Tagged: Christianity
Point/Counterpoint: Will the Influx of Africans to the West Work? (4)
Yes.
(By work, of course, we mean “rule of law” holding.
By fail, of course, we mean “might makes right” resuming.)
It occurs to me that the well of knowledge in the West—given its unique and rich tradition of valuing literacy—is deeper than any living African immigrant, and his total unfamiliarity with literacy, can dig in one lifetime. However, my conscience will not let the matter settle there.
The African is not without hope. The main lesson of literacy, the main point of the written record, is to insist that we tell the truth.
Will rule of law hold? Yes. If the Africans adopt our manifestly dominant tradition of valuing honesty, then it will hold.
A Trumpian Troll
Still need more ways to discover precisely who the Left are? Troll them. Or as the Black preachers say, “When you throw a stick at dogs, the one who whelps got hit.”
All I want to know is if Trump wrote the troll beforehand or came up with it on the spot.
“Won’t have to vote again.” So funny. So many possible (dark?) meanings.
Is he implying the Second Coming is imminent? Is he implying the end of democracy and the beginning of dictatorship as the Left wet dreams?
Hard to say, no?
It surely can’t mean that the supposedly unmotivated Christian non-voters will be able to go back to their unmotivated-not-voting after this election because the ship will have been so firmly righted by Trump over the intervening years that the morons who might again vote Left in 2028 will not, by virtue of their being incapable of blocking the beautiful light of prosperous peace (the only kind) that he will have brought, a light which consequently will end the Left’s resistance to life-giving truth.
The Rumored Sudanese Family Budgets
The great influx of Africans, in this case Sudanese, is taking on an almost uniform shape at churches across our great country. The general situation is the almost dead whites have their Sunday services as they have for the past 80 years. But then the vibrant-seeming African redeemed, fresh off the airplane, bring out the whole family, extended family, and more and use the same church buildings for their Pentecostal services.
The white pastors, then, in talking to the African church leadership have their finger on this aspect of the immigration pulse more-so than you or I. (If any of this interests you, track down a pastor. He’d love to chat after such a long break.)
The specific heartbeat one pastor revealed to a friend of mine that I want today’s post to illuminate is family money.
Want to know how these non-Western families handle the family budget? I’ll tell ya.
Rumor has it, the fathers are slaving themselves out as their wives spend without limit.
The situation, surely applicable to more than just Sudanese culture, is the wives expect to never be told “no” when it comes to money and then the husband has to figure out how to pay the bill.
Worse, the Sudanese wives, like all you lovely ladies out there, really want to work and have their own money, money which the husband is never allowed to acknowledge exists.
Reader: you know my point. That’s right. The next time you see a midnight-skinned African-looking man whose every fiber screams high strung, summon your compassion. He needs it.
And to you readers who are American wives: if anything I have written remotely describes you, then, seriously, WTF?
The Level My Grandma and Brother Are Complicit
The level my grandma and brother (her a democrat and he a smarty-pants lefty) are complicit in the attempted assassination is directly related to how they defend President Biden’s response to Mr. Holt.
Headlines across news outlets use the words “Biden”, “Mistake”, and “Bullseye” in close proximity and suggest the president admitted erring. But here is the transcript.
****
Biden: “I didn’t say crosshairs (inaudible) focus on look the truth of the matter was I guess what I was talking about at the time was there’s very little focus on Trump’s agenda-”
Holt: “-Yeah the term was bullseye.”
Biden: “It was a mistake to use the word I didn’t mean I didn’t say crosshairs I meant bullseye I meant focus on him focus on what he is doing…”
****
(That took an inordinate amount of effort to transcribe, btw. You’re welcome.)
The question remains. What do my grandma and my brother do with this?
How they speak of it determines as accurately as any other measure we could develop how complicit they are. The range being
1. NOT competent to stand trial and NOT complicit. This would be the case if they change the subject and unashamedly suggest they had no idea guns existed, let alone would be used on any one of the several billion good-to-the-core fellow men.
