In one of my favorite video games, Killzone III, one of the two main antagonists, in a response to his counterpart and rival's suggestion that they pretend to negotiate with the protagonist forces, replies with a venom-laced and fanatical phrase: "There will be NO negotiating with the ISA. THERE WILL BE NO QUARTER!"
This is the kind of vibe I got as I witnessed the recent summer inquisition by gay rights activists and their far-left allies against Dan Cathy's Chick-Fil-A restaurant chain. And believe me, this sentiment was not coming from the Christian restaurant franchise.
It's always strange (and, to be honest, very annoying) to watch a group or an individual demanding certain things and then not reciprocating. It is a one-sided moral that cannot stand. I am talking, of course, about the LGBT community's demands to be heard and that others respect their choice of "lifestyle"-a oft-said and vaguely understood word if there ever was one-but they themselves denying the same right to conscientious objectors. Contrary to popular belief, my dear friends of the LGBT community (and yes, I have some), not everyone who disagrees with homosexuality is a member of Westboro Baptist (please, Westboro, change that name) Church (again, please drop it-it's an embarrassment to all other churches). Also, not all Christians will condemn your soul to hell for choosing to be gay or lesbian or whatever. We disagree with homosexuality because we believe it to be morally wrong, as well as going against nature (and no, I don't buy the argument that someone is "born" gay; provide scientific evidence beyond reproof and then I'll rethink it but until then, don't bother.)
Also, the whole situation was blown completely out of proportion over some comments that Cathy made in an interview several months before. He said simply that he supported the traditional concept of marriage: you know, the one that every culture and society up until the mid-20th Century supported and upheld-man and woman constitute a marriage, with the purpose of producing offspring and raising a family. This is the family unit prescribed by God Almighty, and from it His entreaty to "be fruitful and multiply". This statement of personal belief and conviction was taken to mean, in homophobe code that it seems only LGBTs can understand (?), "I hate gays".
My response: are y'all on drugs? I mean, more than usual?
Cathy never said such a thing, and the record proves it. But then it comes out that Cathy donated money to the Family Research Council, a pro-trad. marriage organization that seeks to bolster traditional marriage. This organization has, in an ironic twist, been labeled a "hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Center, itself one of the most bigoted organizations in the US that labels itself a "watchdog". Some watchdog.
What a man donates his own money to is his business. And a man's opinions are his own and nobody else's. It makes sense that someone who supports traditional marriage is going to support and donate to like-minded organizations, just as the reverse (gay-marriage supporters) is true with theirs. The gay community's attempts to label Chick-Fil-A a hate group are baseless and senseless, not to mention just plain damn ad hominem if there ever was any.
But this has become par for the course when it comes to the gay community: advance our agenda and attack/demonize anyone who disagrees with us. The part that is left out is that "anyone" means "everyone" to the LGBT. Thus the labels of "hate-monger", "homophobe" and "bigot" that are hurled at Christians or anyone else who disagrees with homosexuality or speaks out against the disturbing blitzkrieg of LGBT tactics pushing their agenda.
Here's the skinny, my LGBT friends: If you want respect, show some in return. You know, the "Golden Rule"-"do unto others as you would have done unto you". With the hate you show those who disagree with you, is it any wonder why fundamentalists of every stripe condemn you to hell? Honestly?
The fact of the matter is that most people, including myself, don't give (to be blunt) a bloody damn about what you do in your own house, much less who you do it with. Our problem is when you are flamboyant about it and rub it in our faces and then demand that we respect your choice of living life when we find it abhorrent. We don't appreciate it, and speaking for some, won't stand for it. Hence the backlash and the never-ending culture war.
And let's be real: what rights are you denied, apart from the whole "spousal benefits" and "hospital visitation" that you scream so loudly and obnoxiously about? You have, as American citizens, the same rights, spelled out in the Constitution, as every other American. The fact that you can have "gay pride" parades is directly tied to the 1st Amendment. In some countries (i.e. most if not all the Middle East, ad nauseum) you wouldn't be able to do that. You would be BEHEADED for living a homosexual lifestyle. Even the fundamentalist Christians recoil from such a fate and would never demand it for you all. So for all your lamentations about being "oppressed" (Please for all of us, don't compare yourselves to the Civil Rights Movement-most blacks argue that your "struggle" doesn't hold a candle to the struggle for equality that blacks fought for decades, and being a historian, I'm inclined to agree with them), you really have it better than 9/10 of the world.
