Blog

Injection Irony

“Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. ” –George Orwell

For many years, those women who have supported the murder of children in the womb[1]AKA ‘abortion,’ which is the accepted euphemism for this by today’s benighted people. We help no one but those who seek to commit murder on a massive scale by allowing them to … Continue reading have defiantly cried out “My body, my choice!” Concomitantly, males in support of this evil practice have echoed that sentiment with “Who am I am to tell a woman what to do with her body?” This rubbish [2]An example of the ignoratio elenchi fallacy which conveniently disposes of the fact that such proclamations have nothing to do with the individual and unique human life that is actually at stake and … Continue reading has been swallowed hook, line, and sinker by an ever-more credulous public eager for the pretense of morality without any of the accompanying effort or cost and all of the perceived perks and benefits.

Lately, this pernicious phrase has come to the fore in the service of a movement that actually has merit, namely that individuals in an ostensibly free society should not be forcibly injected with substances without their consent upon the whims of the decrepit ruler of a panicked and unhinged demos. Let me first state that which should be obvious to all imbued with even a bare modicum of wisdom: there is no quick and easy answer to the subject of vaccinations. Anyone who states that we all should allow ourselves to be injected with whatever a government ‘expert’ and his corporate henchmen stipulate, whenever they stipulate it, is a fool, as is anyone who states that there is no situation, ever, in which measures should be taken to protect a community from those who are verifiably transmitting deadly disease to others [3]Exhibit A: the ‘blood terrorism’ advocated and practiced by homosexuals to purposely infect the blood supply with AIDS in the hopes of securing more taxpayer funding by making the disease … Continue reading. To reason is to proceed carefully and with nuance, and to the mass of people today[4]Sadly this is almost as endemic to the majority of the right as it is to the left. But, thankfully, many on the right, even if they don’t have a proper grounding in the proper use and … Continue reading, these are anathema. The thinking behind entering this phrase into the political/moral arena is essentially: “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander,” i.e. it is hypocritical for leftists[5]For indeed it is the leftists who are the most vocal and shrill about this. While there are those with the label of ‘Republican’ who align themselves with the left on this, I am not aware … Continue reading to demand forcible vaccination of those people who choose not to be vaccinated, for such forcible vaccination violates their autonomy and privacy, which according to the left is supposedly sacrosanct, in fact, sacrosanct unto the death of innocents.

One of the problems with adopting this tactic is that it gives tacit assent and support to the lie that the salient issue in not allowing women[6]Let us not neglect to mention that if these women were involved with an actual man who did not shirk responsibility and manhood, many of these women wouldn’t even consider such a terrible … Continue reading to commit infanticide is that it is an attack upon the woman’s autonomy and privacy. Another problem is that by invoking this narrative, the core issue, the core truth, is missed yet again, which is precisely what the enemies of that which is true desire. It should also serve as a warning signal that even those who might say the right things and who might even be motivated by commendable beliefs, oftentimes lack the perspective and operative principles to understand what it is they are actually doing and why they are doing it, and hence they become unwitting allies of those who propagate beliefs which are rightly regarded as abhorrent. This surface-level approach in the United States and the West to all things of relevance runs deep indeed.

But what is the core reality that is being missed? It is, that just as the destruction and subsequent disposal of the unborn into the trash is rooted entirely in selfishness, so it is with forced vaccinations: they are both a consequence of individuals who have taken the message of self ‘love’ to its murderous and logical conclusion, i.e. that the self is all that matters, and anything or anyone that impedes the desires thereof must be destroyed or cast aside[7]It is fascinating and ironic indeed, that the Latin root for ‘abort’ has connotations of making something ‘disappear’ and that that Latin word is itself a modification of the … Continue reading. Just as the barbaric cultures of the Aztecs, Mayans, and Incas of old murdered their children by the thousands to appease the ‘gods’ in order to ensure a good crop yield and for their lives to be easier or more comfortable, so do today’s barbarians execute their children by the millions in the pursuit of the same ends. As Solomon said three millennia ago: There is nothing new under the sun.

Consider: Forcible injections are not new to the left, for one of the many horrific realities about the monstrosity of the homicide[8]In 1974, The West German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) wrote, “The usual language, termination of pregnancy, cannot conceal the fact that abortion is a homicidal … Continue reading of the unborn, is that for many years it was achieved via an injection of saline into the amniotic sac and/or directly into the baby: “Saline abortions use a saline solution to poison the baby, which burns him or her inside and out, even burning off the outer layer of their skin. The child suffers in these conditions for over an hour until their demise, and the mother must deliver her dead child the next day.”[9]From Born-Alive Abortion Survivors: Just the Facts, https://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF19E62.pdf It is revealing that even the murderous advocates of this moral atrocity acknowledge that a death has occurred: “Fetal death within one hour of injection has been documented by hysterotomy. The hypertonic saline infusion causes water to diffuse into the amniotic sac from surrounding fetal and placental tissues. The damage resulting from this fetal dehydration is probably responsible for fetal death.” [10]Cronenwett, Linda R., and Janice M. Choyce. “Saline Abortion.” The American Journal of Nursing 71, no. 9 (1971): 1754–57. https://doi.org/10.2307/3422026. ‘Probably’ responsible. Who knows? Who cares? All that matters is that the threat to the self’s autonomy and independence has been dispensed with. As indicated above, because this barbaric practice often required a stay at the hospital so that the dead baby could be safely and sanitarily ‘delivered,’ it was supplanted by cheaper and more expeditious means of killing our offspring[11]what the term fœtus actually means.

