An old ditty goes something like this: “Love & Marriage go together like a horse and carriage”. This is redolent of a ancient age when “Love” was caring and sacrificial, willing the good of the loved one.
Our current usage of “love” mostly implies some sort of justification for fornication and the exploitation of sex objects for self gratification. We accessorize members of the attractive “sex”, whatever their biological alignment, or genetic configuration based on how good they look with us or “how they make me feel”.
Or we pick a paramour based on the current “Flavour Du Jour” in our social circle, our Facebook group, or as a form of virtue signalling according to whichever politically correct legislation just emerged from the dung heap called “Parliament”,
And we embrace whatever drum the media are currently beating … we need to “fit in”, right? And if our accessory no longer “fits in” then it’s time to trade “it” in for something fresher.
And, Humility and Humiliation go together as well, for how is one to learn true humility without humiliation? Many souls desire to be humble, but few desire humiliation. Many souls pray to be made humble “place in me a humble and contrite heart” … but very few want to be humiliated.
Humility is truth. So, we should admit to ourselves that we possess nothing of ourselves except sin, and so it is just and righteous that we receive humiliation and scorn. If we believed this truth we would accept it as truly just that all would humiliate us and treat us without consideration and despise us.
What honor and consideration does one deserve who has offended his Creator? Even a single venial sin is more deplorable and worthy of more contempt than the most miserable earthly condition, the poorest and lowest station in life.
And so we travel along through life on our merry way, loving ourselves infinitely, believing sincerely that we are practically perfect in every way, that we are good, that we deserve to be treated well, even better than most others.
The result of such insulation from reality is that in our cosmic self love we interpret every correction, contradiction, every humiliation and comment detracting from our self perceived perfection as a personal attack deserving of the most fervent counterattack, the source of our discomfort must be put down, terminated, hopefully never to rise to sully our self regard again.
And in that self-referential state of faith in our own perfection we destroy totally any and every possibility of growth. We are already perfect. We choose to bask in our own perfection and reject God’s gentle reproof coming to us in the guise of other’s unhappiness with our actions.
We choose to go down the perfect wide path to eternal damnation because we cannot accept correction in any form. And lest, in our self absorption we forget, we need to understand that morality goes beyond the bedroom, to embrace every moment of our social and public lives. Lest we forget … Lest we forget.
There is no possibility of improvement in a soul that rejects all correction and humiliation. But God brings good out of even this evil.
The place where these “perfect” souls interact with others, the interface of personal relations, provide the perfect opportunity for others, more aware of and sensitive to God’s call, to accept humiliation and to practice genuine humility.
It is a true treasure to be offered the opportunity to practice genuine charity and humility, all the while compensating in the normal train of events for the casual incompetence and even malice of others, to practice keeping others safe and comfortable in spite of their own ignorance, incompetence, ingratitude, and slovenly self worship.
And to do all this in spite of receiving scorn and denigration and belittlement for rendering this selfless service in such a routine way that it is taken totally for granted by the recipients, their natural due flowing from their exalted state of perfection,.
Presumably, after enough practice, one can even reach a state of charitable love of the other and not resent the recurring instances of chaos needing to be forever and again repaired, fixed up, cleaned up, provided for, anticipated and planned for future rescue efforts.
To charitably accept the utter obliviousness of the perpetrators of the mess and chaos when their utter lack of caring about anything except their self image spreads the chaos far and wide like some apocalyptic tsunami of trouble.
And mostly even malice is absent in this unaware ignorance. Lacking culpability in the obliviousness of daily life, can one even really identify this as sinful?
This “trouble” ranges from all the trivial rotting garbage of uncaring slights and messes left behind for others to deal with at the lowest levels of the ladder of perfection, to the rampant murder of innocents and corruption of the masses for the utility of the elite which we witness every day at the highest levels of this evil of self worship, this pride in self.
If one is unaware of the consequences and misery resulting from one’s actions, if one sincerely “doesn’t mean it”, then is remorse, penitence and correction even possible? If we are “sinless” through lack of culpability then are the narcissists actually right in their belief?
Endless opportunities for humiliation and the practice of humility, true humility. “Bear your humiliation patiently, for man is tried in this crucible as gold in the fire” (Sir 2, 4-5)
Eeyore has a poor opinion of most of the other animals in the Forest, describing them as having “No brain at all, some of them”, “only grey fluff that’s blown into their heads by mistake” (from chapter 1 of The House at Pooh Corner).
Eeyore’s favorite food is thistles. He lives in the southeast corner of theHundred Acre Wood, in an area labeled “Eeyore’s Gloomy Place: Rather Boggy and Sad” on the map in the book.
He has a stick house therein called The House at Pooh Corner. Pooh and Piglet built it for him after accidentally mistaking the original house that Eeyore built for a pile of sticks.
So, as mentioned previously, I am charting a new course in my blog posts. Trying to stay away from writing about sayings and doings and opinions of others, which are unverifiable, and ultimately unknowable by myself. I am trying to avoid every attitude and word likely to cause unjust injury … and to take a page from my grandfather, namely: “If you can’t say something good about someone, don’t say anything.” Or as Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen said:
As a result, I find myself momentarily with a dry well, since I am finding that a lot of my motivation for writing was personal angst about the goings on in the world and in the church. For now I am going to focus on sharing sources of insight I have found and sharing where I found them. None of this new approach is rooted in my own brilliance in self assessment but rather in the discovery, feeling serendipitous, of useful books by other greater writers and thinkers. The challenge has become “How do I apply their insights to improving myself?”
The last couple of posts were from a book by Archbishop Fulton Sheen, this post is drawn from Ulrich L. Lehner, “God Is Not Nice: Rejecting Pop Culture Theology and Discovering the God Worth Living For”.
Ulrich L. Lehner, Dr.theol., Dr. phil. habil.
“In particular, the conviction of absolute or objective truths is almost universally seen as suspicious or symptomatic of bigotry. Can the Church survive without belief in truth? If I believe in absolute truth, such as the truth of my faith, it does not follow that I must treat others badly or support religious persecution.
In fact, every statement of truth states something absolute, because the nature of truth is that it is absolute. The claim that truths are “relative” is philosophically not coherent, because it is itself a truth claim: the person who says there are no objective truths is nevertheless stating that her sentence is true.
You could ask a relativist: “And your belief that truth is relative, do you think that is the right approach to things? Are you convinced of your approach?” “Well, yes.”
“Well, then, why do you push your truth claim onto me? How can you be convinced of your truth if truth is relative? If it is relative, your truth is relative, and thus you should not be convinced of anything at all because that would mean that there is something better than relative truth claims.”11
Believing in absolute truth does not mean fundamentalism or intolerance or forfeiting the search for truth—quite the opposite: if I am convinced of a truth, I will not enclose it in a shrine but seek to understand it better, especially if this truth is a person, Jesus, as Christians believe. When I speak about truth claims, I am thinking specifically of these: “Jesus Christ is God and Savior” and “God exists.”12
Both are truth claims, and many Americans would respond, “Yes, I agree, but it’s true only for us.” Again, such a statement is self-contradicting: either it is true or it is not. Your neighbor can say it’s wrong or it’s true, but not that it’s true for you—that statement simply does not make sense.
Venerable Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen
We are afraid of denying somebody else’s truth claim because we fear being labeled intolerant or bigoted, although it is a sign of tolerance that I accept other views that I know are incorrect. Tolerance presupposes a truth claim: I am tolerant of Aunt Lucy’s conspiracy beliefs because I love her, but I think she is utterly wrong.
Disagreeing with somebody is not the same as hatred or bigotry or intolerance. A relativist, it should have become clear, cannot hold strong convictions and hold them to be true, if she does not want to contradict herself. Yet most do not see this contradiction because they have stopped contemplating the world. If I am a relativist, I will not easily see the intellectual weakness of my stance: I believe in being tolerant, but I do not know that I have given up the idea of truth and thus of tolerance itself.