In conclusion, I beg my LGBT friends (and to those who would hate on them) to stop acting like children, grow up, be civil, and talk calmly about the issues. Provide evidence to back up your positions (and yes, my Christian friends, we will still follow the Gospel, but today's world needs empirical proof-if you like I can point you to a source I found that solidified a position I held about this matter) and act like freaking adults. If you don't want to be marginalized or rendered irrelevant-and yes I'm speaking to both sides here-then end the hate-fest and meet in the middle. Enough is enough.
Monday, August 27, 2012
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Breaking the Chains: The Egalitarian Idea and Radicalism
In a recent column from the New Criterion, man of letters Roger Kimball commented on the "egalitarian impulse" and its effects upon the problem of dealing with iniquity. Kimball stated,
"The problem today is that the egalitarian imperative threatens to overwhelm that other great social impulse, the impulse to achieve, to excel, to surpass: “always to be best and to rise above others,” as Homer put it in one classic expression of the agonistic spirit. Radical egalitarianism—egalitarianism uncorrected by the aspirations of excellence—would have us pretend that there are no important distinctions among people; where the pretense is impossible, it would have us enact compensatory programs to minimize, or at least to paper over, the differences."
Kimball's point is that no matter how much or how loudly one pushes total equality, there will always be those who are not satisfied and will seek to rise out of the dust to achieve and excel. It is a fundamental part of the human psyche, partly, I believe, because of our inherent closeness to the Image of the Almighty. For centuries Christ was a paragon of virtue, the penultimate example of a noble life, and this desire to be "as Christ was" has now become a part of the Western spirit as integral as DNA. We strive to be better men and women because complacency breeds arrogance, and that arrogance breeds discontent that feeds the fury, the same fury that caused Heaven's Rift and Lucifer's defeat and exile.
This is not to say, however, that the egalitarian idea in and of itself is evil. Far from it. Part of the reason I am a staunch Unionist when it comes to the Civil War is because I believe that slavery of any kind is evil and morally reprehensible, among the most heinous being slavery based on skin color. It is not the main reason of my support for the Union, but it is a fundamental part. Sometimes lauded, sometimes ridiculed, the egalitarian idea is, itself, a reflection of Christ's teachings and the American idea that "all men are created equal" by their Maker. The problem arises when people mistake "equal" for a command that all men be equal in everything, especially income. Christ never spoke of "spreading the wealth around". He never demanded that society, much less the state, take from the "haves" and give to the "have-nots". And the much quoted "camel through a needle" parable about the rich is completely misunderstood by those who use it to further their ideological agenda.
Christ's mercy and salvation is offered to all, regardless of station, class, skin, gender, or political affiliation. It was assurance that every Soul would be given a fair hearing and honest judgement by God Himself and that those who lived by His Commandments and declared Him the Savior of their Soul would be saved (but even God gave special considerations to noble, virtuous souls who had never heard the Gospel). And this salvation went beyond economic circumstances. The egalitarian ideal-that of the abolitionists, that all men have the same constitutional rights and the ability to make decisions on their own without interference-has, unfortunately, been hijacked into a neo-socialist mantra. This bastardized ideal is lethal to productive society, and ultimately to civilization.
I got to thinking about the idea of progress the other day, and it occurred to me that progress in society, in culture, in civilization, is unattainable if the spirit to excel, to rise above, is dead. And true progress comes from hard work and a noble ethic, with the lessons of the past providing a blueprint and rubric on how to march forward. The new egalitarianism that our radical left loves to propagate is a false copy, a doppelganger to be reviled. It represents not forward movement, or progression, but regression, because it seeks to put chains on those who would improve our culture and society and drags them down into the morass, what Churchill called "the equality of misery".
And any "equality" in misery is, in my humble opinion, not equality at all. It is, beyond a doubt, the closest thing to Hell.
"The problem today is that the egalitarian imperative threatens to overwhelm that other great social impulse, the impulse to achieve, to excel, to surpass: “always to be best and to rise above others,” as Homer put it in one classic expression of the agonistic spirit. Radical egalitarianism—egalitarianism uncorrected by the aspirations of excellence—would have us pretend that there are no important distinctions among people; where the pretense is impossible, it would have us enact compensatory programs to minimize, or at least to paper over, the differences."
Kimball's point is that no matter how much or how loudly one pushes total equality, there will always be those who are not satisfied and will seek to rise out of the dust to achieve and excel. It is a fundamental part of the human psyche, partly, I believe, because of our inherent closeness to the Image of the Almighty. For centuries Christ was a paragon of virtue, the penultimate example of a noble life, and this desire to be "as Christ was" has now become a part of the Western spirit as integral as DNA. We strive to be better men and women because complacency breeds arrogance, and that arrogance breeds discontent that feeds the fury, the same fury that caused Heaven's Rift and Lucifer's defeat and exile.