Many of the people who have advocated for these horrors (or via their votes have lent their support to it) are woefully uninformed about the realities of it, hence, it should surprise no one that they would tend to follow blithely and mindlessly along with the architects of atrocity down the path towards enforced vaccination. As to those who do know the grisly details, is it any less unsurprising that the members of a party where the primary shibboleth for entry and candidacy is advocacy of such murder, are the same people clamoring for forcible vaccination of those, who like the unborn baby, are guilty of no crime against them? Thus, it follows, that the advocates of the murder of the unborn are being consistent (not hypocritical) when out of their terror at the perceived imperilment of their own ease and comfort, they lend their support to policies that pursue forcible injections of hastily developed and poorly tried concoctions passed off as trustworthy vaccines along with terrible penalties for those that refuse, for these are the same people who out of the darkness of their understanding are enthusiastic supporters of the slaughter of innocents for the very same reasons. Forcible injection, ostracization, and making pariahs of those who exhibit probity and aren’t ruled by fear, is a small matter compared with the horrors they’ve willingly and knowingly supported or inflicted upon untold millions of children for decades[12]Let us not forget those pitiable women and the males who stood by apathetically or even actively encouraged them in such an evil path who have to live with the knowledge of their crimes against God … Continue reading. Only in the very penumbra of reality has the heinous practice of terminating a pregnancy through a variety of grisly and terrible means been about autonomy and privacy, and so, whenever someone proposes that a moral horror be ‘tolerated’ or made legal, all those of sober mind should work from the assumption that there is an abominable lie lurking within whatever is said in the defense or support of said horror. Therefore, the lesson to be learned is that while we must always eschew psittacism, we must be especially careful to avoid echoing any statement made by those who have demonstrated that they are the avowed enemies of the true and the good.

So while it is true that contra the claims made by the left regarding a woman’s right to instigate the murder of her own child, the statements made by those in regards to privacy, autonomy, and choice in respect to vaccination have actual cognitive and moral legitimacy, it is also true that because the phrase “My body, my choice” is so polluted and stigmatized with the stain of the blood of 100s of millions of victims, it cannot be wisely used for anything other than as an object of contempt, derision, and ultimately great sorrow because of the vast evils perpetrated under its banner.

Notes and References

Notes and References
1 AKA ‘abortion,’ which is the accepted euphemism for this by today’s benighted people. We help no one but those who seek to commit murder on a massive scale by allowing them to suppress the truth in the unrighteousness and deception of the words they choose for their propaganda.
2 An example of the ignoratio elenchi fallacy which conveniently disposes of the fact that such proclamations have nothing to do with the individual and unique human life that is actually at stake and the real source of contention.
3 Exhibit A: the ‘blood terrorism’ advocated and practiced by homosexuals to purposely infect the blood supply with AIDS in the hopes of securing more taxpayer funding by making the disease more prevalent amongst those who engage in normal and natural sexual activity.
4 Sadly this is almost as endemic to the majority of the right as it is to the left. But, thankfully, many on the right, even if they don’t have a proper grounding in the proper use and limitations of reason, at least affirm that which is worthy of belief.
5 For indeed it is the leftists who are the most vocal and shrill about this. While there are those with the label of ‘Republican’ who align themselves with the left on this, I am not aware of any conservative (read paleoconservative) who has so aligned himself.
6 Let us not neglect to mention that if these women were involved with an actual man who did not shirk responsibility and manhood, many of these women wouldn’t even consider such a terrible course. But, of course, if actual men weren’t in the minority, what I’m writing wouldn’t even need to be written, but I digress…
7 It is fascinating and ironic indeed, that the Latin root for ‘abort’ has connotations of making something ‘disappear’ and that that Latin word is itself a modification of the Latin word oriri which means ‘to come into being’ or ‘to be born.’
8 In 1974, The West German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) wrote, “The usual language, termination of pregnancy, cannot conceal the fact that abortion is a homicidal act.” Certainly, other courts have denied that a human being is being extinguished. I mention this only to indicate that some courts do, from time to time, state the truth of the matter.
9 From Born-Alive Abortion Survivors: Just the Facts, https://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF19E62.pdf
10 Cronenwett, Linda R., and Janice M. Choyce. “Saline Abortion.” The American Journal of Nursing 71, no. 9 (1971): 1754–57. https://doi.org/10.2307/3422026.
11 what the term fœtus actually means
12 Let us not forget those pitiable women and the males who stood by apathetically or even actively encouraged them in such an evil path who have to live with the knowledge of their crimes against God and for which they will ultimately have to answer.

Headline: Governor Newsom Had an Adverse Reaction to Latest Injection

According to https://noqreport.com/2021/11/08/gavin-newsom-had-major-adverse-reaction-to-moderna-booster-shot-sources/, Newsom “reportedly developed symptoms of Bell’s Palsy immediately after getting injected with the Moderna Covid-19 booster shot and has had trouble speaking coherently.”