Truth claims and convictions do not mean that we have to go at one another’s throats. Truth does not preclude prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance—the cardinal virtues are only possible because there is truth, and without truth they are mere chimeras. Without having roots in reality, humans have no truthful convictions but mere opinions.
But what is a person who is not planted in truth and reality? Max Picard saw this in his little book “The Flight from God”.13 We modern men and women, writes Picard, are no longer in real communication with our neighbors, not even with those we love. We uphold external relations, but we run away from the big existential questions, such as, “What is the meaning of life?” that point to God. We tend to exchange the quality of things for mere quantity.
Consequently, nothing has value in and of itself. Only through the realism of faith can we regain trust in reality and see it as it actually is. Yet if we keep running away from God, we cannot give up the enslavement to “having things” and to viewing everything from the selfish perspective of its use for us.
Only with realism do we have truth, and only with truth do we have conviction and imagination. Realism teaches humility, which means, literally, “closeness to earth,” and thus prepares us to accept the notion of asceticism. The latter entails giving up goods that we are entrusted with, such as food, comfort, and the like, and doing things we do not normally want to do.
Pope emeritus Benedict XVI
Pope emeritus Benedict XVI has compared asceticism to physical exercise: we have to do it frequently to prepare our soul for God. We empty ourselves and surrender our will to receive God’s. Asceticism plows the soil of the soul so that it can be fertilized by grace: one dies to oneself so that Christ can live in oneself.
Christian asceticism, however, is also the utmost realism there is in the world: it perceives that the highest value is God, takes him most seriously, and sees everything in the order it was created or is connected. It aims at keeping mind and will connected to reality and protects us from falling into the trap of viewing God as a vending machine, as the eternal, faceless “principle of the universe,” or as a mere set of moral guidelines.14
Ulrich L. Lehner, “God Is Not Nice: Rejecting Pop Culture Theology and Discovering the God Worth Living For” (pp. 14-17). Ave Maria Press. Kindle Edition.
“Quid hoc ad aeternitatem,” as old Saint Bernard of Clairvaux used to mumble when faced with the usual parade of travail, what does it matter in the light of eternity?
“Wind of the Western Sea” Bill Douglas, from the album “Songs of Earth and Sky”, (1998)
Everything mentioned in my previous post may well be provably “true” but the focus of the post is not on “facts”, and “truth”, but rather on my personal “agenda”, my own “truth” so to speak, and my observations of my own conduct in what I am saying about “others”.
I am poking at the frailty of the faceless undefined “class” of persons who are “dealing” with the problems by ignoring them or just walking away, intentionally avoiding responsibility and commitment.
I am observing how I react to this perception and the offense I take at the actions of “others”. My reaction to the perceptions seems to be a wellspring of unhappiness which I choose to drink at.
Roaring Hairy EGO!
“Sniff …” obviously crass lower castes, every mother’s son of them. And well, wouldn’t you know it, the great roaring hairy legged EGO strikes again. I find nothing considerate, merciful or charitable in judging perceived actions of “the others”.
Isn’t it really more reasonable, and merciful, to assume a level of misery on the part of the “others” that may be even greater than my own in my observations and feeling of desperate helplessness, Oh Lord, the problems are so BIG and my ability is so small.
I used to have a default position with respect to the goings on around me to the effect that “one should never assume malice on the part of actors when simple stupidity and incompetence will account for what is going on“. Another iteration of these sentiments is “any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice“.
Better Get My Fire Suit Ready …
So my almost daily experience of “Active Stupid” on the part of many managers and directors in government service (outside my 8 years in the military but including my 15 years in “Social Services”, “Justice”, and “Health Care”) informed my acid view of all bureaucracies everywhere and my uncharitable opinions about the incumbents of these civilian food chains.
Even these “charitable” defaults of giving the actors “the benefit of the doubt” about motives fail the sniff test for Charity and Mercy. Every event may be a “fact” but reality on the ground indicates that if God judges me the same way I have been judging others for years, then I am truly screwed and I better get my fire suit ready.
Isn’t it truly more reasonable to assume a level of misery which blinds the “others” to everything except their very own ocean-like puddle of misery. Charity, charity, charity, compassion, compassion, compassion, mercy, mercy, mercy. What am I blinded to, and by what?
So, once again, regard the position of modern man, Progressive man, secular man, and consider the spiritual life of that subject man. In looking at myself as an example of the subject man, I am like a child, walking a dark path without help or guidance, and finding myself at a fork in the road, I find I cannot proceed alone.
While I have a few clues about which road leads to home I fail at every turn to act upon those clues. Two roads lie before me, one leading to the kingdom of the spirit, the kingdom of God, and the other to the kingdom of this world, the kingdom of the flesh, of Mammon.
On the one hand, we have the calm peaceful kingdom of the spirit. I think we all inherently wish to choose the kingdom of God, but unfortunately the Kingdom of Mammon also has it’s attractions, and these attractions try to seduce us to their path. We struggle against these attractions and allurements.
How is one to deal with the kingdom of the flesh and all its passions and attractions and appetites? A couple of things come up, the first being listening to God’s voice … Huh? what does that mean … I never “hear” God’s voice.
The world I live in is so noisy with all the various temptations of the secular yelling their mating calls at the tops of their various voices. I am distracted and deafened by the voices of creatures and filled up with the noises of the world and the answering noises of my own appetites.
The voice of the Holy Spirit is the “whistling of a gentle air” (I Kings 19, 12). To hear this voice we must be silent, silent exteriorly and silent interiorly, only in silence can the the voice of God be heard. Second, I am attached to my own judgement and the limited councils of my own wonderful mind. Even a little attachment to my own ideas is sufficient to deafen me to the voice of the Father.
Attachment to my own opinions seems to be never good, even when the opinions are about good things. These attachments to my own opinions and views seem to be rooted in my self love, and as I have remarked before, if I am full of myself there is no room for God, and I think I am unlikely to hear his gentle voice if I have shut him out of a soul which is full of myself.
Like a sailing vessel which cannot be moved by the wind as long as it is moored, so my soul cannot enjoy the precious influence of the voice of God if it is “moored” to it’s own opinions. Trying to practice awareness of the presence of God, and trying to stay recollected minute by minute, hour by hour, so easy to say, so hard to do, overcoming the noisy habits of a lifetime. Listening to the “whistling of a gentle air“.
“Speak then, O Lord, for Thy servant heareth; Thou hast the words of eternal life. Speak to me, that it may be for me some comfort to my soul, and for the amendment of my whole life, and also to Thy praise and glory, and everlasting honor” (Saint John of The Cross Imit III 2, 1-3)
Anyway, more thinking … more praying … listening
Shikamaru’s expression “What a drag.” was “めんどくさい (mendokusai)” in the original Japanese Naruto manga and anime, which translates as – “troublesome” or “bothersome”.
This is a very common phrase to use when you don’t want to do something. I find behaving myself with charity and mercy and listening to the voice of God to be troublesome and bothersome. Not easy to put into practice.
“Hamabe No Uta” (Narita), Jean-Pierre Rampal, from the album “Rampal: Japanese Folk Melodies”, (1978)
We sometimes speak of the “old order” in a disparaging way, the old order of “Dead White Males” comes to mind, or “Victorian” is another variation on the same sentiment. What we are really talking about when we refer to the “old order” is the philosophical root and foundation of our Western Christian Civilization from which ALL our notions of right and wrong and morality derive.
Did the abandonment of the old order really set us free to realize the full potential of humanity, the Ubermensch, the Overman, Overhuman, Above-Human, Superman, Super-human, Ultra-human, Higher-Person, Higher-Being. The previous are just a few of the myriad variations of the new Narcissism of the 20th and 21st century. What can sincerity and justice mean in a society where I am all and where all truth is relative to and related to my desires and appetites, my self image, my ego?