This is not to say, however, that the egalitarian idea in and of itself is evil. Far from it. Part of the reason I am a staunch Unionist when it comes to the Civil War is because I believe that slavery of any kind is evil and morally reprehensible, among the most heinous being slavery based on skin color. It is not the main reason of my support for the Union, but it is a fundamental part. Sometimes lauded, sometimes ridiculed, the egalitarian idea is, itself, a reflection of Christ's teachings and the American idea that "all men are created equal" by their Maker. The problem arises when people mistake "equal" for a command that all men be equal in everything, especially income. Christ never spoke of "spreading the wealth around". He never demanded that society, much less the state, take from the "haves" and give to the "have-nots". And the much quoted "camel through a needle" parable about the rich is completely misunderstood by those who use it to further their ideological agenda.
Christ's mercy and salvation is offered to all, regardless of station, class, skin, gender, or political affiliation. It was assurance that every Soul would be given a fair hearing and honest judgement by God Himself and that those who lived by His Commandments and declared Him the Savior of their Soul would be saved (but even God gave special considerations to noble, virtuous souls who had never heard the Gospel). And this salvation went beyond economic circumstances. The egalitarian ideal-that of the abolitionists, that all men have the same constitutional rights and the ability to make decisions on their own without interference-has, unfortunately, been hijacked into a neo-socialist mantra. This bastardized ideal is lethal to productive society, and ultimately to civilization.
I got to thinking about the idea of progress the other day, and it occurred to me that progress in society, in culture, in civilization, is unattainable if the spirit to excel, to rise above, is dead. And true progress comes from hard work and a noble ethic, with the lessons of the past providing a blueprint and rubric on how to march forward. The new egalitarianism that our radical left loves to propagate is a false copy, a doppelganger to be reviled. It represents not forward movement, or progression, but regression, because it seeks to put chains on those who would improve our culture and society and drags them down into the morass, what Churchill called "the equality of misery".
And any "equality" in misery is, in my humble opinion, not equality at all. It is, beyond a doubt, the closest thing to Hell.
Friday, July 27, 2012
They Are Legion: Bane and the Demonic Potential of the "99%"
I recently read a review of the politics of the new movie "The Dark Knight Rises". In that review, the author remarked that the movie was politically vague and disjointed. He criticized the movie in that there was no clear cut political agenda in the movie and was upset at the way it portrayed the poor of Gotham City.
As for me, I went and saw the movie and was left chilled to the core.
The source of my discomfort and anxiety was the parallel I saw between Bane and so many real-life figures who shared his agenda. SPOILER HERE-Although Bane's agenda on the surface turns out to be false, the way he implements it is synonymous with such catastrophes as the French and Russian Revolutions. He "empowers" the poor to take their revenge upon the successful and rich. What follows is riots, the sovereign property of citizens being taken from them, with the consent of the powers-that-be, police-state martial law, and "utopia"-and by that I mean squalid communal living where everyone is desperately trying to survive. On top of that, by using the "truth" against the Gotham police, Bane releases hundreds of dangerous criminals back out onto the streets, armed and dangerous as his own private army.
I don't think I have to begin listing the real world analogues here to Bane, but what is startling is how fast the "have-nots" flock to Bane and take advantage of his offer. The Devil is among them, and he offers to give them everything they want, the price being control. Not only that, the "have-nots" set up their own "peoples' courts" and sentence or exile those who they feel-not convict of any crime, but feel-have too much or they think oppressed them. They are the 99%, alright, and they are Legion.
What the TDKR shows is the power of the mob in its true form. That demonic emotionalism that carries everything before it is unleashed, with horrific consequences, the most horrific being that they make "examples" of those who try to stand against them or try to maintain law and order. And the saddest thing about the poor? They are turned on those who could do the most to help them (no, I don't mean corrupt Wall Street brokers or the exponentially more corrupt government bureaucracy). They could take away so much from the example of successful people who came by their wealth by the strength of their backs, the sweat of their brows, and the resolve of their wills. But instead of doing so, they are like sheep: mindless, and thus easily swayed by nice whispers and grandiose pledges by ideologues. Bane is not so much a terrorist but the ultimate personification of banal evil: he mocks tradition and order and society and then proceeds to show us just how fast it can fall. He uses our Divine Gifts and twists them to his own purposes. He is so much the Devil it is easy for me to look back in hindsight and understand why I was chilled to the bone.
