Psalms 42. Quemadmodum.
- LIKE as the hart desireth the water-brooks, * so longeth my soul after thee, O God.
- My soul is athirst for God, yea, even for the living God: * when shall I come to appear before the presence of God?
- My tears have been my meat day and night, * while they daily say unto me, Where is now thy God? …
Can it really get much crazier than this? A “pillar” of the Saint Louis trans community has died. It was a man who amputated parts of himself so that he resembled a woman in a few superficial respects. In the linked article, he is mourned by his “wife,” who is itself a woman who amputated parts of herself so that she resembled a man in a few superficial respects.
So they changed their “sexes” and then “married” persons of the “opposite” “sex.”
They are bikers. Not dykes on bikes, exactly; Heaven knows what they are.
The deceased is on the left, its survivor on the right.
The poor things. Ach, what a trainwreck. God help and forgive them, and bring them to everlasting light; RIP.
And may God help us.
PS: I hope I got the syntax right in the foregoing. It’s amazingly hard to keep track of “categories” when you have dispensed with categories.
Half of the families in my apartment building are Muslims. I don’t interact with them much, but occasionally we run into each other. I remember the night in 2012 when President Obama accepted his nomination as the Democratic candidate for president. Ordinarily, I try to stay clear of all that political partisan stuff, but I was out for a walk, and one of the Muslim men decided to play Obama’s acceptance speech on his car radio loud enough for the rest of us to hear. Obama was going on about a sinister cabal of rich men who are scheming to decide “whether you can have birth control” and “who you can marry”, etc, with Obama assuring us that he’s going to fight these miscreants. And there’s this Muslim guy with his long beard and funny non-Western clothes grinning and nodding along. Our eyes met, and he smiled, and went on listening.
Here’s the funny thing. I haven’t talked to them, but the other American family in the apartment building has, and they’ve learned some things about our Muslim neighbors. These guys are from Saudi Arabia. The guy’s wife goes around completely covered except for her eyes, and she’s actually not supposed to be out at all if men might be present. And there they are, seemingly as happy as can be with the Democrats’ feminist jihad, as if there’s no tension there. I know this would make a better story if I would have gone up and asked him if it didn’t make him a little bit uncomfortable that the President was advocating contraception and sodomy, but I don’t know him, and I didn’t want to start an argument. I suppose it’s possible that he was laughing to himself about what a bunch of degenerates Americans are, but I can’t help suspecting that he was just nodding with approval at the thought that his candidate was going to stick it to those white Christians. Consistently applied principles are for suckers. What one thinks of Muslims in America depends a lot on how one reads those grins.
Let me tell you how I think about Muslims in the West. They’re liberals, married for life to the Left, just like Jews and American blacks. Individuals among these groups might make common cause with us, and such are welcome, but their identities are too tied with the sense of opposition to Christian Europe for us to expect more than that. Terrorism is a nuisance, much less dangerous to our civilization than blasphemy. In the end, Muslims will only matter as communist voters.
Our loyal leftist commenter a.morphous responded to my post of the other day on Homeostasis & Cultural Health with an argument that homosexuals want to be able to marry each other simply because “they are people and want to live like people.”
Not so. They want to be able to marry each other because they want to be able to live like heterosexual people, without ever actually living like heterosexual people.
Not only is there always a state religion, but there is always a king of some sort, a father of the country. Likewise there is always a class of priests and judges, always a class of warrior nobles, always a class of merchants, always monastics and hermits, a market, a language, families, patriarchs, prophets, sex roles, etc. These things are built into man. They can be suppressed for a while, or injured, but not permanently eliminated from the constitution of human society. You can’t get rid of them, any more than you can get rid of the pancreas or the spleen. The functions they mediate must be mediated, and one way or another they will be mediated.
Back when the West was sane, egregious transgressors of the traditional customs of the city were exiled to the wilderness beyond the pale – i.e., beyond the palisade (of poles, or pales, or piles) that walled the settlement, and constituted it a polis. The worst of them were also bewildered – led deep into the forest blindfolded and lightly bound, so that when they finally struggled free they would be hopelessly lost (criminals were of course just killed).
Nowadays we all live among a people who have as one body ventured forth without the pale, bound and bewildered themselves.
Our problem, then, at least severally, is to loosen our bonds, tear off our blindfolds, and find our way back to the city. But as we do so, we must be careful not to arouse too much notice from the tyrants who have emptied the town and loudly howled to attract the wolves, or they shall kill us as dangerous traitors. We must just disappear from amongst them, as if we had been eaten.
Many reactionaries and right liberals have remarked that the grand strategy of left liberalism with respect to Islam is to use it (along with mass immigration from other dysfunctional cultures) to sap the culture and morale of the West, and then turn and deprave the immigrants and Moslems with porn, consumerism, nihilism, atheism, scientism, libertinism, and so forth – i.e., to turn them into cynical liberals like themselves.