The lipstick of “moral relativism” doesn’t turn the pig into a beautiful person … a pig, is a pig, is a pig, no matter how much makeup we slather onto it. Moral relativism is simply “license to behave anyway I want” dressed up in a tux and ready to party. License is related to licentiousness – graphically – hmmmm.
Generally, in our current culture, people end up believing nothing—or holding that nothing is certain, even in matters relating to Natural Law, which all people know through the use of their reason alone. Everything that happens now gets attributed to some sort of “Karma” with no responsibility, express or implied, on any side by any party. No respect, rights, obligations, duty, responsibility means … what exactly?
These days we even have the mythology of the Buddha allegedly saying: “Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.” This is a very bad translation of the Kalama Sutta — so bad, in fact, that it contradicts the actual message of the Sutta, which says that reason and common sense are not sufficient for ascertaining the truth.
Cool quote! From a cool guy! That’s what I read … Is it true? Did Gandhi actually say this? How do I know? Waddya Talkin About? I saw it on Pinterest! It MUST be true … Huh?
So this culture, this society of Secular Humanist Progressivism, this new normal of moral relativism, is a direct result and morbid offspring of private interpretation of “Truth”, just one more of many “I will not serve!” moments in both angelic and human history. And with totally predictable consequences … for if a person has a right to decide for himself what the Truth is, this says, in effect, that he is his own personal doctor of truth, (“Doctor of the Church”) whatever one’s theological and moral training, and of course we have Pontius Pilot’s question: “What is Truth?”.
We find ourselves replying that “Truth” is whatever we say it is … because we are the sole arbiter of truth, right?
If a person has a right to decide for himself what the Truth is, this says that every person has a personal right to choose whether he will believe or not believe certain teachings. Given this starting point the individual easily slides into the position that he has a right to believe anything, or even nothing at all. This might well have been the start, the wellspring of the slippery slope of “rights” without “responsibilities”.
On the one hand, our modern society MUST concede every person a civil right to reject religious or moral truth, as far as he individually is concerned, only because both religion and society must allow a person to exercise his free will and to choose for himself whether he will accept or reject God’s Revelation and/or Natural Law, and/or criminal law and provincial law and municipal law for that matter, because as we all acknowledge, every human being is endowed with free will from the very moment of conception.
On the other hand, he, (or “she” or even “it”) – mustn’t get too politically incorrect here lest we offend some entitled rainbow singularity – the ONE who rejects the truth must unfortunately, unavoidably and personally bear whatever evil consequences result from his, hers, or it’s own personal choice of the magical fantasy which is their personal reality. Thinking things like “Drinking and driving” won’t have bad outcomes for me ’cause I’m special, “doing drugs” won’t affect my job and my family because I’m special, “building my home on a flood plane” won’t have bad outcomes ’cause I’m special … and so on and so forth.
Worshiping at the pool …
For those accustomed to indulging in “Magical Thinking” it is sometime a shock to discover that actions and beliefs have consequences in the real world. We believe that it can’t possibly be our fault, that the outcome in question can’t be the result of our own bad choices, NO WAY EH! Hence the almost universal predilection for playing the blame game, we blame circumstances, or other people, or the economy or the politics of the day, FOR MAKING US “FEEL” BAD about the inevitable consequences of our own bad, ill-considered choices and actions. All in order to permit perpetuation of our well loved, familiar, comfortable, personal fantasies which are crippling us and preventing the existence of Justice .
For some, this view may be difficult or offensive because they are unaccustomed to hearing other views which differ from the generally accepted mainstream view. The “I’m OK, Your OK” generation and their children and grand-children are especially sensitive to being reminded of past failures and disasters and having current failings remarked upon. They don’t want to hear anyone commenting on the likely outcomes obvious with even a cursory examination of the reality on the ground.
We have “become as gods” and will brook no objections or interruptions to our worship of the image in the pool. But …
In spite of that, or perhaps because of that, if there is to be any hope of long term survival, it is critically important at this point in history, to reflect on what has gone wrong. Can anyone seriously believe that we live in the best of all worlds, the promised land of the Enlightenment?
Without Truth and Sincerity how can there be Justice? Who do we believe? Do we turn to our figureheads for guidance? It always seems that our Great Canadian Societal Figureheads prattling on to the media and all the talking heads doing interviews with our Canadian versions of Rock Stars … always seem to be selling some version of “What is Truth?”
This dystopian emotional wasteland, this distilled “Canadianess”, produced by our daily confrontations with reality in our polite society is the meat of the “Cognitive Dissonance” part of “Cognitive Dissonance in a Progressive Tyranny”.
For want of sincerity and a concomitant want of justice we have adopted “politically correct” niceness as our defining national characteristic.
Canadian Figurehead …
As David Warren writes: “Compliant, complaisant, acquiescent. Docile, submissive, ingratiating. Servile, tractable, obsequious. Ever deferential, glad to be of use. This is what my fellow Canadians have become, though we were not in the past, according to my elders (now mostly dead). When unreasonable demands were made upon them, their inclination was to stiffly resist. Ours is to be chumps, patsies, dupes, treacle saps. In our vanity we think that we are “nice” people, and celebrate our own gormlessness.” “What is Truth?”
American Figurehead …
Lest we forget, or maybe we never knew it, but the generation that fought and died at Vimy Ridge was in no way “nice” and “gormless”. The generation that sang: “D-day Dodgers“ knew everything there was to know about push-back against gormlessness (great series of YouTube videos at this link – none of this shows up in Social Studies, does it?).
Lest we forget, Canadians were not always a mob of gormless poltroons. Where are they now? My elders (now mostly dead). Realization dawned one day in the midst of World War III, that the real enemy was not, most undoubtedly not, the young kid clinging on to the Soviet frigate 100 yards away. He was me.
The real enemy was back home in the comfortable office towers and media redoubts taking pot shots at the ones doing the bleeding. The real enemy was back home in the Kremlin, and in Washington, and in Ottawa, and in London. The real enemy was the figureheads and their agenda of “What is Truth?”
Just in case we missed something and mistakenly understand “gormless” as synonymous with “nice” we can look at a definition of sorts: “Gormless began life as the English dialect word “gaumless”, which was altered to the modern spelling when it expanded into wider use in the late 19th century.
The origins of “gaumless” are easy to understand; the word derives from a combination of the dialect noun gaum, meaning “attention” or “understanding,” and the suffix -less. “Gaum” also functions as a verb in some dialects, where it means “to pay attention to” and “to understand.” An unrelated verb gaum means “to behave in a stupid or awkward manner.”
There’s also a noun gaum, meaning “a stupid doltish person.” But none of these are as commonly used nowadays as “gormless”, which itself is most frequently seen in British English.
“Yamanakabushi” performed by Jean-Pierre Rampal & Yuzuko Horigome, from the album “Yamanakabushi: Japanese Melodies”, Vol. 3, (1982)
Some thoughts today on “Simplicity”, the quest for which is an uphill battle which never ends in a world that worships the complex and “it’s complicated …” as a rationalization of every form of duplicitous, dishonest and even harmful behavior. The exploitation of “the other” for the benefit of “the self” necessitates an entire Olympiad of gymnastically complex contortions to protect our self image and to deny the reality of our conduct and intentions.
What is one to do in this duplicitous world? To approach in some way true simplicity of spirit we are required to avoid every form of duplicity. We must avoid duplicity of mind by a passionate search for truth. We must love and accept the truth even when the truth requires sacrifice. Sacrifice of beliefs, sacrifice of views, sacrifice of attachments to both creatures and ideas and modes of thought. How successful are we in this pursuit, even when embarked honestly upon it? How passionately do we desire peace?