In the movie, Bane remarks that he is "Gotham's reckoning". I believe that this is his way of making his claim to being the "god" of his new world, much as Satan is referred to as the "king of this world", and Bane's world is a reflection of its master: hollow, violent, cruel, and worthless to the point of deserving destruction. It's not hard to imagine that that is what Lucifer said to God about humanity when he objected before the Holy of Holies. But the difference is that Lucifer rebelled against God; we humans didn't rebel so much as we broke a rule, but not, I think, in a spirit of rebelliousness as Lucifer did. And God loved us and cared about us, we pathetic creatures who have fallen so far, that he gave us a way out. And Batman is Nolan's Jesus-willing to do whatever it takes, suffer any injury, bear any burden (the truth about Harvey Dent and make himself the murderer, the outlaw, the criminal) in order that Gotham may live in a society of peace and order. And Bruce Wayne stops at nothing to protect all Gotham's citizens, even when they demand his head and hunt him.
In conclusion, TDKR is about potential, the potential of humanity. It is asking a question of us, and that is "what will you do when the defecation hits the oscillation?" Will we fall into the Devil's trap, and become just another mindless blob of flesh, bone, and unending rage? Or will we act in the Image of our Maker and rise above it, to restore and/or maintain a better, nobler kind of existence? Humanity has so much potential, let's not waste it.
As for me, I went and saw the movie and was left chilled to the core.
The source of my discomfort and anxiety was the parallel I saw between Bane and so many real-life figures who shared his agenda. SPOILER HERE-Although Bane's agenda on the surface turns out to be false, the way he implements it is synonymous with such catastrophes as the French and Russian Revolutions. He "empowers" the poor to take their revenge upon the successful and rich. What follows is riots, the sovereign property of citizens being taken from them, with the consent of the powers-that-be, police-state martial law, and "utopia"-and by that I mean squalid communal living where everyone is desperately trying to survive. On top of that, by using the "truth" against the Gotham police, Bane releases hundreds of dangerous criminals back out onto the streets, armed and dangerous as his own private army.
I don't think I have to begin listing the real world analogues here to Bane, but what is startling is how fast the "have-nots" flock to Bane and take advantage of his offer. The Devil is among them, and he offers to give them everything they want, the price being control. Not only that, the "have-nots" set up their own "peoples' courts" and sentence or exile those who they feel-not convict of any crime, but feel-have too much or they think oppressed them. They are the 99%, alright, and they are Legion.
What the TDKR shows is the power of the mob in its true form. That demonic emotionalism that carries everything before it is unleashed, with horrific consequences, the most horrific being that they make "examples" of those who try to stand against them or try to maintain law and order. And the saddest thing about the poor? They are turned on those who could do the most to help them (no, I don't mean corrupt Wall Street brokers or the exponentially more corrupt government bureaucracy). They could take away so much from the example of successful people who came by their wealth by the strength of their backs, the sweat of their brows, and the resolve of their wills. But instead of doing so, they are like sheep: mindless, and thus easily swayed by nice whispers and grandiose pledges by ideologues. Bane is not so much a terrorist but the ultimate personification of banal evil: he mocks tradition and order and society and then proceeds to show us just how fast it can fall. He uses our Divine Gifts and twists them to his own purposes. He is so much the Devil it is easy for me to look back in hindsight and understand why I was chilled to the bone.
In the movie, Bane remarks that he is "Gotham's reckoning". I believe that this is his way of making his claim to being the "god" of his new world, much as Satan is referred to as the "king of this world", and Bane's world is a reflection of its master: hollow, violent, cruel, and worthless to the point of deserving destruction. It's not hard to imagine that that is what Lucifer said to God about humanity when he objected before the Holy of Holies. But the difference is that Lucifer rebelled against God; we humans didn't rebel so much as we broke a rule, but not, I think, in a spirit of rebelliousness as Lucifer did. And God loved us and cared about us, we pathetic creatures who have fallen so far, that he gave us a way out. And Batman is Nolan's Jesus-willing to do whatever it takes, suffer any injury, bear any burden (the truth about Harvey Dent and make himself the murderer, the outlaw, the criminal) in order that Gotham may live in a society of peace and order. And Bruce Wayne stops at nothing to protect all Gotham's citizens, even when they demand his head and hunt him.
