Archives For Personal Writings

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.

Advertisements

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.

 

It appears that the SGA of Western Kentucky University has gone full on virtue signalling as they recently passed a resolution that would grant black students free tuition in hopes of absolving themselves of their sins which include not being black. Here are some of the ridiculous reasons given for this drastic action that would be forced upon the student population:

  • Universities like to claim diversity without acknowledging the negative effects of slavery and segregation on black students
  • Past racial disparity has evolved into economic disparity in today’s society, making it difficult for black youth to attend college
  • If you really care about diversity, if you really care about inclusion, if you really care about making this campus safe and accessible to everybody, having the student government’s support of reparation for black students would be amazing
  • A lot of times equality can feel like oppression for those who are losing their advantage, but that’s not a reason we shouldn’t fight for equality
  • The point of a resolution like this is basically to make a huge statement saying that the Student Government Association recognizes the impact that slavery has had on black people today and that changes need to be made

Alright lets start  by breaking down what is actually being stated and then I will demonstrate the lunacy behind these reasons. Firstly its utter rubbish for someone to insinuate that giving one demographic of the student population preferential treatment is somehow a form of equality. In case this person didn’t know, equality (ɪˈkwɒlɪtɪ) is the quality of being the same in quantity or measure or value or status. In other words giving some free tuition and not others doesn’t constitute equality. Now can you see why some students might feel its oppression? Because it is. Additionally what course of action is going to be taken for those black students with the financial means to pay their own tuition bill. Are they simply going to receive these benefits by association? It seems rather baffling that a society that desires to be as egalitarian as possible would enact such policies based on someones race. Furthermore who is going to pay for this free tuition? Is it going to come from endowments and donations from Alumni? Because I can already foresee that not being feasible and Western Kentucky could easily see that backfire as they lose enrollment and donations. Is the government going to foot the bill? I’m not sure many already cash strapped constituents would be keen to see their tax dollars go to such a project. 

On the subject of slavery that is entirely true. Historically blacks were held under bondage and in the south did suffer under Jim Crow laws. That being said why does their oppression get preferential retroactive benefits that other oppressed groups don’t receive. Are the Jews who suffered from the Holocaust entitled to additional benefits? What about the Armenians? What about other ethnic groups who suffered slave conditions? Native Americans? Where do we draw the line for which groups are entitled to retroactive justice and which groups are not? Or is the entire point of this exercise for everyone not white with a grievance to receive benefits until satisfied? Not only does this appear to be a form of racism via identity politics but in a society that desires equality these policies are not what we want. Better methods for increasing diversity would be increasing the number of qualified blacks into your universities. Helping said qualified blacks remain in school academically and encouraging them to major in hard sciences and not just the social sciences would be vastly more beneficial. Blacks at colleges and universities would be unbelievably stigmatized as not qualified due to this which is why I wouldn’t personally take free tuition based on my race even if offered. I see no reason why you would want to provoke and alienate your fellow students and in the process give ammunition for others to question your credentials and ability to learn. And at the end of the day whether black students get free tuition  won’t change their views or identity politics. They will remain able to complain about white supremacy and the effects of slavery I guarantee it.

http://wkuherald.com/news/sga-passes-resolution-to-support-reparations-for-black-students-at/article_6bf2a05a-0d4e-5fad-8da2-11a58f185eb0.html

It appears that a letter co-signed by 20 students at one of the Claremont Colleges, Pomona College, is making the rounds on social media. The story goes that there was an attempt by a conservative speaker to speak at their school. Naturally being the intellectual fascists that they are, some student activists blocked entry into the venue and thus did not allow their fellow students to attend of their free volition. Due to receiving criticism from various local media, libertarian news organizations, and a letter from the school president on the subject of academic freedom and free expression, they penned this letter to the president of the college.

We, few of the Black students here at Pomona College and the Claremont Colleges, would like to address several of the points made in your ‘Academic Freedom and Free Speech’ email sent out to the entire student body on April 7, 2017 in response to a student protest against Heather Mac Donald’s talk at Claremont McKenna College’s (CMC) Athenaeum. We believe that given your position as President of this institution your voice holds significant weight in campus discourse. That power comes with immense responsibility, especially when you could dictate campus culture, climate, and the alleged mission of this institution. As President, you are charged with upholding principles of Pomona College. Though this institution as well as many others including this entire country, have been founded upon the oppression and degradation of marginalized bodies, it has a liability to protect the students that it serves. The paradox is that Pomona’s past is rooted in domination of marginalized peoples and communities and the student body has a significant population of students from these backgrounds. Your recent statement reveals where Pomona’s true intentions lie.