Sacrifice also must be embraced when truth reveals our defects, and errors, and wounds our egos ,and harms our self love, revealing things, actions, and beliefs which do not redound to our credit, which even may detract from our self image and our public image. We are so wedded to ourselves and our narcissistic self image that even in prayer we often fall into delusional reveries about why we are “not bad people”. But is there peace in being “not bad people”?
To find peace, we must embrace the most candid, honest, sincerity, fleeing vigorously from every falsehood with the same intensity of passion with which we search for truth. This is not easy in our modern world where the entire focus of existence is deception and self aggrandizement. Our fear and avoidance of simplicity is perhaps the hallmark of our age, the leitmotif of our society and our culture.
But, duplicity poisons peace, and gives rise to our multiplicity of fears all stemming from our total lack of simplicity, the complex monkey on all our backs. William Shakespeare nailed it in Hamlet’s soliloquy:
To be, or not to be, that is the question: Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, Or to take Arms against a Sea of troubles, And by opposing end them: to die, to sleep No more; and by a sleep, to say we end the heart-ache, and the thousand natural shocks that Flesh is heir to? ‘Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished. To die, to sleep, To sleep, perchance to Dream; aye, there’s the rub, for in that sleep of death, what dreams may come, when we have shuffled off this mortal coil, must give us pause. There’s the respect that makes Calamity of so long life: For who would bear the Whips and Scorns of time, the Oppressor’s wrong, the proud man’s Contumely, [F: poor] the pangs of despised Love, the Law’s delay, [F: disprized] the insolence of Office, and the spurns that patient merit of the unworthy takes, when he himself might his Quietus make with a bare Bodkin? Who would Fardels bear, to grunt and sweat under a weary life, but that the dread of something after death, the undiscovered country, from whose bourn no traveller returns, puzzles the will, and makes us rather bear those ills we have, than fly to others that we know not of.
(“Quietus” is an old English term for Death or suicide – could we call our Canadian Euthanasia bill the Quietus bill? It will certainly “quiet us”. a “Bodkin” is a “blade” and”Fardels” are “troubles”)
Truth and true peace is to be found in sincere simplicity of spirit … in that simplicity no fears can arise to plague us … rejecting the complexity of our will and all the fears thereof, and embracing the simplicity of God’s will, the sincere pursuit of only good, not “our good”, but “Good”.
empty oneself of every trace of belief in one’s “goodness”
At the local level we demand recognition of self worth by virtue of breathing, but at the international level we meekly kiss the dirt and confess our guilt every time some new mouthpiece accuses us of some mythical crime.
Islamic Celebration of Terror Attacks
We embrace this motif domestically in our espousal of “Human Rights Tribunals” and “Hate Crimes”, and political correctness. We accept being the victim of these atrocities because our chestless leadership, both in the secular and in the spiritual world have taught us that this is the deserved result of our own iniquities.
We, as a culture, are found guilty of “cultural genocide” by the “Star Chamber” of the progressive secularists and must pay for our sins. We are NOT being raped, tortured, abused and killed by Islam, this is a deserved punishment, and we are told in every venue that we deserve it because of the way we acted and the values we embraced, those values of “dead white males”… and our leaders and media accept it and agree?
hate, hate, hate, hate
How did we get here, what poison have we been drinking that justice and truth should be so turned on it’s head that we accept this evil as our just due?
I finished off the last post with acid comments regarding religious denominations as socials clubs, no more, no less. I might have added an allusion to factions as in “fractious parties” within a common tradition.
Is this courage or cowardice?
The foundational beliefs of which factions, a “cornerstone” so to speak, is that ALL other factions, and clubs, are illegitimate because we and only we hold the one truth. My morality is my morality and no one else can legitimately criticize me without being guilty of a hate crime. Where did brotherly love go? Who is my neighbor Lord?
My “Precious” opinion
Unless I want to criticize someone else in which case it is just OK because after all I am a victim of hate because of your criticism and targeted and rationalized retaliation is NOT hate but rather some variation of retribution and restitution. What happened to standing up for Truth, for protecting the weak and unfortunate, for consoling the lost and loving the unloveable?
A necessary corollary to this “one truth” platform is that we must, at all costs, discredit and/or destroy all other points of view, lest some courageous loudmouth ask why the emperor has no clothes.
ESPECIALLY, in the domain of religious clubs, the original one holy catholic and apostolic church, MUST be discredited in order to ensure that our new “self” worship club and it’s beliefs are never called into question historically.
Everyone Knows It!
Everybody Knows It! From this wellspring of charity spring such “factual’ gems as: “Well, everyone knows that: “Nuns (Catholic religious) punish unwed mothers and do abortions in their “nunneries”and cover them up” and the Pope is the Anti-Christ”.
What does one do when one is handed this wonderful little scrap of bigotry and malice, courtesy of a close Baptist relative who is a general all purpose “bigot and hater”, but especially of what she thinks of as “Catholics” (being merely the common self serving protestant or baptist caricature of Catholics).
But we are basically good persons
Of course, when handed this offal we are expected socially to nod and smile and politely “pretend” to go along, because of social niceties. Of course the statement is so egregiously outrageous and provocative (as intended) that we cannot hold back our response, our questioning after specifics, our feigned consternation, our distress as we ask pointedly which network that was reported on. That reaction makes us the bad guy, the A-hole in the room.
St. Peter’s, Rome
So we all descend into this moral pit of hatred and lies, calumnies and retaliation, and the all purpose immorality founded on “I am basically a good person“. Given the utter lack of “goodwill” as in “men and women of goodwill”, or “people of goodwill” within our own society, communities, and families is it any wonder to see the state of the world.
Which side Are We On?
If we can do this to “the least of these, our brothers” how much more easy is it to continue to commit these ever increasing atrocities against anonymous others who we barely consider human. Kill them before they vote, kill them when they get to expensive to look after. And everyone pretends not to notice that whenever bad behaviour and “ill will” are tolerated you inevitably get more of it, expanding exponentially from the local to the global.
Looking at the consternation and panic and mawkish grief reported in the media and associated with current “terrorist” attacks, we have to understand, even the blindest of us, that at some level all the “good behaviours” that we verbally associate in an offhand way with “western civilization” are, in fact, a facade, a sham and a lie. If good behaviour is “in” us as part of our nature then nothing evil is our fault, is it?
We are NOT guilty! Of anything. Institutional evil has given us a false sense of being guiltless and free of sin, following mutually acknowledged rules of behaviour we can go through life sleep walking under the assumption that the rule of law, good order, and good government are naturally human and stem from human qualities of “goodness”. In reality, this folly leads inevitably to desolation and destruction. We are NOT worthy! Our natural proclivities, our concupiscence, incline us towards evil thinking, evil beliefs, and evil behavior. Our culture is steadily marching in lockstep down a path to acceptance of abominations and immoralities the practice of which would have been anathema and worthy of imprisonment and death even a couple of generations ago.
“Your Dying Heart”, Adrian von Ziegler, from the album “Requiem”, (2011)
The efforts of our fathers, the “Greatest Generation”, was perhaps the very last outpouring of Western Christian Civilization, demonstrating a willingness to stand against what was recognized as evil; identified as evil; and dealt with as evil; whatever the cost. The term “The Greatest Generation” is the title of Tom Brokaw’s 1998 book profiling members of this generation, stemming from his attendance at the D-day 40th anniversary celebrations. In the book, Brokaw wrote, “it is, I believe, the greatest generation any society has ever produced.” He argued that these men and women fought not for fame and recognition, but because it was the “right thing to do.”
Today, we are knowingly, willingly returning to a pre-Christian civilization where it was perfectly OK for Rome, in 70 AD, to send half a dozen legions to Palestine to slaughter over a million folks because of “civil unrest”. But Rome wasn’t just the big bad guy some folks like to portray, handing out punishment in isolation and solely responsible for the atrocities.