In conclusion, TDKR is about potential, the potential of humanity. It is asking a question of us, and that is "what will you do when the defecation hits the oscillation?" Will we fall into the Devil's trap, and become just another mindless blob of flesh, bone, and unending rage? Or will we act in the Image of our Maker and rise above it, to restore and/or maintain a better, nobler kind of existence? Humanity has so much potential, let's not waste it.
Monday, July 9, 2012
The Conservative Bucket-List: 25 Things Every Conservative Should Attempt to Do before Death
This is the beginning of a long series of posts. I've been thinking a little bit about this and the more I thought about it the more I liked the idea. So here it is: the beginning of the Conservative Bucket List.
1. Read "The Conservative Mind" by Russell Kirk.
For conservatives, this book might as well be the other Holy Writ. It is Kirk's seminal work and the guide to the intellectual history of the modern conservative movement. It outlines the principles of conservatism, what Kirk calls the "canon" and explains its precepts in detail with a depth that makes one believe it is true. He goes on to explain the contributions of the great conservative statesmen, poets, writers, and thinkers from our roots in Edmund Burke to Santayana and T.S. Eliot. TCM defines the model conservative and what kind of man it takes to embody the conservative spirit. But above all Kirk defines a conservative as one who believes in an objective Truth, a transcendent moral order in history that transcends time and space, that order that, for the true conservative, is found in a personal knowledge of and relationship with the Transcendent God. And this relationship, this covenant between Man and God, can and will translate into a greater existence for one and all.
Well, number one is down. Twenty-Four more to go!
1. Read "The Conservative Mind" by Russell Kirk.
For conservatives, this book might as well be the other Holy Writ. It is Kirk's seminal work and the guide to the intellectual history of the modern conservative movement. It outlines the principles of conservatism, what Kirk calls the "canon" and explains its precepts in detail with a depth that makes one believe it is true. He goes on to explain the contributions of the great conservative statesmen, poets, writers, and thinkers from our roots in Edmund Burke to Santayana and T.S. Eliot. TCM defines the model conservative and what kind of man it takes to embody the conservative spirit. But above all Kirk defines a conservative as one who believes in an objective Truth, a transcendent moral order in history that transcends time and space, that order that, for the true conservative, is found in a personal knowledge of and relationship with the Transcendent God. And this relationship, this covenant between Man and God, can and will translate into a greater existence for one and all.
Well, number one is down. Twenty-Four more to go!
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
Only One Thing Matters: My Reaction to the Health-Care Ruling
I'm gonna make this short and sweet.
While I disagree with the ruling in general, as I vehemently deny the constitutionality of a legislative monster that will ultimately bankrupt our nation unless utterly destroyed, I believe that the decision of Chief Justice Roberts was a clever play in political brinkmanship. Some may disagree with this, but I feel that Roberts called Obama's bluff. He said that it was constitutional under the Fed's power to tax, and if there is one thing that Americans hate more than morons and fools in Congress, it's morons and fools in Congress imposing new taxes on them. Roberts might as well have delivered Republicans and Mitt Romney a political "Little Boy"-the first atomic bomb used in war-for the general election. The lately-latent Tea Party will rise anew, most Americans will want the monster repealed, and now Obama and his team of brown-nosers will have to convince America that it is not a tax. The only way that they can do that is by calling it a "penalty". And I for one don't see why I should be punished for not having health care insurance (I have it but that's beside the point for the purposes of this discussion) if I don't want to. The government has no right-I repeat, NO RIGHT, to punish me or anybody else for not buying a product or service if I don't want to. And the ruling not only saddles the middle-class with a tax that will make the national debt problem unsolvable within a decade of implementation, but it also changes nothing. The middle class will become poorer and poorer, tax-evasion will grow more and more severe, and the rich will simply take the penalty and pay for their hospital visits and tit-jobs and drug cocktails with their own money.
The only thing that matters from this is that we have to, HAVE TO, get Barack H. Obama out of the presidency. If we do that, we can repeal this monstrosity in its entirety and come up with common-sense solutions for the health-care industry that are true to our free-market system while leaving leeway for those less fortunate under natural circumstances.