Anyone who’s been paying attention to Newsom for even a short period of time can confidently state that this claim is obviously false. Why? Because the left’s entire platform is predicated upon incoherence, and Newsom has been the most loquacious, if not mellifluous, purveyor of incoherence since he arrived on the political scene. Hence, anyone who proclaims that Newsom’s incoherence is due to having received a follow-up injection of goodness from the good folks at Moderna cannot be taken seriously.

The Etymology of Inspiration

As is the case with many word which in times past would drip with meaning and relevance, ‘inspire’ is used and abused at almost every turn. Both the OED[1]https://beingreasonable.com/definitions/#inspireoed and Webster’s[2]https://beingreasonable.com/definitions/#inspirewebsters inform us that ‘inspire’ has spiritual overtones. The OED, being a diachronic dictionary, goes a bit deeper and points to the earliest figurative use of the word to be specifically Christian in nature.

Inspire

The etymology for ‘inpsire’ given by the OED tells us that it is an “adaptation of Latin inspīrāre to blow or breathe into, from in- + spīrāre to breathe.” Analogously, Webster’s states that it is “from Latin inspirare, from in- + spirare to breathe” and that for further information, we should see “more at SPIRIT.” Hence…

Spirit

The OED is rather verbose in its etymological accounting for ‘spirit,’ informing us that it is “adapted from Latin spīritus breathing, breath, air, etc. related to spīrāre to breathe.” It delves even deeper, telling us that the “earlier English uses of the word are mainly derived from passages in the Vulgate, in which spiritus is employed to render Greek πνεῦµα and Hebrew rūaḥ. The translation of these words by spirit (or one of its variant forms) is common to all versions of the Bible from Wyclif onwards.”

Webster’s is less verbose, but tells us essentially the same thing at core: “from Latin spiritus spirit, breath; … Latin spirare to breathe”

The salient fact to be aware of here is that these terms both derive their force, power, and essence from the Holy Bible, as is the case with most of the important words in the English language.

Putting It Together

spirare is the present active infinitive for spiro.

spiritus is an etymological derivation of spiro.

Finally, per what we were informed of in the above, spiritus in turn was used in the Vulgate to translate the Greek πνεῦµα, which in the BDAG[3]A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd Edition, s.v. “πνεῦµα.” is, most importantly, identified with “God’s being as controlling influence, with focus on association with humans, Spirit, spirit as that which differentiates God from everything that is not God, as the divine power that produces all divine existence, as the divine element in which all divine life is carried on, as the bearer of every application of the divine will. All those who belong to God possess or receive this spirit and hence have a share in God’s life. This spirit also serves to distinguish Christians from all unbelievers,” in other words, the Holy Spirit.

It would therefore be reasonable to conclude and hope that a story described as being ‘inspiring’ would be such that it would be infused and suffused with that which is holy, i.e. with that which is inestimable, ineffable, and incorruptible.

Notes and References

Notes and References
1 https://beingreasonable.com/definitions/#inspireoed
2 https://beingreasonable.com/definitions/#inspirewebsters
3 A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd Edition, s.v. “πνεῦµα.”

Women’s Fib

After weeks of hearing and reading the platitudinous pablum which is spewed out in support of “women’s” history month, the following thought occurred to me:

Prior to the women’s lib movement, ‘feminists'[1]I put this in single quotes because what they advocate and present to the public is antithetical to what a man would recognize as truly feminine. ostensibly fought against the ‘stereotype’ of being nags to their husbands.

Post the women’s lib movement, ‘feminists’ engage in near-constant nagging of everyone and have no husbands[2]emasculated stand-ins for actual men don’t count as husbands.

Notes and References

Notes and References
1 I put this in single quotes because what they advocate and present to the public is antithetical to what a man would recognize as truly feminine.
2 emasculated stand-ins for actual men don’t count as husbands

The Atheist’s Motive

Recently, I read the book We Were Soldiers Once…and Young by Hal Moore and Joe Galloway. In attempting to gather additional information about Hal Moore the man (as opposed to what is presented in the book), I found out that he was a devout Catholic. In an interview with Raymond Arroyo circa 2009, he stated about his time at West Point:

…The only reason I got through West Point was going to mass almost daily and praying to God to help me get through West Point. But I’m proud to say that I graduated at the top of the bottom 20% of my class. … I was very dumb in mathematics, which West Point was [1]Their academic program was built on science and mathbased on in those days and I had to study late at night until two or three o’clock in the morning, and I went to mass every morning at 6:30, and that’s when you had to fast the night before, you couldn’t eat before communion, but I went to mass every morning at [2]…and finished the 20 minute mass…seven o’clock by Father Murdock and that got me through West Point. And all through my life, I have tried to keep fresh in my mind, that the whole purpose of life on earth is to qualify for life hereafter in heaven, with our father in heaven.

Hal Moore, Christian

As a reformed Christian, I have to point out that it is at odds with Scripture for anyone to believe that he can qualify for eternity with God, hence, the need for and sufficiency of Christ alone (think of the thief on the cross, what works did he perform to spend eternity with God?)[3]The Puritan divine, John Owen, put it: “Poor souls are apt to think that all those whom they read or hear of to be gone to heaven, went there because they were so good and holy..Yet not one of … Continue reading, but that doesn’t mean that Hal Moore wasn’t a Christian: it merely means that some of his labors might have been for the wrong reason. But I digress…

As I read over that quote today, I thought “What a wonderful testimony. How would this statement appear from the perspective of the [4]A rare bird indeed, for what transcendent motive does the atheist have?honest atheist?”