Destruction of The Temple 70 AD
Because the Jewish nation brought down the retribution of Rome on itself because of the way the leaders and people were acting long before the Roman boot crushed the lawlessness.
The parallels are chilling in their similarities to the conduct of the leaders and the people of nations in this day, and the media just can’t get enough of it, reporting every atrocity which supports their narrative while ignoring thousands of others which don’t make the grade. Are you one of the true believers in the fantasy that it can’t happen now?
Delacroix, Eugène, 1798-1863. Christ and the Disciples on a Raging Sea
We have spent the best part of the last 400 years steadily divorcing ourselves from the vital Christian roots of our civilization, the roots that fed us the understanding of what good behaviour actually was.
We are steadily morphing into a graceless, de-sacramentalized, self centered dog eat dog world, a world which Jesus Christ and his teaching came to move us away from by way of the church and the grace of the sacraments.
The source of all goodness came to us in the likeness of ourselves and spent his life teaching us how to behave, how to live together, how to care for our brothers, how to live in God’s love.
He created a lifeboat to survive the stormy seas of human existence and we reject that lifeboat, believing our own narrative in preference and climb out of the lifeboat. We try to swim away on our own power, continuously trying to do this thing on our own and with our own values and agendas, utterly blind to the spiritual and physical carnage around us.
We just keep swimming while ignoring the lifeline continually being offered to us. The Sharks are having a field day! Wake up people!
“God makes a portion of each generation intelligent well above the average, and despite the best efforts of our state school systems, His handiwork is hard to suppress. The task of the modern progressive university is therefore to corrupt and unbalance the intelligent; to pit their minds against their common sense; to adapt their brains as a useful putty — a kind of “semtex” or plastic explosive to press into the folds and corners of the society the progressive must destroy to rule. Yet even in the ruins, some will be rebuilding.
Moreover, the ambitions of our political masters must be sustained. A new generation arises, and they must idiotize and demoralize anew. Eventually they get lazy, distracted, forgetful. With age, their ruthlessness trickles away, and in the end, death beats them.
This is my principal, generic hope for the future within Time: the extraordinary power of nature, including human nature, to recover from abuse. And through dark generations, pockets of decency will persist, wherein the good is recognized as good, the true as true, and the beautiful as beautiful — regardless of what progressive legislators decide. And though they be punished, men will know their Saviour.”
Always remember, “Be charitable in your judgements, and never take yourself too seriously”
“Over The Hills And Far Away”, Jon Boden, from the album “A Folk Song a Day”, 2011. The song is also the Theme from “Sharp’s Rifles” a series about the Napoleonic Wars in Spain.
Photo by Matthew Lloyd/Getty Images. London is Europe’s de facto financial capital.
Well! Never, never, never ignore or underestimate the British Common Man. Napoleon learned the hard way when the “common scum” kicked his Sicilian derriere most thoroughly.
The British voter just blew all the pundits and professionals out of the water. Monte Python could not have done better. I imagine the Knights that go “NEE!” in the bureaucracy and academia are all in a mad scrambling dither about the sky falling. All the talking heads have even less meaningful things to say than usual.
Blather, blather, blather, blather, from “Triumph of Democracy” all around the circle to “Right Wing Haters” until perhaps there is so much hot air blowing ’round that they will all physically follow their vaporous thoughts into zero G. Should be interesting and amusing as well.
Contesting the “Triumph of Democracy” crowd, we have the predictable Liberal Progressive freak-out on the triumph of “far right parties,” , the “low information Trump voters” which is just SO Lame-Stream. Fifty-two percent of the British electorate cannot possibly be “Far Right Haters”, or if they were as described they might have accomplished something by now. But the left always calls everyone else “haters” when in fact they have been historically the “Greatest Haters” (ever hear of NAZIs and Communists? Lefties every one of them).
In our current culture such terms are meaningless. There is always populist discontent with opposite things — with too much taxes, and not enough welfare – ever has it been so – and the worst are the Progressives blaming every one else for being “racists” while continuously thumping their own extreme version of racism upon which they depend for their voter support
But wait! This isn’t over. It is probably going to take at least a couple of years to untangle this little divorce and it will not be a pleasant experience for anyone, least of all for those who voted to leave. This will make the dark days pre-Thatcher look like an Anglican Church picnic. I just can’t wait for the trainloads of inked and electroned, scribery (Huh?) about it all being caused by the racism and hate springing full blown and unprovoked from the breast of the nasty proles, the common unwashed working man, incited by the evil right wing haters, It must be Bush’s fault! Everything is Bush’s fault. Except for what is the fault of the evil Koch Brothers. Riiiight … The Brights just couldn’t possibly have had anything to do with it! Everything they did was for our own good, right?
“Fanfare For The Common Man”, Aaron Copland & The London Symphony Orchestra, from the album “Copland Super Hits”, 1994.
So, what we are seeing happen here is the impact of Truth on the fantasies of the Intellectuals and Brights, the Progressive managers currently running our economic and political world, who sincerely believe their own BS. Unfortunately for their fantasies, “Truth” matters, “Facts” matter, and you can never trust “voters” to be “sensible”. Hence all the effort put into de-fanging voters and the voting process so that it can be controlled, and “sensible” thinkers can prevail “for our own good” of course.
The managers and academics just don’t connect with “The People” because they are not “people”. They don’t understand all the “little people”, the ants they see from their upper floor office windows, and they could care less what the “little people” think, feel and believe, because the of course the managers and academics know best. For a lucid example of just how the left regards the “little people” look no further than this article in the magazine “Foreign Affairs“.
There’s a good read here about “Populist Rage” and “Right Wing Haters”. It’s a sign of the times, this article is. Foreign Affairs Magazine used to be a fair and impartial venue reporting on international politics when, 30 or 40 years ago, I used to read it. I read it a lot back then, I read it a lot when I was a questioning teen.
This particular article is by one JONATHAN HOPKIN who is an Associate Professor of Comparative Politics at the London School of Economics and Political Science. Now we all know that “Associate” indicates that the Illuminati at the London School of Economics don’t feel that Jonathan quite measures up yet. He may yet make it to full professorship if he is successful in kissing enough butt over the next decade. Or, like an infamous alumni called Pierre he can always run for Prime Minister in Canada if he can’t make it at the university.
Anyway, here we go “… tensions over the United Kingdom’s Brexit campaign should have culminated with a referendum this Thursday on whether to leave or remain in the European Union. Instead, it peaked prematurely with the tragic murder of Jo Cox, a pro-EU Labour member of Parliament, who was brutally shot and stabbed last week by a man close to a British extremist anti-immigration group…”
Well GEE you left lib weenie! That same logic makes you close to the murdering Gestapo or the NKVD or maybe the KGB? Ever hear of the terms “Sympathizer”, or “Running-Dog”, how about “Useful Idiot”? And yes, being shot or stabbed does indeed tend to be “brutal”, does it not? So is cutting up babies in the womb. Get used to it! Soon you will be writing in favour of doing it (stabbing) to seniors and handicapped folks. Get over yourself! At least TRY to be consistent!
And since guns of all sorts account for only about 3% of murders it does seem that the majority of these events (97%) employ the much more brutal use of knives, fists and feet which seem to be the tools of choice for most folks when offing those one disagrees with.
Why does the left deplore the “brutal murder” of alleged adults but encourage the brutal murder of defenseless children in exactly the same manner? Why? Just wondering? Anyone? Anyone?
Oh well, maybe we should ban knives? Or Fists? Or boots? No, no, no, ban – “Assault Boots” – which would be any boot that was black with cleated soles, eh?
Hell! Even the Pope is on board with this: “Pope Francis has said the result of the U.K.’s referendum to leave the European Union reflects the “will of the people” and that there is now a “great responsibility” to ensure the well being of people in the U.K. and peaceful coexistence on continental Europe …”. Of course, Francis is also on record as saying that “most Catholic Marriages are invalid” so there is something of a credibility gap in evidence where he is concerned. Is the Pope Catholic? I don’t know anymore.