While I disagree with the ruling in general, as I vehemently deny the constitutionality of a legislative monster that will ultimately bankrupt our nation unless utterly destroyed, I believe that the decision of Chief Justice Roberts was a clever play in political brinkmanship. Some may disagree with this, but I feel that Roberts called Obama's bluff. He said that it was constitutional under the Fed's power to tax, and if there is one thing that Americans hate more than morons and fools in Congress, it's morons and fools in Congress imposing new taxes on them. Roberts might as well have delivered Republicans and Mitt Romney a political "Little Boy"-the first atomic bomb used in war-for the general election. The lately-latent Tea Party will rise anew, most Americans will want the monster repealed, and now Obama and his team of brown-nosers will have to convince America that it is not a tax. The only way that they can do that is by calling it a "penalty". And I for one don't see why I should be punished for not having health care insurance (I have it but that's beside the point for the purposes of this discussion) if I don't want to. The government has no right-I repeat, NO RIGHT, to punish me or anybody else for not buying a product or service if I don't want to. And the ruling not only saddles the middle-class with a tax that will make the national debt problem unsolvable within a decade of implementation, but it also changes nothing. The middle class will become poorer and poorer, tax-evasion will grow more and more severe, and the rich will simply take the penalty and pay for their hospital visits and tit-jobs and drug cocktails with their own money.
The only thing that matters from this is that we have to, HAVE TO, get Barack H. Obama out of the presidency. If we do that, we can repeal this monstrosity in its entirety and come up with common-sense solutions for the health-care industry that are true to our free-market system while leaving leeway for those less fortunate under natural circumstances.
Thursday, June 21, 2012
Intervene? In a Word: NO
It is truly disappointing when commentators and experts (I use that term sparingly and only for those who I feel deserve the label) I usually enjoy reading and respect come out with an opinion that runs counter to my own. Lately, it is over the Syria crisis that I've found my latest disappointment. Conrad Black, a former British Parliamentarian and respected authority on matters of state and politics, and Clifford D. May, the head of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, have both recently come out in favor of US military intervention in Syria to unseat Bashar al-Assad. Both openly advocated direct military action to rid the country of a man they describe as a brutal dictator and to install "democracy" in Syria.
Here's my question: Have they learned nothing from Iraq and Afghanistan?
Truth be told, I supported (and still support) the action in Afghanistan. I supported our action in Iraq, although lately I have come to question some of our decisions within that country. But the overall result of these has been to unseat a dictator or radical political group and to install corrupt "democracies" all the while ignoring custom, tradition, religion, and history in these two countries. The end result was the governments we installed have largely become critical and ungrateful bunches of worthless, sand-bitten ingrates and petty thieves who spend more time blaming us for their problems than trying to do anything about it. We read the writing on the wall in Iraq and got out, leaving the Iraqis to sort it out on their own. We will soon be doing so in Afghanistan, or at least that is the hope. I get the feeling that our troops, while they do their duty, are getting sick of being blamed for everything and are tired of the Middle Eastern ingratitude. Do we really want a repeat of the same on an even greater scale in Syria?
Here's some facts: number one, we and Israel may not like al-Assad, but he has more or less kept the peace on the border at the disputed Golan Heights, in spite of Hezbollah and Hamas. Second, he is a secular leader, like his father, and has crushed Wahhabi extremists in his own country with a brutality that while shocking is not unwelcome while at the same time protecting minorities in Syria, such as his own Alawite people, Syriac Christians, Druze, and Circassians. And third, what makes Black and May think that the Syrian opposition will be any better? From all that I have seen, while Assad is bad, the Salafists and Wahhabis in the Syrian opposition (see Muslim Brotherhood) are a damn sight worse than he is. If they gain control, don't be surprised when Syria becomes a little Arabia, with morality laws and morality police to enforce them. Public beheadings, implementation of burkha laws, etc., will be the norm. And also expect them to give safe-haven to radical Islamist groups terrorists and to be hostile in the extreme to America and Israel.
Intervene? WHY? To replace a bad egg with a whole batch of utterly rotten ones? Where is the sense in that?
If a nation is to come into its own, it must deal with its issues on its own. Could we have won the Revolution without France's help? I believe we could have. Horatio Gates won Saratoga and Greene won Cowpens without French help, and when Washington crossed the Delaware, he did it without French help. Washington broke out of New York and cornered Cornwallis at Yorktown. While he may have had help at Yorktown, that was at the end of the war when the hard work had already been done. Every other nation in history has had to deal with its own problems, alone, for it is ultimately their future that they decide, for better or worse.
Whatever happens in Syria, it must be done by Syrians. We would do well to stay out of a nasty situation and leave them to choose their own path. It must be this way. History demands it.
Here's my question: Have they learned nothing from Iraq and Afghanistan?