…The only reason I got through West Point was understanding that my life has no meaning nor any purpose, other than what my wet computer brain manufactures for me from moment to moment, and that ultimately, when the heat death of the universe occurs, everything that I or anyone else has done will have no meaning and no purpose. But I’m proud to say that I graduated from West Point due to studying late at night until two or three o’clock in the morning, and by arising each day at 6:30 to spend 20 minutes or so contemplating how worthless all of my thoughts and actions are from an ultimate perspective, and how beautiful it is that an indeterminate amount of time, mixed with an indeterminate and unknowable sequence of random mutations, all superintended by the mysterious ‘natural selection’ (thank God nobody that I have such cogent explanations for how I got here!) had brought me into being, and it was those beliefs that got me through West Point. And all through my life, I have tried to keep fresh in my wet computer brain, that there is no purpose whatsoever to my life or any life, and that in the end, the atoms of which ‘I’ (knowing that there is no ‘I.’ I just can’t help myself!) am comprised will dissolve back into the unknowable chaos from which they arose, and I have sought to share that belief with everyone I meet. (Why do I do this? I don’t know, for were I consistent in my thinking, I’d recognize that there’s no point…)

Hal Moore, atheist

One of these quotes is beautiful, inspiring, and life affirming. One of them is ugly, discouraging, and pernicious. The astute and sober-minded reader, I’m sure, can tell which is which.

Notes and References

Notes and References
1 Their academic program was built on science and math
2 …and finished the 20 minute mass…
3 The Puritan divine, John Owen, put it: “Poor souls are apt to think that all those whom they read or hear of to be gone to heaven, went there because they were so good and holy..Yet not one of them, not any one that is now in heaven (Jesus Christ alone excepted), did ever come there any other way but by forgiveness of sins.
4 A rare bird indeed, for what transcendent motive does the atheist have?

Meretricious Malleability

Atheists often speak triumphantly of changeability and malleability as being that which distinguishes science from Christianity, a statement which the credulous are all too eager to imbibe. But the reality is that both have fundamental principles upon which all other activities and the inferences of each depend and which do not change. The former takes its principles (which must be taken on faith) and uses them to navigate the natural world, whereas the latter uses the truth (also taken on faith) to navigate the universe of morality. As is the case with many of the most cherished arguments of the ‘new’ atheists, the comparison is a false one. It’s akin to someone faulting Euclidean geometry for not being ‘malleable.’ The axioms thereof cannot be proven. The best that can be done is to validate that there is merit in them.

The Impact of the Centralization of Power

The centralization of power at any of the state, federal, or global levels has three primary effects which play into the apathy and pride of man:

  1. Decisions are made by others, which frees us from having to remove our gaze from whatever is currently entertaining us.
  2. When the decisions are bad, we will blame others. When the decisions are correct, we will congratulate ourselves.
  3. We can champion causes which do not impact our comfort or our pocketbooks directly, if at all, thereby presenting the sheen of morality without any of the requisite personal cost which comes with true morality.

Where’s the D-Day Doodle?

It’s a fitting cultural commentary upon the shallowness, apathy, and moral vacuity of our day that Google has an entire site dedicated to a veritable tsunami of perversions, while D-Day, an historical event which should engender actual, and justified pride has nothing, absolutely nothing of such scale or breadth to commemorate it.

Great little minds claim right to act the wrong.

— Child Harold, John Clare

Google’s recent paean to homosexuality, a host of other perversions, and abnegations of reality in an elaborate ‘doodle‘ was brought to the forefront of my mind when I considered that on D-Day there was no commensurate recognition of, let alone tribute, from Google to the actual sacrifice and true bravery of those such as Tom Rice who stormed the beaches of Normandy 75 years ago, and this moved me to reflect that in the relatively short span of three or so decades, that which the Fourth Estate and their cohorts in corporate America desire us to cherish as a culture are as foreign to me as the worldview of a Stalin or Mao, and equally bereft of worth.

Indeed, even a few moments of reflection upon what was being celebrated in our news sources in the 1980’s and what is being celebrated now will lead all sober-minded people to do the same as Hamlet’s father who, upon considering his own character as contrasted with Hamlet’s uncle, exclaimed “what a falling off was there!” Certainly, unlike Hamlet’s father, the 80’s could not possibly be held up as a paradigm of virtue, far from it: the groundwork for the final assaults upon reality and morality had already been built and reinforced prior to that decade as attacks upon marriage and family, and the murder of the unborn bear ample witness. The ‘mental health experts’ (the same ones who tell us today that it’s ‘healthy’ for children to experiment with transvestism) informed us via the ‘science’ of psychology that children didn’t need both parents, and that point in fact, mothers alone sufficed because ‘research’ had demonstrated that fathers were superfluous. Therefore, while it is certainly true that all of this was just another step in the downward direction of a journey which had begun decades prior, it is also true that as the rotting fruits of moral indifference, ignorance, and self-absorption have accumulated, so has the magnitude of our velocity towards dissolution.