So why is the decision of 52% of British Voters to vote to leave the E.U. cast as somehow related to the murder of 1 left wing politician? Of course, there is no evidence of media bias at all, is there? Well lets see where we go with this slant:
1972 – The Troubles; Battle at Springmartin – A car bombing outside a crowded pub in Belfast sparks a two-day gun battle involving the Provisional IRA
“… It was the first political killing of a British politician since the end of the Troubles, a turbulent era of conflict in Northern Ireland, and it has led many to wonder how a stable country such as the United Kingdom could lose its head over what is essentially membership in a trading bloc.
(Seriously, are you stoned???? The Brexit referendum is like the Northern Ireland conflict??? Were you even alive then?? How is it possible to make that kind of a parallel unless you are willfully smearing the “Leave” voters?)
Answering that question requires reflecting on how the country grew so divided in the first place. Since the beginning, Brexit has pitted younger, more affluent, and cosmopolitan urban Britons against the older, poorer, and less educated ones in the rural and postindustrial parts of the country.
It is this same clash—the elites versus the so-called proletariat—that has fueled the resurgence of extreme right parties across Europe, as well as in the United States. In the United Kingdom, these voters are angry at their financial instability, stagnant or declining living standards, and loss of jobs to emerging economies. And they haveblamed it on the migrants arriving on their shores…” when in fact it is ALL caused by leftist social and economic policies.
And there you have it all in a nutshell – the politics of class, division, and racism in action, always the Progressives strong suite. It’s all the fault of those poor uneducated slobs in the rural and post-industrial countryside. Why stick to the facts when you can create a dramatic fictional story about your enemies (aka propaganda – Mr. Goebbels would be so proud) that all your Rainbow cronies and fellow members of N.I.C.E. will welcome and applaud. After all, what matter the alleged thoughts and realities of we knuckle dragging neanderthals here in fly-ever country, clinging to our guns and religion. Sigh, so much brains, so little sense.
Another Excellent article here, which we ignore at our peril. The Truth matters, regardless of the opinions and pontifications of the talking heads and celebs, secular AND religious, the Progressives everywhere and in all professions, who are the walking, talking, zombie enforcers of the tyranny of relativism under which we toil and prostitute ourselves for a pittance, yes, selling out for a pittance when we have daily access to Divinely gifted treasure beyond all earthly value. Pity. Pity the poor souls, Pray for the poor souls.
“Ladies in Lavender”, Joshua Bell, from the album “the Essential Joshua Bell”, 2005
“It is, to be Platonic about this – and why not, when discussing the transcendentals? – as if we had heard it before, or seen something before, even if perhaps we hadn’t heard or seen. The worldly may dismiss this as a kind of déjà vu, and turn for an explanation to, say, pharmacology. But even the most confirmed worldling will puzzle, when it happens to him.
“Maybe it is possible to do or be good. Maybe there is such a thing as beauty. Maybe truth is something that can be known. Stranger things have happened.”
Imagine that! True beauty, doing your best, doing good for no other reason than to be doing your best and doing good. No pay, no photo op, no votes, no earthly reward.
Omnia ad Majorem Dei Gloriam
Always remember, “Be charitable in your judgements, and never take yourself too seriously”
Much desired, seldom found, in this culture of frozen self centered anxiety. I am once again staggered by the monolithic moral bankruptcy of an entire people. Watched CTV this AM, now I remember why I haven’t watched it in years.
Boy Trudeau has risen to something like 37% in the poles and all the talking heads and “Brights” are chattering about a new Liberal majority finally supplanting the Evil Conservative Empire of Stephan Harper (aka the Darth Vader of the Great White North).
ALL HAIL THE RISING SON! A NIPPLE IN EVERY MOUTH! A HANDOUT FOR EVERY HAND! KILL EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES! WHOOHOO!!!
Just make sure the left over parts get put in the correct blue recycle bin and we can get back to the happy orgy of busily spending other people’s money.
Not enough money, no problem, just raise taxes. Still not enough money. No problem, just print more. Recently exclaimed by a customer in my store “I DON’T CARE ABOUT FACTS! EVERYONE KNOWS IT’S TRUE!”
It’s true all right. What I alluded to in an earlier post – the “Low Information Voter” wants anything just as long as they get “Money for Nothing, chicks for Free”, right Justin?
Dire Straits, Money for Nothing, chicks for Free, 1985
It’ll sure be interesting watching Canadian Liberal Progressives burning themselves alive trying to keep warm in the depths. There was a group once made up of special folks just like them, who supported the regime no matter the compromises and deviance.
They were called the Einsatzgruppen (German for “task forces“, “deployment groups”; singular Einsatzgruppe; official full name Einsatzgruppen der Sicherheitspolizei und des SD) were Schutzstaffel (SS) paramilitary death squads of Nazi Germany that were responsible for mass killings, primarily by shooting, during World War II.
The Einsatzgruppen had a leading role in the implementation of the Final Solution of the Jewish question (Die Endlösung der Judenfrage) in territories conquered by Nazi Germany. Almost all of the people they killed were civilians, beginning with the Polish intelligentsia and swiftly progressing to Soviet political commissars, Jews, and Gypsies throughout Eastern Europe.
The Einsatzgruppen worked hand-in-hand with the Orpo Police Battalions on the Eastern Front to carry out operations ranging from the murder of a few people to operations which lasted over two or more days, such as the massacre at Babi Yar with 33,771 Jews killed in two days, and the Rumbula massacre (with about 25,000 killed in two days of shooting).
As ordered by Nazi leader Adolf Hitler, the Wehrmacht cooperated with the Einsatzgruppen and provided logistical support for their operations. Historian Raul Hilberg estimates that between 1941 and 1945 the Einsatzgruppen and related auxiliary troops killed more than two million people, including 1.3 million Jews. The total number of Jews murdered during the Holocaust is estimated at 5.5 to 6 million people.
In spite of the “legality” of their activities according to state law and regime policies, after the close of World War II, senior leaders of the Einsatzgruppen were prosecuted in the Einsatzgruppen Trial in 1947–48, charged with crimes against humanity and war crimes. Fourteen death sentences and two life sentences were handed out. Four additional Einsatzgruppe leaders were later tried and executed by other nations. That was just the leaders.
So similarly, right here in the Old Dominion, in a nation which once stood for good, the law of the land now authorizes about 100,000 murders of children a year, (approximately) and subsequent sanitary and economic disposal of recyclables and waste bio-products. The sobriquet of “Women’s Health” is used in a pathetic attempt to “give cover” but shorn of all the Liberal bafflegab this is exactly what the Einsatzgruppen did for the State Regime in Germany during the 30’s and 40’s.
Estimates of about 6 million victims of these historic government programs are recognized by both deniers and holocaust historians. Canada’s very own holocaust is pushing into the 6 million territory and counting. But still “… the policy going forward is that every single Liberal MP will be expected to stand up for women’s rights to choose”. Oh, right … that’s all OK then. It’s all about “women’s rights to choose” … at my expense and in my homeland to murder her children with the aid and comfort of the state.
Just for the sake of discussion, some rhetorical questions, eh? While we sip our Timmy’s here in the neighborhood coffee shop in downtown Toronto, answer me this, Justin: How long before any inconvenient person can be legally “liquidated” for their own good and the good of all men.
Whatever happened to murder being a crime – whatever happened to “Thou shalt not Murder”, eh Justin?. Gee, what if people start deciding that politicians are “inconvenient”? Is baby-murder something that we can do retroactively? Can we help politician’s mothers to “choose “retroactively”? How about your Mum, Justin? How does she feel about her grandchildren?
How can I even allude to such horrible acts? Why not? Liberals think killing inconvenient children is just OK, so why worry about retro-activity? It’s just a silly detail, right? Come on people, seriously, this is the 21st century after all, get with the times.