2. Competent to stand trial and complicit. They are complicit according to their level of earnestly believing it is not their role to monitor Pennsylvanian young adults’ or elected officials’ integrity. Make no mistake, this option is the more depressed one, at least to those of us happy-go-lucky bible readers and our “Am I my brother’s keeper?” story. This second option would be the case if they actually attempt an on-point answer, but its content indicates they will never concede that Biden did not admit erring.
A Rooster Crowed
And as Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the servant-girls of the high priest came, and seeing Peter warming himself, she looked at him and said, “You also were with the Nazarene, Jesus.”
But he denied it, saying, “I neither know nor understand what you are talking about.” And he went out into the entryway.
And when the servant-girl saw him, she began once more to say to the bystanders, “This is one of them!” But again he was denying it.
And after a little while the bystanders were again saying to Peter, “Surely you are one of them, for you are also a Galilean.”
But he began to curse and swear, “I do not know this man you are talking about!” And immediately a rooster crowed a second time. And Peter remembered how Jesus had said the statement to him, “Before a rooster crows twice, you will deny Me three times.”
And throwing himself down, he began to cry.
****
On this day, congregation, I ask you, “Did you hear it?”
Husbands: Throw Away the Romance Novels, A Review of The Island (2004) by Michael Bay
Husbands, I’m looking squarely at you! Throw away those romance novels and pick up the remote control. On Paramount+ right now you will find the most sensational, the most sultry, the most seductive film ever created to help save your marriage. Grab your wife, plop down on the love seat, and get ready for sparks to fly.
Husbands: you know the situation. Right now there is “culture” and there is “husband”. It is war. And us husbands lose every time.
How do we right the ship?
The answer is easy: wives must be shown a model.
Wives, as is well-documented and only too well-known, have little to no imagination. So they need to have a ready-made “felt experience” from which to draw memories. Enter, Mr. Bay’s 2004 classic The Island.
After the film lays out the story (post-apocalyptic indoor world, boring as shyte to men, exciting to women, with the only hope of change being a timely, random lottery every so often promising relocation to the last uncontaminated spec of land on the earth—an island) we meet the needed ingredient to help us win back our families. That ingredient being, the “culture” in the movie—the company cloning the rich people—puts out a “contamination” alert for Ewan McGregor’s character. But McGregor has already got the hand of Scarlet Johansen, and so here’s the kicker: Mrs. Johansen trusts and follows Mr. McGregor despite what the screens and other women advise!
Even more fantastic than this scene, the couple live! As they live on together, often even touching, they both learn just how much the “culture” lied.
Sometimes McGregor leads the running, other times he gets bogged down by some heavy lifting and Johansen continues the chase at the front.
Their object is the same—escape the prison of “culture”—so it really doesn’t matter who appears to lead according to the variables of time and space. What matters is that she chose her man, consequently she and he are now one and, again, at the risk of repeating myself, the wife (future) ignores the “culture” in favor of her husband.
Now, as every Bay fanboy knows, there are rules to the universe and rule 17 requires Michael Bay films to include a perfectly outrageous highway chase scene where the husband must unload railcar wheels onto the highway from atop a random semi which they only leapt onto by sheer chance. But if your beloved has somehow dozed off during the film as this begins, gently nudge her when you recognize the set-piece. Why? Because there is an incredible moment when the wife states husband’s name in a very neutral—yet leaning naggy—voice. After the exact amount of time to be perfectly suspenseful and fully engage the initiative elapses, she says, “Nice work!”
A compliment!! Just amazing.
Like St. John says of Jesus,
And there are also many other things which if they were written one after the other, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.
So we should end this simple film review here. But time is short! Grab your wife. Grab the remote. And take back your marriage!
I Am Never Ready
These last three days I learned that despite my training and full belief in the Boy Scouts’ “Be Prepared” motto, there are three things I am never ready for.
Firstly, America’s natural beauty, specifically the Rocky Mountains.
I drove to Salt Lake City from the Springs (and back) and while my eyes were necessarily on the road, I could’t help but marvel at the grandeur passing by my right and left.