The opportunistic moves made by the homosexuals and others within the rapidly crowded pavilion of perversions since that time bring to mind the manner in which the atheistic, socialist Nazis, upon seeing that the United States and Christendom did nothing when the atheistic, socialist regime of Stalin and Co. systematically murdered tens of millions of their own people, believed that when they unleashed their murderous plans upon Europe, they could count upon that same apathy and moral paralysis.[1]Due to the lack of freedom of the press in the Soviet Union, coupled with the fact that it, at that time, was considerably behind the West in terms of organization and record keeping, it’s well … Continue reading History demonstrates that Hitler was wrong, partly because the United States and the West (rightly or wrongly) viewed the Soviet Union as backwards and more Asiatic than Occidental, but also because there was at that time the requisite bond of Christian beliefs (if not practices) yet remaining between the United States and the West to recognize that there is such a thing as an inviolable moral standard which must hold sway that represents the highest ideals imaginable[2]The teachings of Christ, i.e. Christianity., and that good and evil are abstractions only to the foolish.

In like fashion, the homosexuals and other deviants took their cue from observing how the American public moved seamlessly, and with nary a complaint, from the nuclear family, to nuclear war upon the family. The campaign to remake the image of the United States into a congeries of moral contradictions where the specimens of morbidity, once relegated to the darkest recesses of the human mind and habitat, now parade across our screens, in our schools, in our libraries, and in our streets, has been absolutely and unequivocally victorious, where we must bear in mind that ‘victory,’ a word which generally connotes the triumph of good over evil, or the attainment of that which is excellent and worthy, is being abused in this context. But this triumph has not been a victory of truth, nor intellect, nor history, nor morality: the teeming masses, the bourgeois, were utterly prostrate before the media blitzkrieg waged in the name of ‘freedom’ and ‘equality’ ever began. It is akin to the tank-drivers who killed the unarmed Chinese dissidents in Tiananmen Square patting themselves upon the back for crushing their opposition.[3]The death toll remains unknown to this day, for the same reasons we don’t know the death tolls within that other socialist paradise, the Soviet Union. James Russell Lowell stated that “the idol is the measure of the worshipper,” and with companies like Google and many, many others choosing who and what we are to idolize, we are increasingly a people who feast upon garbage.

All that being said, Google has the freedom to decide what it will ‘doodle’ and what it won’t, but we must bear in mind that Google and other companies would not give such short shrift to events which actually merit our accolades and admiration, nor, more importantly, fete and lionize that which is repellent in history, to humanity, and to God, if we the demos didn’t acquiesce to it with our dollars and our moral lethargy.

Some may protest that because Google ‘honored’ Memorial Day with a doodle, it is therefore conceivable that it’s unfair to characterize them as being remiss in acknowledging the great events and accomplishments that are decidedly American which warrant our praise. In response, I make the following observations upon the two doodles we are here considering:

  1. Memorial Day Doodle
    1. It was drab, cheap, and elicited much confusion among those who saw it. It amounted to a grayscale rendition of their logo, a feat of artistry and skill which can be achieved with a single click within just about any image-editing software.
    2. It is obvious that this was done, not out of love or admiration for those who have given their lives for worthy ideals, but rather out of opportunism and social obligation, for if Google had ignored both Memorial Day and D-Day (at least for the time being), then they could be called to account unequivocally.
      1. But, but, Google did a great doodle for Veterans Day last year, didn’t they?[4]Nope. On the doodle page we see front and center, a huge thanks given to storycorps.org. Who are they, what are they about you might ask? According to Dave Isay, the founder of StoryCorps, it works … Continue reading
    3. By paying the bare modicum of lip service to Memorial Day, they have in essence, done ‘just enough’ and have thereby proleptically closed the door on any negative press or feedback which they might receive. Dr. Johnson’s observation that “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel” comes to mind here.
      1. And hence, a D-Day doodle would have been ‘too much.’
  2. Shame Doodle
    1. This garish encomium in celebration of shame (for indeed the beliefs and actions are shameful)[5]Richard Weaver, in Ideas Have Consequences observed that “all education is learning to name rightly.” As we are no longer capable of naming rightly, it’s hard to argue that we are … Continue reading was elaborate almost to the point of tedium, and left no one confused as to its message, nor that Google is a strong endorser of it.
    2. It is obvious that this was done, not out of social obligation, but out of a different breed of opportunism coupled with an idolization and admiration for a movement which has nothing to be proud of, all driven by a socialist bastion of bastardized ideas with little to no foundation in history, reason, nor experience.
    3. With their gushing enthusiasm and lachrymose relating of the carefully-edited and bowdlerized key moments in the history of this shameful movement towards anarchy, Google has demonstrated that in the pursuit of the adoration of the pathological, ‘too much’ is never enough.

In juxtaposing these two doodles, it’s hard not to conclude that if there is such a thing as ‘damning with faint praise’, then the Memorial Day doodle certainly qualifies. Hence, it is indeed a fitting cultural commentary upon the shallowness, apathy, and moral vacuity of our day that Google hosts a dedicated site (pride.google), and has funded and endorsed yet another dedicated site (stonewallforever.org) with a $1 million dollar grant (announced here with all undue pomp and circumstance two years ago), all of which are committed to a veritable parade of depravities, while an event such as D-Day that should engender actual, and justified pride has nothing, absolutely nothing of such commitment, scale, or breadth to commemorate it.