Does ANYONE feel even a little cognitive dissonance in what Justin is telling us? ANYONE?
A recent news article in the National Post by a writer not controlled by the Liberal machine puts things in perspective.
In case it gets taken down by some helpful editor in the pay of the National Liberal organization I repost it here.
“I’ve come to admire Justin Trudeau, who could be Canada’s prime minister-designate by this time next week.
How could I not? As a student of politics for more than 40 years, how could I avoid quiet admiration for anyone who could run a campaign as sneakily unprincipled as Trudeau’s, and get away with it?
Teamed with his very own master of the dark arts – a graduate of the Dalton McGuinty school of unprincipled power – Trudeau has pulled off one of the great campaigns of recent history: a flagrantly dishonest run for office, based on a pledge of honesty.
It’s brilliant. If I were Hillary Clinton, I’d be consulting Gerry Butts three times a day. Despite 23 years in the U.S. spotlight, Clinton still hasn’t learned to mesmerize innocents with the skills of the Liberal campaign.
I had to concede Justin’s skills after reading his remarks on Tout le monde en parle, the Radio-Canada interview show renowned for its tough treatment of politicians.
Asked if he’d cancel the $15 billion deal to sell light-armoured vehicles to Saudi Arabia – condemned by human rights advocates due to that country’s lengthy record of abuses – Trudeau justified his refusal by insisting “they’re not arms, they’re Jeeps,” and claiming the sale isn’t a deal between Canada and the Saudi governments, but is “an agreement between a manufacturing company here (in) Canada and Saudi Arabia.”
Edmonton, AB: April 24, 2008 – General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS), Canada’s support services Edmonton facility celebrated a milestone with the delivery of the 100th retrofit LAV III (Light Armoured Vehicle, on rightside) to the Canadian Forces at a news conference. GDLS-C performs repair, retrofit and modifications on the Canadian Forces fleet of LAV’s. (Ed Kaiser/Edmonton Journal)
Here’s a photo of a light armoured vehicle like the ones believed to be on order by the Saudis (the deal has been so cloaked in secrecy it’s difficult to be precise).
Does it look like a Jeep to you? And while Trudeau’s claim that the vehicles aren’t being sold by Ottawa but by General Dynamics of London, Ontario, is marginally — technically — true, the deal was brokered by Canadian Commercial Corporation, a Crown corporation, as part of a determined push to expand military sales, and approved despite export control regulations that require a human rights assessment of the purchaser.
Trudeau’s third explanation for standing by the deal –“ I will not cancel a signed contract” – didn’t stop former prime minister Jean Chretien, who has campaigned with Trudeau, from cancelling a Mulroney agreement to buy new combat helicopters in 1993. Chretien paid $478 million in penalties to kill that deal. Evidently, it can be done. So why won’t Trudeau do it?
Trudeau’s ability to evade honesty has been in evidence throughout the weeks of this campaign, and well before. The Liberal leader says he’d end Canada’s activities in Syria because it’s not a justifiable use of Canada’s military. He insists he’d be willing to use troops in an appropriate instance, but won’t say what qualifies as “appropriate”.
Pressed on why the brutalities of Islamic State don’t justify intervention, he dismissed the question as “nonsensical.” He still hasn’t answered it. He advocates a return to Canada’s glory days as UN peacekeepers, insinuating Conservatives were to blame for its end, although it was a Liberal government that got Canada out of peacekeeping after the Somalia scandal and Rwandan genocide.
Trudeau continues to defend voting for Bill C-51, the government’s anti-terrorism bill, while simultaneously attacking it. He says he voted for it despite disagreeing with it, and would alter it if he forms a government.
He says the Liberals are a “pro-trade party” but won’t say if they’d support the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the biggest trade agreement to date. He couldn’t possibly pay for all the spending promises he’s made, even with his pledge to run $30 billion in deficits, but won’t say how he’d make up the gap. He’s barely been pressed on it, in fact.
He denounces the Conservatives for letting the provinces take the lead on measures against global warming, though his policy is to leave the issue largely in provincial hands.
He maintains there’s no need to worry that his pledge to run deficits will become an extended plunge into new debt, insisting: “It is Conservatives who run deficits; Liberals balance budgets. That’s what history has shown.” But Liberals set off Canada’s 25-year run of deficit budgets in the 1970s under Pierre Trudeau, who managed precisely one balanced budget in 15 years of trying.
Justin Trudeau criticizes Harper’s seven deficits; his father had 14. Justin Trudeau insists his borrowings would be used to kick-start Canada’s economy through heavy spending on infrastructure, though only a small portion of the money would actually go to bridges and transit and other recognized infrastructure. The rest is a slush fund for favoured Liberal social and environmental schemes.
He pledges a Trudeau government would end the concentration of power in the leader’s office, though his campaign has focused almost exclusively on its leader. Despite a pledge to lift the muzzle on MPs that Liberals say has been imposed by Conservatives, several Liberal candidates have been forced to apologize or stand down for their remarks. Favoured candidates have been pressed on ridings, despite Trudeau’s pledge not to interfere in such choices. The Liberals ban candidacy to anyone who disagrees with Trudeau’s position on abortion, while heralding the right of Canadians to hold personal views.”
Casting Crowns, Waiting On The Night To Fall, 2013
Well, I’ve heard it all before. Thanks Justin, but no thanks. You and all your parliament of whores along with the murderin’ deviant perverts who elect them can just go “Fuddle Duddle” yourselves. Ha, I remember that too well, that and the NEP and a few other precious memories. Of course that won’t count for much with all the usual sycophants just wetting their panties in anticipation of a return to the Good Ole Party Days of the Northern Magus.
So we see on the right here a photo of a proposed redevelopment model for Sparks Street Mall in downtown Ottawa, right? I really, really, like the bright red neon lighting. Maybe you can get Granny Margaret a new actor boyfriend and a deep discount on some good medicinal BC pot in between killing inconvenient young’uns, after all, it’s all just “Woman’s Health”, right?
Shit, for that matter, don’t be a piker, why don’t you just declare Ontario a legal drugs zone and while you’re at it you can bring over some high priced Dutch consultants and “pleasure assistants” or “comfort girls” from Amsterdam to help our good Canadian bureaucrats with setting up legalized prostitution and euthanasia, and maybe Timmy’s can start selling a New Dark Roast Crack. Coming soon to a street mall near you,
Boy oh Boy, I just can’t wait for the party to start.
In the silence of the night, a still, small Voice came whispering:
in the tumult of the day, a thundering Cry, like the sound of many waters:
“You must not remain silent! You must write what I tell you!”
So I asked trembling, “What words do you give me?”
So we were talking about the 7 “hard” disciplines and how they underlay the entire web of trust which makes our modern civilization work and provides pretty much all of us with an unprecedented standard of living, safety and comfort.
The 7 “hard” disciplines is the complete picture of our civilization’s web of trust in a nutshell – physics, astronomy, chemistry, biology, engineering, computer science and of course mathematics. Everything that makes life safe, prosperous, and even possible for us today depends totally on developments and progress building step upon step in those 7 “hard” disciplines, the development of which stretches all the way back to Aristotle, Plato, and the birth of the Western Philosophical Tradition, a group referred to collectively by the Illuminati of the Pink as “Dead White Males” in their broadcast Ad Hominum attack on all of recorded history. And, of course, the total construct of these interrelated “hard science” disciplines rests on a foundation of Catholic Philosophy and the work of hundreds of generations of Catholic scientists, many of whom were (HORRORS!) Catholic Priests. . We are never told about that part these days, in the midst of absorbing our Progressive Relativist Revisionist “Social Studies”. I didn’t just make this up for this blog post. It is common knowledge available to anyone who cares to search rather than get their “wisdom” from the main stream media.