The right has also pointed out that once Sharia is imposed upon the West, liberals will be the first to feel its lash. As with the liberal campaign for abortion rights that cuts deepest into the biological reproduction of liberals themselves, the strategy is suicidal.
With the attack on Charlie Hebdo, Islam has made it crystal clear that the right is correct in this assessment. The attack on Charlie Hebdo is a frontal assault on the Cathedral of Moloch. It is a massacre of high-ranking prelates of that religion. Unlike 9/11, it cannot be quite characterized as an attack against capitalism or global finance. Nor can it be characterized as contra the military power of the West, or against Christianity, or colonialism, or imperialism, or any of the other bugbears of the left. No. It is an attack against the chattering classes themselves, specifically and only them – in Hollywood, the academy, and journalism.
And they cannot but know this, deep down.
It has to be a sobering moment for our rulers: they are naked, as they well know, and indeed prefer; and now they must see that the knives are out against their tender, unprotected flesh.
This will not, of course, prevent them from arguing publicly that the attack may be blamed on the nativist, reactionary right. Many of them, no doubt, will persist in their delusions at all costs. But quite a few, at the margins, must now be wondering whether they might not have got things dreadfully backward – whether they themselves are not after all the useful idiots.
Here is the final part (too long delayed) of this series.
When discussing how to become a traditionalist, it is appropriate also to speak briefly of the content of traditionalism. In harmony with the order of being, traditionalism seeks a social order that, among other things,
- is based on Christianity, in the sense that it affirms the basic Christian views of God, man and society but does not necessarily support only one view of exactly how man must worship or be saved from the wrath of God.
- publicly honors Christianity, and holds that theology and God-honoring philosophy, not science, are the highest forms of knowledge.
- acknowledges that some men naturally have authority over others: magistrates over citizens, clergymen over parishioners, teachers over students, husbands over wives and children, mothers over children, and so on.
- acknowledges not only that authority exists, but that male authority is of fundamental importance for the proper functioning of society at every level, from the family to the national government. Without strong male authority, exercised with competence and love, things naturally fall apart. With this authority, men, women and children can live as they ought.
- promotes what is commonly called the traditional view of male-female relations: premarital chastity, male headship of the household, female emphasis on childrearing and maintenance of the household, and the importance of bearing and properly raising children.
- holds that we ought to honor our parents and, more generally, the ways of our people.
- does not suicidally demand that the people be tolerant and inclusive of a disruptive influx of foreigners, but instead looks on the nation as a people and an order that are good and are therefore to be preserved.
- is intolerant of, and seeks to control, crime, vice, perversion, ugliness and the like.
- recognizes that part of our Western heritage is freedom, provided that it is an ordered freedom under God and the civil law.
- limits government, out of an understanding that government officials have a natural tendency to gain and abuse power, and that since government has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force, the growth of government is a fundamental threat against which we must guard. This view does not contradict the legitimacy of authority, because all legitimate authority has limits, beyond which it becomes tyrannical and therefore invalid.
- uses the law to punish criminals, with the death penalty when appropriate, rather than to satisfy procedural and bureaucratic regulations, or to promote liberalism.
- regards the nation and its history as fundamentally good, and does not seek radical change. Change is for the purpose of incremental improvement, not the radical overturning of imaginary fundamental injustices.
- holds that freedom and equality are not (contra liberalism) the primary social goods, and that they become destructive forces when not subordinated to other, more fundamental goods, such as honoring God.
Christmas Tree; Burning Bush; Tree of Life; Yggdrasil; Menorah, Tree of Lights; Pillar of Cloud & Fire; Chariot Throne (wheels in wheels); Sun of Righteousness; Heavenly Host; Cosmos (host in order of battle); Sabaoth; Jacob’s Ladder; Rainbow Bridge: Milky Way; Gate of Heaven; Vine; Flowering Rod of Aaron; Root of Jesse (“Yah Is”); Tropaeum; Faithful Cross; one and only Noble Tree. All are types of the manner of our Lord’s descent and manifestation to us, of his creation, preservation, and blessing of all this our life; of his Incarnation and Passion, his Redemption of his world, of his Resurrection, and his Ascent.
It’s not that atheist explanations are wrong, so much as that, qua explanations, they are in the final analysis simply impotent. At bottom, they have no basis in necessity. So, at bottom, they end up able to say no more than, “this is the way things happened; er, that’s all.” They are descriptions, rather than explanations. Not wrong; not uninformative; often utile; but, just inadequate. Atheist explanations cannot close the deal; for, they have no ultimate cash value.
This is why the juridical question is efficacious against an atheist. Just keep asking “Why?” Eventually, he will be forced to reply with an exasperated, “Because that’s just the way it is; there is no further explanation.” So saying, he cannot but reveal his unreason; which, as sapping the very foundations of his doctrine, so vitiates the whole structure thereof – and so, could he but see, ruins it utterly.