Postscript

The fact that equalitarian democracy, to the extent that it makes leadership superfluous or impossible, is repudiating teleology must not be overlooked here. Teleology enjoins from above; equalitarian democracy takes its counsel without point of reference.

–Richard Weaver, Ideas Have Consequences

In composing this entry, I re-read Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.’s Memorial Day speech given in 1884. I also read (and listened to) Eisenhower’s D-Day speech. As I read and listened, I was struck with how hollow, impoverished, and meretricious the battle cries of the shame movement appear when compared with the words of true heroism, for the former is pathologically self-centered while the latter inheres the beauty of other-centeredness, and so it then becomes crystal clear why holidays like Memorial Day and historical events like D-Day are unsung by the enemies of light. The words spoken upon these events represent humanity at its best, striving for the highest ideals, and fighting against darkness, and because they do so, because the comparison is so stark, they must be suppressed, de-emphasized, and eventually wiped from our collective consciousness by degrees at first, and then with the increased vigor which we have been seeing, an inclination that is latent in the hearts of all who recognize their aberration, know that it is loathsome, but pursue it nonetheless. This tendency towards the hatred and envy of superiority, of the good, lurks within the heart of democracy for the quite simple reason that it lurks within the human heart. That this connection and tendency is neither revelatory nor recent, but has instead been well-documented and understood by past generations will be amply attested to by the following excerpts from a variety of authors:

The demand for equality has two sources; one of them is among the noblest, the other is the basest of human emotions. The noble source is the desire for fair play. But the other source is the hatred of superiority.

–C. S. Lewis, Democratic Education

When democracy is taken from its proper place and is allowed to fill the entire horizon, it produces an envious hatred not only of all distinction but even of all difference. The ensuing distortion conceals its very purpose, which is to keep natural inequalities from obtruding in the one area where equality has intelligible function. The reason we consent to treat men as equals in this area of activity is that we know they are not equals in other areas. The fanatical democrat insists upon making them equal in all departments, regardless of the type of activity and vocation.

–Richard Weaver, The Image of Culture

A permanent feature of democracy, always and everywhere, is a tendency to suppress the claims of any kind of superiority, conventional or natural, essentially by denying that there is superiority, particularly with respect to ruling. … Elitism is the catch-all epithet expressing our disapproval of the proud and the desire to be first. But, unsupported and excoriated, this part of the soul lives on, dwelling underground, receiving no sublimating education.

–Alan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind

If the people are ever won over to hostility to such ideals, it is only because they are cheated by demagogues who tell them that if all the flowers of civilization were destroyed its fruits would become more abundant. A greater share of happiness, people think, would fall to their lot could they destroy everything beyond their own possible possessions. But they are made thus envious and ignoble only by a deception: what they really desire is an ideal good for themselves which they are told they may secure by depriving others of their preeminence. Their hope is always to enjoy perfect satisfaction themselves;

–George Santayana, The Poetry of Barbarism

Other-Centered

Walter Sidlowski
Omaha Beach Rescue

The following thoughts, the first from Holmes and the second from Eisenhower, point to that which is highest, what is best in human endeavor, faith, sacrifice, and duty, the last of which is unheard of in the howls of the vandals who rove unhinged throughout our society at every level. Unsurprisingly, the God and the world view invoked throughout both of the following was not the pantheistic conception, nor the panentheistic, nor the polytheistic, nor the Muslim, nor the deistic conception, nor was it the rejection of God, but it was in fact the God as revealed in the Holy Bible of Christianity, a point made abundantly clear by Russell Kirk in The Roots of American Order: namely that the United States and the West are products of the moral order which Christianity brought, for if men’s souls be not ordered, there can be no hope for an ordered society.

“So to the indifferent inquirer who asks why Memorial Day is still kept up we may answer, it celebrates and solemnly reaffirms from year to year a national act of enthusiasm and faith. It embodies in the most impressive form our belief that to act with enthusiasm and faith is the condition of acting greatly.”

“But the men, not less, perhaps even more, characteristic of New England, were the Puritans of our day. For the Puritan still lives in New England, thank God! and will live there so long as New England lives and keeps her old renown. New England is not dead yet. She still is mother of a race of conquerors–stern men, little given to the expression of their feelings, sometimes careless of their graces, but fertile, tenacious, and knowing only duty.”

“There is one who on this day is always present on my mind. He entered the army at nineteen, a second lieutenant. In the Wilderness, already at the head of his regiment, he fell, using the moment that was left him of life to give all of his little fortune to his soldiers. I saw him in camp, on the march, in action. I crossed debatable land with him when we were rejoining the Army together. I observed him in every kind of duty, and never in all the time I knew him did I see him fail to choose that alternative of conduct which was most disagreeable to himself. He was indeed a Puritan in all his virtues, without the Puritan austerity; for, when duty was at an end, he who had been the master and leader became the chosen companion in every pleasure that a man might honestly enjoy. His few surviving companions will never forget the awful spectacle of his advance alone with his company in the streets of Fredericksburg.”