From the get go this letter is completely misinterpreting the powers and responsibilities that universities are placed with in regard to their students. Sure a university is responsible for your physical safety on campus but it is not responsible for your safety from hearing ideas you disagree with. Moreover we can see the typical go to language of choice in regard to American institutions by classifying them all as having been founded upon oppression and degradation which of course is simply not the case according to historical reference. Certainly some institutions can be classified under that historical narrative but we should be far more nuanced by differentiating based on objective evidence and not conjecture. In regard to Claremont specifically there is no evidence of oppression or degradation.

Free speech, a right many freedom movements have fought for, has recently become a tool appropriated by hegemonic institutions. It has not just empowered students from marginalized backgrounds to voice their qualms and criticize aspects of the institution, but it has given those who seek to perpetuate systems of domination a platform to project their bigotry. Thus, if “our mission is founded upon the discovery of truth,” how does free speech uphold that value? The notion of discourse, when it comes to discussions about experiences and identities, deters the ‘Columbusing’ of established realities and truths (coded as ‘intellectual inquiry’) that the institution promotes. Pomona cannot have its cake and eat it, too. Either you support students of marginalized identities, particularly Black students, or leave us to protect and organize for our communities without the impositions of your patronization, without your binary respectability politics, and without your monolithic perceptions of protest and organizing. In addition, non-Black individuals do not have the right to prescribe how Black people respond to anti-Blackness.

Here is where you see the flaw in their reasoning as they attempt to turn the discussion of free speech into an all or nothing affair. Unfortunately for them most people are not foolish enough to succumb to that line of thinking especially the educated. It is true that freedom of speech can be utilized by people you agree with and people you disagree with. The question then is do you truly support the universality for the right of free speech or simply support freedom of speech for your personal gain? It appears for these students the choice is the latter. While true that non-black individuals can’t enforce how blacks respond to certain situations they are allowed to comment and bring in their perspective to the discourse. The idea that black individuals are above reproach on issues concerning the black community is utter nonsense. Nobody is above reproach. The underlying current throughout this article is pretty clear: power. They don’t like that others can use power they perceive to be theirs alone and thus they believe that power ought to be removed by any means. Additionally freedom of speech does far more to uphold the discovery of truth than these student’s idea of a totalitarian reign over free expression. How can what you believe be proven to be truth unless it goes through the crucible of objective reasoning and public discourse?

Your statement contains unnuanced views surrounding the academy and a belief in searching for some venerated truth. Historically, white supremacy has venerated the idea of objectivity, and wielded a dichotomy of ‘subjectivity vs. objectivity’ as a means of silencing oppressed peoples. The idea that there is a single truth–’the Truth’–is a construct of the Euro-West that is deeply rooted in the Enlightenment, which was a movement that also described Black and Brown people as both subhuman and impervious to pain. This construction is a myth and white supremacy, imperialism, colonization, capitalism, and the United States of America are all of its progeny. The idea that the truth is an entity for which we must search, in matters that endanger our abilities to exist in open spaces, is an attempt to silence oppressed peoples. We, Black students, exist with a myriad of different identities. We are queer, trans, differently-abled, poor/low-income, undocumented, Muslim, first-generation and/or immigrant, and positioned in different spaces across Africa and the African diaspora. The idea that we must subject ourselves routinely to the hate speech of fascists who want for us not to exist plays on the same Eurocentric constructs that believed Black people to be impervious to pain and apathetic to the brutal and violent conditions of white supremacy.