As I mentioned earlier, I use the term “hard” in the sense that these disciplines typically function in an empirical structure that doesn’t care how the student, working scientist, or professor “feels” about developments and results. In the “hard” disciplines we have no room for weaselly distortion and subjective opinion. No room for feelings. Things either “are” or “are not”. The direction of experimentation always points to “truth” or “fact” or some sort of error or “untruth” which encourages the searcher to try a different tack, revisit his or her thesis or premise and try again. Or you can choose the “soft” approach, the “Pink” approach”, and just chuck out or ignore the bits that don’t support what you are selling.
And so you have the “soft” sciences, the “studies” programs, the subjective, emotional, touchy feely, “investigations” into the human “reality”. The “soft” sciences are a very recent development in our history. The “soft” sciences only exist because the “hard” sciences were so successful that we developed an incredibly rich civilization. The 7 hard disciplines applied over centuries allowed mankind to bring into existance a civilization so successful that huge surpluses of wealth and resources existed to support the investigation of areas of human existence where empirical reality has less value and subjective feelings and “Gedanken” experiments reign supreme.
Stated another way, we now observe the sad fact that the very success of the 7 “hard” disciplines in creating an incredible civilization, also gave us enough security, and comfort, and frankly, slack in the system, the culture of slack, for all the “soft science” areas called “studies” to develop, and even usurp pride of place over the “hard” disciplines which make them possible, not only possible but to thrive and flower and release their spores into the surrounding culture. We have become as gods, destroyers of worlds, for the real important world is not actually the physical reality so easily manipulated by the hard disciplines but the much deeper spiritual reality of souls. and verily we are truly destroying the world of the soul.
And in the “Just So” stories of our culture, the “soft science gurus” experienced their own “trinitarian” Epiphany. Their very own “Eureka” moment when they gazed into the mirror of their black souls and saw the perfect reflection of themselves gazing back and immediately felt total love for that reflection. They became each and every one of them their very own little triune god.
And so it was that in their heart of hearts they KNEW they couldn’t take themselves seriously, knowing themselves and their personal evils as only they did, and not feeling the same respect for themselves that the examining committees are expected to project, they took the only easy way out and began to ridicule God. They became Momos, and proceeded to attack and destroy anyone who didn’t get in line to worship at the alter of their thesis.
And Lo’ their “Gedanken” experiments were assigned the arbitrary weight of “reality”, until something overwhelmingly and undeniably contradicted their predictions whereupon they moved the goal posts to a new “Gedankan” position and carried right on, on the theory that no-one would remember what they originally said, and anyway it’s all about getting the grants, and everybody does it, right? And the practice rubbed off on some of the “hard” science community because they could see, right before their starving eyes, that sensation sells and gets grants and sponsorship and publicity and television shows and so on, and so they too ate of the apple. And the serpent of egregious relativism entered the garden of science, and the rest is history …
Don’t believe me? I remember this, ’cause I was there!. If you weren’t then here are some “Historic Notes”:
The Population Bomb is/was a best-selling book written by Stanford University Professor of Biology and teacher, Paul R. Ehrlich and his wife, Anne Ehrlich (who was uncredited), in 1968. It warned of the mass starvation of humans in the 1970s and 1980s due to overpopulation, as well as other major societal upheavals, and advocated immediate action to limit population growth (why do they always decide that they have to kill off someone else to solve the problem?).
Fears of a “population explosion” were widespread in the 1950s and 60s, but the book and its author brought the idea to an even wider audience. The book has been criticized since its publishing for its alarmist tone, and in recent decades for its inaccurate predictions. The Ehrlichs stand by the basic ideas in the book, stating in 2009 that “perhaps the most serious flaw in The Bomb was that it was much too optimistic about the future” and believe that it achieved their goals because “it alerted people to the importance of environmental issues and brought human numbers into the debate on the human future.”
Fact: Erlich trained as an Entomologist (specializing in butterflies). He had no background or training in agronomy or population growth. “The Population Bomb” was written at the suggestion of David Brower the executive director of the environmentalist Sierra Club, and Ian Ballantine of Ballantine Books following various public appearances Ehrlich had made regarding population issues and their relation to the environment. The Population Bomb began with the statement: “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate… ” Nothing weasily about that prediction. Pretty much lays it on the line. And was dead wrong. … the book was a huge marketing success and made a LOT of money for the players involved. Any questions?
Global cooling will kill us all!!! But they didn’t just have a proposed physical mechanism for this catastrophe. They had the evidence of the temperature record, which showed global temperatures generally declining from about 1940 to 1970. Which led to fevered predictions like this one, from UC Davis ecology professor Kenneth Watt: “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”
(continued from previous post) … European civilization had already been well formed by the Catholic religion for, at the most, 1,200 years in some regions to, at the least, 400 years in others….
A significant fact, as Hilaire Belloc points out in “Essays of a Catholic”, is that THE PEOPLE WHO HAD BECOME PROTESTANT DID NOT ABANDON THEIR CATHOLIC MORAL CUSTOMS. They continued to live by the truths and moral customs which their Catholic forefathers had lived by for centuries. The only problem was that they no longer believed as true the religious-philosophical truths taught by the the Catholic Church, which had wholly created their customary and traditional ethic, and they had set themselves up as the sole arbiters of truth and right values. They had in effect declared themselves demi-gods. Not quite full gods yet, but the rest of the story was more or less inevitable given man’s natural proclivities.
This rift between varying professed faiths of the various peoples, and the unremarked but continued practice of the traditional Catholic moral customs, has come down by lesser and lesser degrees into our own time. During the many centuries since Luther’s revolt in 1517, Western society has been able to function fairly well, despite the various false religious-philosophical ideas in the minds of people in the same nation—simply because, practically speaking, they were by and large living by the old inherited Catholic truths and practices, and this was what enabled our society to function more or less harmoniously, despite a diversity of belief among its members.
Let us name some of the Catholic social teachings and moral customs that are based on the revealed word of God: to worship God on Sunday, not to work on Sunday, to give honest work for your pay, not to steal, to keep monogamous marriage relations, not to practice polygamy, to avoid adultery and fornication, to shun homosexuality, to have children and not to practice birth control, to raise and nurture them within the family they were born in, to respect and care for the elderly, to nurse the sick, to bury the dead (in anticipation of the resurrection of the body), etc., etc.
Now, the average person might say, “Most of that we have always taken for granted!” and in that they reveal their utter lack of knowledge of their own history and that of their civilization. The bald truth is that in 2015 most of these traditional customs have been simply abandoned by most people, as if there were no objective truth, and definitely as if there were no divine retribution for sin left unforgiven and unexpiated and no temporal results of bad behavior. These customs and traditions, now abandoned in the name of “freedom to do your own thing” are the very bedrock of our culture. They are everything that has made our society workable for 20 centuries. This rejection of traditional moral values and customs is the direct result of the loss of the Catholic faith as the integral creed of our society as a whole. This inevitably resulted in the abandonment of traditional Catholic moral customs that enabled men to live in conformity with God’s laws and enable society to function harmoniously.
Luther’s Ninety-Five Theses on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences (original Latin: Disputatio pro declaratione virtutis indulgentiarum) as written by Martin Luther in 1517 are widely regarded as the initial catalyst for the Protestant Reformation. The disputation protests against clerical abuses, especially nepotism, simony, usury, pluralism, and the sale of indulgences. No doubt everything he protested was true and is recorded historically in the same sources which teach us about Rome and Constantine the Great. Regardless of the truth of his protest, given the reality of “progress” since Luther’s time, it is not a stretch to contend that this revolt constituted the first and deadliest nail in the coffin of western civilization. Screwtape must be laughing all the way home, ” I will not serve!”, indeed! I think of Al Pacino’s last line in “Devil’s Advocate” : …”AAAH! Pride is my favorite sin!”.