“All that the world has a right to know has been told by a beloved friend in a book wherein friendship has found no need to exaggerate facts that speak for themselves. I knew him, and I may even say I knew him well; yet, until that book appeared, I had not known the governing motive of his soul. I had admired him as a hero. When I read, I learned to revere him as a saint. His strength was not in honor alone, but in religion; and those who do not share his creed must see that it was on the wings of religious faith that he mounted above even valiant deeds into an empyrean of ideal life.”

–Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Memorial Day 1884

“You are about to embark upon the great crusade…I have full confidence in your courage, devotion to duty, and skill in battle…Good Luck! And let us all beseech the blessing of All-mighty God upon this great and noble undertaking”

–Dwight D. Eisenhower, D-Day 1944

Self-Centered

The reality

As even a casual perusal of the following will make manifestly clear, the clarion call of this degenerate movement is not duty to others, but the love of self, not of sacrifice for others, but of sacrificing everything but the self in the name of whichever perversion one has chosen to perpetuate, and of making those of us with normal proclivities bend and warp what is real to fit the varied perverse narratives. It is ironic that an ideology that has been built upon the idea of ‘self love,’ engenders so much self hate that its adherents are willing to undergo the most barbaric butcheries imaginable in order to remake what actually is into what is actually worshiped (think gender ‘reassignment’ surgeries here). For the other members within this hall of shame, the difference is one of degrees, not kind. While it is certainly true that all of this should invoke great pity in our hearts, it is certainly just as true that it should not be condoned.

“Love yourself, whatever makes you different, and use it to make you stand out. Mine is my voice and the fact that I’m gay: well, the fact that I’m flamboyantly gay.” –Ross Matthews

“All of us who are openly gay are living and writing the history of our movement. We are no more – and no less – heroic than the suffragists and abolitionists of the 19th century” –Tammy Baldwin

“Gender transition in its many forms is simply another kind of motion. I lived in a body-mind assigned female at birth and made peace with it as a girl, a tomboy, a dyke, a queer woman, a butch. But uncovering my desire to transition—to live as a genderqueer, a female-to-male transgender person, a white guy—challenged everything I thought I knew about self-acceptance and love.” –Elizabeth Clare (transvestite)

“Everybody’s journey is individual. You don’t know with whom you’re going to fall in love. … If you fall in love with a boy, you fall in love with a boy. The fact that many Americans consider it a disease says more about them than it does about homosexuality.” –James Baldwin

“By the time I set foot in Thailand, I knew there could be nothing worse than living another day with a penis dangling between my legs…Self-definition and self-determination is about the many varied decisions that we make to compose and journey toward ourselves, about the audacity and strength to proclaim, create, and evolve into who we know ourselves to be.” –Charles Mock (transvestite)

“Here was a neighborhood and a community where I could begin to love myself more and hate myself less, where I finally felt accepted, where I didn’t have to hide or pretend, where I could fully be me and find others like me.” –Erich Nagler

“I would say [it’s] like the Kinsey scale with sexuality from zero to six, where zero is exclusively heterosexual and six is exclusively homosexual. I think that gender’s similar where you know if one is female and six is male I’m probably a four. Gender can exist on a spectrum.” –Courtney Act

When one has considered these words from the two perspectives presented above, one is led ineluctably to the conclusion that they are as far from one another as the East is from the West, and that the twain shall never meet[6]The Ballad of East and West, Rudyard Kipling.. It is apparent to all who have eyes to see and ears to hear how pale and empty the motivating ideas of the shame movement appear in contrast to the transcendent ideals which have animated and nourished the Western tradition, and hence, as we have become a society that calls evil good, and good evil, that puts darkness for light, and light for darkness, it makes perfect sense that the Memorial Day doodle would be drained of all color, and that D-Day would be ignored. How terrible and tragic, that these poor souls, laden with desires and habits inimical to God and to nature, instead of being instructed, admonished, and encouraged to look outward to the light, are instead encouraged through the dialectic of despair to look ever further downward into the heart of darkness that lies within.

Notes and References

Notes and References
1 Due to the lack of freedom of the press in the Soviet Union, coupled with the fact that it, at that time, was considerably behind the West in terms of organization and record keeping, it’s well on nigh impossible to obtain accurate records, but some estimate that under that atheistic regime, in the Ukraine alone four-million human beings were systematically starved to death.
2 The teachings of Christ, i.e. Christianity.
3 The death toll remains unknown to this day, for the same reasons we don’t know the death tolls within that other socialist paradise, the Soviet Union.
4 Nope. On the doodle page we see front and center, a huge thanks given to storycorps.org. Who are they, what are they about you might ask? According to Dave Isay, the founder of StoryCorps, it works “to preserve the personal histories of gay people who lived before Stonewall and to make their voices a permanent part of American history, preserved at the Library of Congress.” The homepage greets us with “He would sit and tell us what it was like to be gay in 1890.” and “Stonewall Outloud.” At least one of the featured veterans in the doodle is homosexual. Like the perversions it advocates, Google apparently just can’t help itself.
5 Richard Weaver, in Ideas Have Consequences observed that “all education is learning to name rightly.” As we are no longer capable of naming rightly, it’s hard to argue that we are an educated society.
6 The Ballad of East and West, Rudyard Kipling.

Please, Don’t Accept Christ as Your Savior

‘Accepting’ Christ is quite different than recognizing who He is and who you are.

