where they are not. That’s why there really is no correct answer as to which political side a Christian ought to advocate for and why politics can divide the church.

sempiternal – adj. Enduring forever; eternal. From Latin sempiternus, from semper always + aeternuseternal

roborative – adj. Who Strengthens; fortifying. From Latin roborare to consolidate

recriminatory – adj. To counter one accusation with another. From re- + Latin crīmināre, to accuse

obligingly – adv. Ready to do favors for others; accommodating; in accommodation

interminable – adj. Being or seeming to be without an end; endless. From Late Latin interminābilis

quittances – n. Release from debt or other obligation; a receipt or other document certifying this. From Old French quiter to free

commodious – adj. Spacious; roomy; Archaic Suitable; handy. From Latin commodus convenient

gimcrack – n. A cheap and showy object of little or no use; a gewgaw. adj. Cheap and tasteless; gaudy. From Middle English gibecrake, small ornament

epaulette – n. A shoulder ornament, especially a fringed strap worn on military uniforms. From Latin spatula shoulder blade

neume – n. any of various symbols representing from one to four notes, used in the notation of Gregorian chant. From Greek pneuma breath

 

Christlikeness

May 16, 2017 — Leave a comment

Father of Jesus

Dawn returns, but without thy light within no outward light can profit;

Give me the saving lamp of thy Spirit that I may see thee, the God of my salvation, the delight of my soul, rejoicing over me in love.

I commend my heart to thy watchful care, for I know its treachery and power;

Guard its every portal from the wily enemy, give me quick discernment of his deadly arts, help me to recognize his bold disguise as an angel of light, and bid him begone.

May my words and works allure others to the highest walks of faith and love!

May loiterers be quickened to greater diligence by my example!

May worldlings be won to delight in acquaintance with thee!

May the timid and irresolute be warned of coming doom by my zeal for Jesus!

Cause me to be a mirror of thy grace, to show others the joy of thy service, may my lips be well tuned cymbals sounding thy praise, let a halo of heavenly-mindedness sparkle around me and a lamp of kindness sunbeam my path.

Teach me the happy art of attending to things temporal with a mind intent on things eternal.

Send me forth to have compassion on the ignorant and miserable.

Help me to walk as Jesus walked, my only Savior and perfect model, his mind my inward guest, his meekness my covering garb.

Let my happy place be amongst the poor in spirit, my delight the gentle ranks of the meek.

Let me always esteem others better than myself, and find in true humility an heirdom to two worlds.

This is probably the most asinine article I have come across in a very long time. This manifesto could not be anymore condescending if it tried. The author is essentially saying that if you don’t conform to the collective utilitarian agenda on public education you are a bad person. Don’t want your kids getting a poor education? You are a bad person. Don’t want to wait generations till public schools miraculously start working properly? Bad person. The author had the gall to even suggest that educational ignorance is adequate in navigating today’s world. I think this individual has clearly been so indoctrinated in the left’s religious fanatical belief in equality at all costs that she fails to realize the eventual harm this would have on society. Moreover she gives no clear indication for any public school reforms that would be taking place in the meantime while your kids are meant to be obtaining this sub par education for the greater good. Personally I attended private schools in middle and high school primarily due to the fact that the local public school would not offer an adequate education unless you were in their elite 1% of students. I am fortunate for my parents sacrificing time and money to give me a fighting chance rather than allow me to be stuck in the quagmire of public education. If anything this author’s reasoning is a prime example of why we need better education immediately because her reasoning is abysmal. I hope this is merely satire because if it isn’t its probably the worst regressive social engineering ideas ever recorded.

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/08/private_school_vs_public_school_only_bad_people_send_their_kids_to_private.html

So as was predicted by me and countless others, Macron was victorious in defeating Le Pen and her right wing coalition. While Le Pen was not a terrible candidate her affiliation with her party and their past offensive rhetoric ultimately appears to be the cause for her unfavorability. Macron despite winning by a large margin of victory at 65% is still relatively unpopular with the populace who seem more content with a bureaucrat out of dislike for the National Front. Will this come back to bite them? I believe so and here is why.

Macron is essentially doomed from the start. In the coming weeks, Macron will be tasked with setting up his strategic alliances in a bid to gain total control over the government machinery. If unable to gain these alliances, Macron will have an extremely difficult time getting anything accomplished while president of France and will go the way of Sarkozy and Hollande. On the issue of Islamic extremism and immigration Macron must not renege on his campaign rhetoric and move in the opposite direction as his predecessors did. If he were to do so then he can expect to see Le Pen again and this time he might not be so fortunate. Double-digit unemployment, serious terrorist threats, the European migrant crisis, E.U. corruption, and ballooning public debt are the troubles that lay ahead for Macron and frankly I don’t believe his centrist platform will placate enough issues facing France. I will give him credit though for moving the French economic agenda away from failed central economic planning and moving towards a more free market capital approach.