I have decided that this area will be my kids and I’s new playground.
Secondly, folk’s response to, “What is the gospel?”
“You are insolent,” the friend of my buddy told me, as we sat next to each other late into the wedding reception. This was preceded by, “You are proselytizing.” Which was preceded by a three to five minute recounting of his entire childhood interaction with the Church which concluded, as he could tell he was avoiding the question, with a tremendously subpar answer, which he knew was subpar as he delivered it even before my eyes surely indicated so. This being preceded by his rehearsal of the lunacy of the concept of the “chosen people” and my, “Well, and to be sure—I am giving you my best now, no pulling punches—you must understand the gospel before you can understand or be at peace with any of the rest of it. There is an order of events, so to speak. So I would ask you (you don’t have to answer) what is the gospel?” And of course this was preceded by his, “You’re religious, huh? My problem is…”
I guess I am just an optimist. It’s my only explanation why I am always surprised that such a simple question can evoke such a dark response.
Thirdly, once in a lifetime offers of unimaginable wealth and luxury.
“Are you happy there? Are you happy with your job?”
I said, “Sorry what are you asking?”
“Are you settled in for good? Do you like your job?” the man repeated.
I had just met him. I learned he was a doctor. He was immediately kind. I believe his opening banter was complimenting the toast I had just given/hosted as best man. And, I never confirmed, but I am pretty sure he was a Mormon.
Do you see it now?
He saw what I had just accomplished in the other room and was ready to put those talents to work for the faith—and we all get richer in the process.
But I stumbled. Someone else was nearby and asking those around if they knew the movie that the current bluegrass band’s song was from, and I couldn’t help but ignore my new friend and lean over to answer, “O’ Brother Where Art Thou?!”
By the time that reverie ended, the moment had passed. The “doctor is out”, and never to return.
Oh well. I do like my house and I do like my job. But I also feel shame that I have acted in the same way during similar moments enough times to recognize the physical sensation I get afterwards as the “missed/blown opportunity” one. And this shame is only made worse in that these moments keep happening to me.
Maybe next time, I’ll be ready.
Point/Counterpoint: Will the Influx of Africans to the West Work? (3)
No.
The influx will not work, at least not for the first few generations (and deeper, the longer they segregate).
There has been too much “foreign aid” to their homelands, and not the requisite amount of humble (which is inherently also wise), “Say, how do you get to a place where your ‘cup runneth over’?” for the Africans to ever get out of the mindset of thinking manna falls from heaven and transition to contributing.
The Look of the Debate
For posterity sake, I want to tell you what stuck me most about the debate. I have seen many other reactions to the debate that discussed some of what I am going to say, but none have centered on it.
During the infamous 15 seconds, the camera showed Trump look over at Biden. He seems to have been in thought, likely preparing whatever he would say next (but who knows?) when he then genuinely noticed a pause and uncontrollably turned to see what was going on. Trump’s expression made him look human. Made him look likable. Made him look normal. Made him look like we all think he really is—a man who will do anything to win (and many other things too), but a man who is very aware that he is putting on a show. Perhaps he is a horse in a department store, as I once read him described, but more than that too.
Biden, on the other hand, did not ever have a redeemable moment.
Oh, and I still can’t stand teachers. (See EdD Jill’s ridiculous encouragement clip.) These people are a joke. Yes, yes. I know she meant “answered every question” as opposed to “dodged”-every-question-in-favor-of-repeating-rehearsed-talking-points, and she did not mean “competition award”. But the man failed with every breath and certainly didn’t need anyone lying to him, let alone in such pandering fashion.
Reaction to Sir Niall Ferguson’s “We’re All Soviets Now”
You can find the article here. I don’t know much at all about that site, “The Free Press”. Seems like a normal site for its ilk.
Here I am going to react to his article paragraph by paragraph until I get bored or my points become redundant. A friend sent the article to me—a good friend. My criticism must be harsh then. Otherwise he’ll think I was lazy and didn’t read and consider it.