Rather, recognize that you are a sinner in desperate need of salvation. Recognize that without Christ, you are irrevocably lost. Recognize that the blood of the Lamb of God is your only hope for redemption. Recognize. For there is a world of difference between recognizing that without Christ you will spend an eternity in hell separated from God and every good thing you’ve enjoyed in your life, and ‘accepting’ the gift of salvation. While it is indeed true that salvation is a gift which can neither be earned, nor purchased, nor merited due to one’s innate wonderfulness, it is also true that salvation entails more than one sticking one’s hands out to grasp at a gift and to then go on about one’s life as one pleases, neither acknowledging nor thanking the gift giver. When, as a culture, we speak of ‘accepting’ this gift of salvation, it’s akin to characterizing Christ as a peddler hawking His salvation wares in the marketplace of the many roads to heaven. “Will you accept Me, accept My gift to you?” He asks. “No,” you reply confidently, “I will neither accept You nor what You offer. I believe there’s a better deal out there for me.” Christ, cap in hand with His head bowed at your lack of acceptance of Him, resolves to make the offer more tantalizing for his next potential customer. No. Christ made it abundantly clear that He is the only way, the only path (John 14:6).

In contrast, to recognize Christ as your savior connotes that you have come to a realization, that you have come to a knowledge (and an acknowledgement), that the truth of something that you had not realized previously has now become clear to you. Further, because Christ says of Himself that anyone who has seen Him has seen the Father, in recognizing Christ as your savior, you are in essence recognizing the sovereignty of God the Father (John 14:9) over not only your own life, but over the entirety of the created universe (Isaiah 46:9–10). It means also that you have come to the realization that you are (or have been) in rebellion against the sovereign ruler of the universe (Romans 3:23). If you refuse to recognize these truths, then you are in rebellion, not unlike a subject living within a kingdom refusing to acknowledge the sovereign of that land would be considered to be a rebel and an enemy. In the lowly kingdoms of the earth, one cannot live within a kingdom and yet refuse to recognize the sovereign of that kingdom: one cannot choose to ‘accept’ or ‘reject’ such sovereignty, for such a rejection is a dear offense which warrants dear penalties. How much more true and weighty will this principle be for the ruler of all (Isaiah 40:15), the creator of all (Colossians 1:16)? A little more? Infinitely more?

A perusal of the pertinent definitions of both ‘accept’ and ‘recognize’ from the OED should make manifest the distinction between these two verbs:

Accept[1]https://beingreasonable.com/definitions/#acceptoed

  • To take or receive (a thing offered) willingly, or with consenting mind; to receive (a thing or person) with favour or approval, e.g. to receive as a prospective husband. Also, to take or receive with patience or resignation, to tolerate.
  • To receive as sufficient or adequate; hence, to admit, agree to, believe

Recognize[2]https://beingreasonable.com/definitions/#recognizeoed

  • To acknowledge by admission, confession, or avowal; to admit (to oneself or another)
  • To acknowledge by special notice, approval or sanction; to treat as valid, as having existence or as entitled to consideration; to take notice of (a thing or person) in some way
  • To perceive clearly, realize.

Is it any wonder that ‘consent’ and ‘tolerate,’ those magical words which can be cast to mean everything and anything, so long as they serve to unlock doors to societal sanction of deviancies and perversions galore, have been smuggled into our lingua franca ‘twixt God and man of the good news of the Gospel of Grace? Is it not anathema to imagine that sinners and rebels could ever be in a position to ‘tolerate’ the Son of the Lord of Hosts or that a lot such as us would need to ‘consent’ to His presence and rule? As is abundantly obvious from the above, while there may be a hint of overlap between ’accept’ and ‘recognize,’ the similarities are superficial whereas the differences are antipodal. So again, please, don’t ‘accept’ Christ as your savior: articulate salvation in such a manner as befits the Savior’s ineffable majesty and authority.

Notes and References

Notes and References
1 https://beingreasonable.com/definitions/#acceptoed
2 https://beingreasonable.com/definitions/#recognizeoed

Environmentally Friendly Foes

(in response to Electric Cars are Worse for Climate)

Regardless of what this article says (as well as what many others say) about the harm that these cars do and will be doing to the environment, the fact is that many (most?) of the people who bought these ‘environmentally friendly’ cars did it less for the environment than

It’s really been like a kind of welfare benefiting those who need it the least. It should then come as no surprise that the rest of us will continue to pay and pay for the great moral stand taken by these self-singing heroes!

The reality is that those who are truly in love with Gaia will not use a car at all. They will rely upon public transportation and manual modes of transportation such as walking or cycling. What they won’t do is reach their hands into the pockets of the taxpayers, grab as much cash as they can, and then declare the virtue of their actions to all and sundry.

If, for some inexplicable reason, they are absolutely unable to forego a motor vehicle, and  they are further unable to obtain a more environmentally friendly gas-powered vehicle, then at the very least, on hot days we’ll see them declaring their love for mother earth by rolling their windows down and refusing to use their air conditioners[1]In the majority of driving scenarios, having the windows open to cool down creates negligible drag and hence is more energy efficient than using the air conditioner.. Right?

Notes and References

Notes and References
1 In the majority of driving scenarios, having the windows open to cool down creates negligible drag and hence is more energy efficient than using the air conditioner.