Truth be told, I supported (and still support) the action in Afghanistan. I supported our action in Iraq, although lately I have come to question some of our decisions within that country. But the overall result of these has been to unseat a dictator or radical political group and to install corrupt "democracies" all the while ignoring custom, tradition, religion, and history in these two countries. The end result was the governments we installed have largely become critical and ungrateful bunches of worthless, sand-bitten ingrates and petty thieves who spend more time blaming us for their problems than trying to do anything about it. We read the writing on the wall in Iraq and got out, leaving the Iraqis to sort it out on their own. We will soon be doing so in Afghanistan, or at least that is the hope. I get the feeling that our troops, while they do their duty, are getting sick of being blamed for everything and are tired of the Middle Eastern ingratitude. Do we really want a repeat of the same on an even greater scale in Syria?
Here's some facts: number one, we and Israel may not like al-Assad, but he has more or less kept the peace on the border at the disputed Golan Heights, in spite of Hezbollah and Hamas. Second, he is a secular leader, like his father, and has crushed Wahhabi extremists in his own country with a brutality that while shocking is not unwelcome while at the same time protecting minorities in Syria, such as his own Alawite people, Syriac Christians, Druze, and Circassians. And third, what makes Black and May think that the Syrian opposition will be any better? From all that I have seen, while Assad is bad, the Salafists and Wahhabis in the Syrian opposition (see Muslim Brotherhood) are a damn sight worse than he is. If they gain control, don't be surprised when Syria becomes a little Arabia, with morality laws and morality police to enforce them. Public beheadings, implementation of burkha laws, etc., will be the norm. And also expect them to give safe-haven to radical Islamist groups terrorists and to be hostile in the extreme to America and Israel.
Intervene? WHY? To replace a bad egg with a whole batch of utterly rotten ones? Where is the sense in that?
If a nation is to come into its own, it must deal with its issues on its own. Could we have won the Revolution without France's help? I believe we could have. Horatio Gates won Saratoga and Greene won Cowpens without French help, and when Washington crossed the Delaware, he did it without French help. Washington broke out of New York and cornered Cornwallis at Yorktown. While he may have had help at Yorktown, that was at the end of the war when the hard work had already been done. Every other nation in history has had to deal with its own problems, alone, for it is ultimately their future that they decide, for better or worse.
Whatever happens in Syria, it must be done by Syrians. We would do well to stay out of a nasty situation and leave them to choose their own path. It must be this way. History demands it.
Sunday, June 17, 2012
YORO and the Modern Malaise
YORO: You're Only in Russia Once.
That is the motto of a group of Americans I met here in Russia. And it is a perfect example of all that I abhor.
Mind you, I love these guys. They are some of the only friends I have here and are great to hang out with and talk to. They come from a wide variety of places and backgrounds and are all too happy to let you into their group. I cannot thank them enough for the camaraderie.
But there is another side to the story. They go out every night (yes, EVERY NIGHT) and party. They get drunk. They smoke cigarettes (never having done so before) and hookahs. They get wasted and stumble home at ungodly hours. And they justify it by shrugging and saying "YORO".
Some of you will be asking, what's wrong with that? Others will be thinking "And CowboyPhilosopher is surprised by this?" Actually, I'm not surprised, just disappointed.
Yes, I'll admit upfront that I am a serious guy. Yes, I like to laugh and I love to hear jokes of both the clean and baudy type. I love to be happy. I love...well, Love. Is that not what Christ asked us to do? But on the whole, I'm a pretty serious guy. People have told me either that I'm a 40 year old in a 20 year old body, or that I was born in the wrong era. Perhaps, but I think not.
For those of you that don't know or haven't figured it out yet, yes, I am conservative. Very much so. I'm a Republican, I support the troops, I want smaller government, I love guns, I love God, and I love the free market, for all its flaws. I love the Flag, the Plege, the Declaration, and the Constitution. I also love the Cross (more than all before, for there was my Freedom sealed in Holy Blood). But I also love ideals. I love the American Ideals, the Christian Ideals, the Noble and Chivalric Ideals and also the Ideals of Liberty and Freedom. I despise excess, I despise dishonor, I abhor decadence, I recoil from abject sin (in as much as I can, since I too am a sinner). I dislike drastic change (one of my own quotes-of which I am quite fond of-is "Change for the sake of change is folly"). And what I have seen here and elsewhere has convinced me that modern American and Europe have totally forgotten the ideals of those who made them great.