****
P1 “the cold war we’re in—the second one”
-the very problem with the Left is they believe they can “manifest”, like Yahweh. Thankfully, they cannot. Are we in a second cold war? For that to be true, I, ol’ Pete, would have to agree. And I don’t. My most killer point is that there really is no “we” in the sense that there was during the real Cold War which we could read about if we so chose. Even in Bari’s intro to this article, she mentions that Niall is a voice in the “cultural battle”. If there is an actual cultural battle within America, then America cannot be a coherent enough group to partake in a cold war.
P2 “back in 2018”
-how much of my day shall I sacrifice to you, O Knight!? Hyperlink’s are fun and easy, but seriously, I have read many books and many articles. It is possible to just plainly write what you mean now, today and for it to be clear and tenable. Please do so.
P3 “[China] is a military rival”
-I will not fear. And, even within the non-we, I trust Nebraska, Kansas, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Texas, and most other states of the Union to produce warriors that can win more than I trust China.
P4 “in this new Cold War, we”
-you haven’t persuaded me on either point here. I don’t see a cold war, and there is no “we.” Now I have to peruse at least one of your links, otherwise there is no point in continuing since I don’t buy your “definitions”. Back. The two linked articles are on pay sites. Oh well. I’ll do my best to continue as if I was informed and undecided.
P4 “the immortal question”
-the immortal question is moral. “Bad” is a moral semantic domain. That’s why the clip is funny. The question is, “how do I know that killing this man is the moral thing to do?” The question has nothing to do with observation and nomenclature. Also, Sir Ferguson, perhaps you have written it elsewhere, but what exactly is gained by this naming convention “cold war two”? I actually kinda cared to learn some history and even through college we didn’t get past WW2. So while I know the phrase, I am certain that hardly anyone alive in the “we” has a clue what the Cold War was and now you want to persuade us/them to adopt Cold War 2? What you’re asking is worse than a copy of a copy. You are attempting to name a copy of a blank sheet of paper. This article itself contains little more than debatable content about the Cold War which can then bolster your claim about Cold War 2. Sand. It’s all sand.
P5 “two American Sailors”
-so, big difference between the SS and the US Navy is the US Navy is not immoral.
P6 “I know”
-let’s find out.
P7 “world of difference”
-so…you don’t know. The joke in the clip you link to is about WW2 bad guys being surprised, upon consideration, to conclude that they were immoral—something which many believe should be universally announced by one’s own conscience, and before the kill.
P8 “resources…consumer goods…equipment”
-these nouns are too general. They do not persuade. A bait and switch could be right around the corner.
P9 “quintile”
-i don’t understand. Are you educated or street? Sometimes you use a common vocabulary, but here you switch to a very pointed statistical term, and then qualify it further, before bringing up a new measure (infant mortality) which you do not pin down—late Soviet Union” vs. 2021. Huh? And Mississippi Delta and Appalachia are identical? You’re asking for far too much trust. I don’t even know you.
P10 “risible”
-who can define this word? (comment below if you didn’t need to look it up)
P11 “closer look”
-not really interested, thank you.
P12 “system?”
-a question mark is necessary for a question, but it doesn’t automatically make clear what you are asking. At this point I am over it. Whatever you are doing, whatever your goal, it isn’t written for me. Try again some other day, maybe when you have something to say.
In sum: 37 links. I once chatted with an excitable old man who had a book “with a bibliography over one hundred”. Before I knew it, I had accepted his gift of the book—for the low price of $10 to cover, the, you know… When it arrived, I gave it the old college try. It was like he thought a long bibliography was what truth was based on. In reality, the opposite is likely the case. The masses are duped, ignorant, lazy, common, and uninteresting.
Nothing in Sir Ferguson’s article redeems the false premise. No, we are not in another “cold war”. That phrase was a one-off and will not apply ever again. Furthermore, we are not the Soviets. This is mostly because America is an incredibly difficult thing to “be” anymore, and also because, and I have learned this the hard way, the “land” does have something to do with the question. And this isn’t Russian soil that I live on.
Captain’s Log 