Tagged: opinion

Some Thoughts About Dearborn After Light Review of Last Night’s Events

-In his infamous documentary Pumping Iron, Arnold has a conversation with Lou which discusses whether it is better to be the king of the hill (defending from all comers) or the singularly focused threat on the way up. America is obviously the king of the hill. With this status comes threats and enemies and trolls and jokers etc. Islam needs to be relegated to the myth section of the bookstore, but I am not sure of the path to make that happen.

-In recap: a bunch of (in the case of Dearborn, presumably legal) immigrants outbred and then outvoted natives. At face value, I have no issue with this.

-If we believe the mohammedans lie at will (we do believe they lie and they do lie), I am not sure that talking with them is the answer.

-If my above recap is correct, one path would be to move to Dearborn or any other similar towns and out politic them. But that seems like a weird goal to have and a weird life to lead. Most people simply move for better jobs, not a crusade.

-In my recent readings on Vietnam, the Civil Rights Movement, and the Revolutionary War before them, I am struck by how turbulent the times and events were. And yet here we are.

My Style Solution to Trans Insanity (Laughably Unserious, If Ultimately Provocative)

A recent debater on Triggernometry said, “So the sex that was recorded um and the gender that was recorded on their birth certificate, you can say, ‘Actually that was a mistake’.”

I assure you, dear reader, that I am earnest when I ask this, no matter how it sounds. But I ask, “So, if we stop recording gender/sex on birth certificates, how does a person know they’re trans? If that is the mistake, then why not nip it in the bud right then and there? Birth certificate has name and weight but no recording of a gender/sex?”

Has anyone heard this approach of mine in a debate or discussion forum? Please do share if you know how they respond.

My Latest Thought On The Leadership Void

I have long held (recent years) that there is a void in leadership.

As I continue to read articles from the major historical events of Vietnam, WW2, and Civil Rights (thank you to Library of America), a new thought occurred.

We have poor leaders—that is given. My new thought: the reason we have such poor leaders is there is nothing to do. There is no group to lead, no task to accomplish, and no need to unify.

Concluding Remarks of Washington Irving

Pay special attention to the final paragraph. This book was written in 1859, but Lord Brougham’s quote was 1839.

And they want to tear down statues. And we let them. I’m not saying the statues must stay as if by divine decree; I am merely stating that this Lord Brougham hit the nail on the head. Wisdom and virtue will not be found in a people who do not honor Washington. This was and is self-evident. So read up! And remind others when they drift!

For Next Year’s ARC Conference: No More Hedging If You’re a Christian Speaker

I have been listening to a few of the 13-min talks from this year’s Alliance for Responsible Citizenship conference and, as with the past two years’, they are tier one models of conservative perspectives. And yet I cannot deny that when the speakers use the language “America’s past is not perfect” or similar, I shake my head. I hadn’t been able to pinpoint exactly why this phrase, and the concept behind it, bothers me so until just yesterday.

For context, please call to mind that I am reading volume 5 of Washington Irving’s Life of George Washington. Specifically, I am up to his decision to run for reelection. Let’s just say that since his birth and the legendary tree incident, a lot has happened. And after everything I have read, I conclude, “And all of it was the best thing for the future occupants of planet Earth,” full stop.

I know, I know. I can hear you. What about slavery? What about women’s rights? What about civil rights? What about ‘Nam?

Allow me to break some news to you. I am a Christian. Inherent to Christianity is the belief that all men are sinners (“They have all turned aside, altogether they have become worthless; There is no one who does good, not even one.”
‭‭Psalm‬ ‭14‬:‭3‬ ‭LSB‬‬) and that no earthly government—though instituted by the Living Triune God himself—is perfect (“Then Yahweh said to Samuel, “Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them.”
‭‭1 Samuel‬ ‭8‬:‭7‬ ‭LSB‬‬ and “Be subject for the sake of the Lord to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do good.” 1 Peter‬ ‭2‬:‭13‬-‭14‬ ‭LSB‬‬). For me, a Christian, then, to hedge the character or accomplishments of people or governments with some seeming politically correct admission of unpleasant facts, is to betray my beliefs, exchange them, as it were, for someone else’s beliefs—and for what? For likes? For views?