Firstly the whole concept of white supremacy is a sham in itself. I constantly see people drone on about white supremacy but are unable to articulate specific instances and institutions who perpetuate this so called white supremacy. It appears these students fall into that category. The concepts of subjectivity vs objectivity are not utilized to oppress people but to differentiate between things that are subjective (influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions) and objective (not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts). It is pertinent when wanting to hold dialogue and discourse that the two be distinguished. Secondarily it appears these students are unable to grasp the ways the Enlightenment,  a period that advanced the ideals of liberty, progress, tolerance, fraternity, constitutional government, and separation of church and state, has been beneficial in their lives. This simply appears to be a case of the students either not knowing history very well or just not appreciating it. I would guess both.

The idea that the search for this truth involves entertaining Heather Mac Donald’s hate speech is illogical. If engaged, Heather Mac Donald would not be debating on mere difference of opinion, but the right of Black people to exist. Heather Mac Donald is a fascist, a white supremacist, a warhawk, a transphobe, a queerphobe, a classist, and ignorant of interlocking systems of domination that produce the lethal conditions under which oppressed peoples are forced to live. Why are you, and other persons in positions of power at these institutions, protecting a fascist and her hate speech and not students that are directly affected by her presence?Advocating for white supremacy and giving white supremacists platforms wherefrom their toxic and deadly illogic may be disseminated is condoning violence against Black people. Heather Mac Donald does not have the right to an audience at the Athenaeum, a private venue wherefrom she received compensation. Dictating and condemning non-respectable forms of protest while parroting the phrase that “protest has a celebrated” place on campus is contradictory at best and anti-Black at worst.This is not an argument rooted in Heather’s loss of “free speech” or academic freedom. She is a well-known public figure, her views are well documented. Rather, our praxis is focused on not allowing her anti-Black platform to be legitimized in front of an audience, which she does not have the right to. Engaging with her, a white supremacist fascist supporter of the police state, is a form of violence.Protest that doesn’t disrupt the status quo is benign and doesn’t function to overthrow systems of oppression, which is the ultimate goal.

Cue the long list of pejorative names in an attempt to discredit a person and besmirch their character. Nothing about Ms. MacDonald has led me to believe she desires black people to not exist. And no, disagreeing and not liking black lives matter is not the same as not liking black people. Furthermore, Ms. MacDonald appears to be an educated individual who is capable of laying out her platform and positions, some of which I disagree with. However, she is no fascist. We do a far greater disservice to black people when we try to equate speakers as condoning violence when no violent ideas are being discussed. Are blacks simply not capable in the eyes of these 20 students of receiving speakers critical of black activist organizations? I fear its not that blacks are not capable but that these students are not capable of refuting MacDonald’s ideas.

To conclude our statement, we invite you to respond to this email by Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 4:07pm (since we have more energy to expend on the frivolity of this institution and not Black lives). Also, we demand a revised email sent to the entire student body, faculty, and staff by Thursday, April 20, 2017, apologizing for the previous patronizing statement, enforcing that Pomona College does not tolerate hate speech and speech that projects violence onto the bodies of its marginalized students and oppressed peoples, especially Black students who straddle the intersection of marginalized identities, and explaining the steps the institution will take and the resources it will allocate to protect the aforementioned students. We also demand that Pomona College and the Claremont University Consortium entities take action against the Claremont Independent editorial staff (http://claremontindependent.com/meet-the-staff/) for its continual perpetuation of hate speech, anti-Blackness, and intimidation toward students of marginalized backgrounds. Provided that the Claremont Independent releases the identity of students involved with this letter and such students begin to receive threats and hate mail, we demand that this institution and its constituents take legal action against members of the Claremont Independent involved with the editing and publication process as well as disciplinary action, such as expulsion on the grounds of endangering the wellbeing of others.

Making demands appears to be all these students are good for. It wouldn’t surprise in the slightest that these students are vastly over-represented in the humanities departments and not in STEM majors. I cannot fathom what is going on in their minds that leads them to not only call on students to be punished for writing in a news publication but that the publication essentially be censored permanently. This is not the America that I nor most I believe desire for everyone. Like they said you cannot have your cake and eat it too. You cannot demand that everyone be treated equally under the law but desire special benefits for yourself. You cannot demand that your speech not be silenced but desire others to be silenced. This kind of barbarism appears all too common on the progressive side of the political sphere. The best way to combat it is by not giving in to their demands and by not letting them gain power by intimidation. If you give in then you give them cause to continue their charade of fighting a mythical white supremacy and doubling down on identity politics.