We are immersed in a world of decadence, excess, sexuality, and dishonor, and what virtue remains is really only a shadow of what was once recognized as the standard against which men were judged. What, I ask, are our standards now? Lady Gaga (wretching noises)? Justin Bieber (don't care if I misspell his name)? Though I like some of his music, is Lil Wayne a standard against which we judge the quality of a man? What happened to nobility and virtue of men? Men used to be judged against men such as Winston Churchill, Edmund Burke, George Washington, George Patton, Abraham Lincoln, Robert E. Lee, and the Apostles. We used to hold loyalty, honor, piety, humility, voluntary service, duty, love, and intelligence as the great virtues of Man made in the Image of God. What happened? Where is our virtue now?
The truth is, we have none. In much the same idea as Friedrich Nietzsche said "God is dead"-and by that he meant that we, the modern society, the modern man-killed Him by destroying our ability to seek Him and understand Him and obey His laws-we have destroyed the Divine Spark within us by seeking pleasure over piety, excess and depravity over virtue and nobility. We have, in my opinion, become less homo sapiens and more homo cavae, or "hollow man". We have nothing in us, and so we seek something, anything, to fill our empty selves. This is the Modern Malaise. And we fill ourselves up with what Satan is all too happy to provide: hollow drink and food and pleasure that are just enough to satisfy for the moment but leave us begging for more. Thus we become slaves to our lusts, and, ultimately, slaves to the Darkness.
That is the motto of a group of Americans I met here in Russia. And it is a perfect example of all that I abhor.
Mind you, I love these guys. They are some of the only friends I have here and are great to hang out with and talk to. They come from a wide variety of places and backgrounds and are all too happy to let you into their group. I cannot thank them enough for the camaraderie.
But there is another side to the story. They go out every night (yes, EVERY NIGHT) and party. They get drunk. They smoke cigarettes (never having done so before) and hookahs. They get wasted and stumble home at ungodly hours. And they justify it by shrugging and saying "YORO".
Some of you will be asking, what's wrong with that? Others will be thinking "And CowboyPhilosopher is surprised by this?" Actually, I'm not surprised, just disappointed.
Yes, I'll admit upfront that I am a serious guy. Yes, I like to laugh and I love to hear jokes of both the clean and baudy type. I love to be happy. I love...well, Love. Is that not what Christ asked us to do? But on the whole, I'm a pretty serious guy. People have told me either that I'm a 40 year old in a 20 year old body, or that I was born in the wrong era. Perhaps, but I think not.
For those of you that don't know or haven't figured it out yet, yes, I am conservative. Very much so. I'm a Republican, I support the troops, I want smaller government, I love guns, I love God, and I love the free market, for all its flaws. I love the Flag, the Plege, the Declaration, and the Constitution. I also love the Cross (more than all before, for there was my Freedom sealed in Holy Blood). But I also love ideals. I love the American Ideals, the Christian Ideals, the Noble and Chivalric Ideals and also the Ideals of Liberty and Freedom. I despise excess, I despise dishonor, I abhor decadence, I recoil from abject sin (in as much as I can, since I too am a sinner). I dislike drastic change (one of my own quotes-of which I am quite fond of-is "Change for the sake of change is folly"). And what I have seen here and elsewhere has convinced me that modern American and Europe have totally forgotten the ideals of those who made them great.
We are immersed in a world of decadence, excess, sexuality, and dishonor, and what virtue remains is really only a shadow of what was once recognized as the standard against which men were judged. What, I ask, are our standards now? Lady Gaga (wretching noises)? Justin Bieber (don't care if I misspell his name)? Though I like some of his music, is Lil Wayne a standard against which we judge the quality of a man? What happened to nobility and virtue of men? Men used to be judged against men such as Winston Churchill, Edmund Burke, George Washington, George Patton, Abraham Lincoln, Robert E. Lee, and the Apostles. We used to hold loyalty, honor, piety, humility, voluntary service, duty, love, and intelligence as the great virtues of Man made in the Image of God. What happened? Where is our virtue now?
The truth is, we have none. In much the same idea as Friedrich Nietzsche said "God is dead"-and by that he meant that we, the modern society, the modern man-killed Him by destroying our ability to seek Him and understand Him and obey His laws-we have destroyed the Divine Spark within us by seeking pleasure over piety, excess and depravity over virtue and nobility. We have, in my opinion, become less homo sapiens and more homo cavae, or "hollow man". We have nothing in us, and so we seek something, anything, to fill our empty selves. This is the Modern Malaise. And we fill ourselves up with what Satan is all too happy to provide: hollow drink and food and pleasure that are just enough to satisfy for the moment but leave us begging for more. Thus we become slaves to our lusts, and, ultimately, slaves to the Darkness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)