Macron’s victory means that the E.U. will not go down without a wimper but I believe it will still go down nonetheless, just more slowly. The people across Europe appear to be wising up to the political aims of this bureaucracy whose end goals appear to be the destruction of national identity in the name of select economic gain. This is why the right has and will continue to gain traction in the political sphere so long as the E.U. continues to flounder. While Macron’s election may present a slightly more difficult negotiation with Britain over Brexit I suspect it won’t change much of the overall outcome of their leaving. Britain maintaining its own currency lends itself to be in a better strategic position. Ultimately Macron winning means the E.U. no longer has any scapegoats when problems arise, which they will.

Now to those who are now gloating that political “Trumpism” is dead with the loss of Le Pen, I feel some things need to be pointed out. While these native protectionist candidates might not appear to be doing well in the overall elections they are being effective in changing the tonality of the political discourse. Their ideas and beliefs can no long be ignored and large swaths of the population are finding their views appealing. An example of this was Austria’s president passing some legislation on religious dress aimed at curtailing niqabs and burqas. Its starting to create this interesting dichotomy where the countryside and rural areas of the countries are starting to rebel against the directions and ideas put forth by the wealthy urbanites. This does not bode well for resolving a continuously fracturing population. Not only does it pit people against each other but it increases the possibility of violent conflict and revolution. Obviously I am not condoning that course of action but it must be said for the fact  that revolutions typically come from the countryside and make their way into the city, rarely the other way around. At the celebratory speech of Macron instead of coming on stage to the sounds of La Marseillaise he came on stage to the E.U. anthem. That says it all.

A clearer picture of the future will be realized in the coming French elections in June as well as the elections in Germany in September.

 

Roaming Millennial a right leaning Youtuber decided to conduct an interview with Alt-Right icon and spokesperson Richard Spencer which of course was met with resounding criticisms. These criticisms range from those appalled that Spencer was granted an interview at all to those upset that Roaming Millennial didn’t press Spencer more by combating his points during the interview. I hope to address some of these issues and in turn to show why I think the interview was perfectly reasonable and the outrage is unwarranted.

Firstly on the issue of Spencer being granted an interview that just seems a bit ridiculous being that Spencer is a nationally recognized figure in the media who has been on countless other programs and interviews. Why then is it an issue when Roaming does it but not CNN? I seem to be missing the problem there. Some say that by giving Spencer a platform we are essentially normalizing his ideas. I fear this to be greatly misguided thinking. By denying his ideas sunlight we would be doing a far greater service not only to him but his movement by allowing it to grow outside the public square of ideas. This is far more dangerous than the possibility of Spencer saying a disagreeable policy idea.

Additionally on the issue of the interview itself there seems to be this weird notion that an interviewer ought to be pointed and cutting with the questions almost in a combative manner. Unfortunately what people appear to desire is more of a debate than an actual interview. The true purpose of an interviewer is to make the interviewee comfortable to the point where they are able to respond and freely communicate their ideas with little coercion. The interviewer is meant then develop those ideas in a manner that can be better understood by the reader or viewer. The interviewer is not meant to be combative by lecturing the source, arguing or debating . Moreover it makes zero sense to create a hostile situation when the goal is to create a comfortable environment and thus allow for defenses to be bypassed. It seems rather foolish to have different principles for different people. If the interviewee was somebody other than Richard Spencer I would wager that nobody would have thrown the fuss on display about the manner of the interview.

I also see some individuals upset that Roaming didn’t refer to Spencer as a Nazi. Yes its possible that Spencer shys away from the term due to the negative historical connotations. However I don’t understand why people are so quick to use such terminology to refer to people who are clearly not Nazis. Nazis have a historical legacy which isn’t good so why would these individuals want to empower the movement by associating this new ethno nationalist element with historical Nazis? What is to be gained by doing so? I simply don’t see what is to be gained especially since the term Nazi is being diluted in American political discourse already by progressives.

Finally there were some who became indignant due to Roaming referring to the hypothetical policy proposals of the ideal Alt-Right candidate being similar to center Left. This sort of indignation is to be expected from people who simply throw political terminology around without the requisite knowledge of what the terms are. Anybody with a basic understanding of political science ought to know that the far right/ethno nationalists/Nazis are essentially progressives but instead of caring about POC justice they care about white justice. Their policies are essentially the same on the environment, healthcare, infrastructure, etc. They differ on things such as societal make up and immigration policies. They are fundamentally different sides of the same coin. Perhaps that indignation comes because the left can’t simply dismiss them due to having similar policy positions. To me this seems likely. But even more likely it is due to the inability of the left to combat these ideas in an intellectual manner. The left is so used to simply stating that the debate is over on issues it has forgotten the ability to debate. If you disagree with Spencer then state why he is wrong. I personally have already done so in an older post on the subject of ethno nationalists and am happy to debate ones I encounter and show why I believe their ideology is wrong.