No. That is not right. We can all just speak truth for truth’s sake. Speaking isn’t violence. Everyone knows, by virtue of the content, what we believe anyway as we talk. And the import of the speaker’s content is directly related to the integrity of the message. In short, it is weak when a Christian hedges their claims about men and government. It is weak because the Bible has, amongst many mysteries, essential and clear statements about the nature of man and government. Man is sinful. Government is inadequate.

Conversely, it is the game of the Woke, the Left, and the Commies, among others (hard to leave out the DNC) to believe man is perfect (without evidence) and government is adequate (without evidence). Christian doctrine does not support either.

So, ARC presenters, next year, as you continue to bravely, and at some risk to yourselves and your families, model for us plebes how to live, please step up your integrity on this topic. America wasn’t doing “the best it could while having some original sin”, instead America “is and has always been the beacon of freedom for the entire world”. George Washington didn’t “have faults”, instead GW “played the almost superhuman role of founder of America, played it well, and deserves our continued gratitude and attention”.

The events of the present and future are not improved or sustained by “bending the knee” to those who seek destruction. Time is limited. So use it all to accomplish any speaker’s goal: nourish and flourish.

(Let us pray.)

Thuck-Y-Dideez

I first heard of Thucydides in college. This would have been 2001-ish. We weren’t studying him, but the professor needed to make a point and used the classic “Athens-open, Sparta-closed” historian to do so. Along the way, the professor interlaced a story about how a student came to him complaining about the reading and pronounced thoo-sih-di-deez: Thuck-Y-Dideez.

Funny stuff.

I do not know what the Thucydides Trap is, but I want to post an informed guess before I google it. What did Xi mean when he used the phrase?

Before I reveal my surmise, I want to add here that a chinaman using a western anecdote is real evidence that America and the West are already winning the war with China. And rightly so, since we’re obviously the more relevant civilization.

Okay. That said. What is the “Thucydides Trap” that we hope to avoid?

War.

(Wish me luck in my AI-ing for confirmation/information.)

Did You Know the Victorian Era had a Fad Called “Table Turning”?

It’s true. I first read about it in the Gateway to the Great Books volume on Natural Science.

The renowned physicists of the era actually referenced, with tremendous disdain, the nonsense on their way to explaining how the physical world follows seemingly iron law.

But don’t take my word for it. Just search it up. Victorian era table-turning.

(You’re tired. It’s late. What does this have to do with anything, you ask? Well, it just should be counted as proof positive that there are no bounds to our ability to try to fool each other and to be fooled by each other. There are no extraterrestrial life forms, folks—only terrestrial suckers.)

On Noble Pleasure

Anyone else, for whatever reason—be it environmental considerations or energy (mine is energy)—refuse to turn on hot water to wash their hands? And given this state of play, then, every so once in a while, wash them right after someone who isn’t so aware, and, for the briefest of moments, feel just regal as the still-warm water hits? For my part, I imagine the pleasure is exactly comparable to what it must have felt like to sneak a dessert made with the richest, purest, and freshest ingredients right off the King’s china after he had departed—and before the other (reckless and shifty as they were) servants entered—the hall.

On Complicity

I’m still stuck on this notion of “complicity” included in the crazy man’s manifesto.

For today, I want to use a phrase from Ezra 7:25 to focus the discussion. We read, “‘And you, Ezra, according to the wisdom of your God which is in your hand,..’” (Italics mine.)

This is a phrase from a decree by a ruler. We would be right to call it a form of delegation. “The ruler is delegating his power to Ezra,” we might say. But there is a limit to the power. Ezra doesn’t receive all power from the ruler. What is the limit? The limit is apparently whatever is meant by “the wisdom of your god”, but not just some ethereal or spiritual or emotional (and therefore hopey-changey concept) but a concept that is contained by something that can be placed in Ezra’s hand.

I don’t mean to play read my mind; we’re talking about some concrete way of describing “the written law”. You can hold it in your hand. The ruler has delegated his power to Ezra, but limited Ezra to a written record of the “wisdom of [Ezra’s] your god”.

Back to complicity.

Do our laws suggest that watching a crime is the same as committing the crime?

Surely not.

I can imagine that there may be a law on the books (in our hands) which a bystander can be found guilty of breaking by not helping a victim, but even that law (if in existence) will not mean that the bystander committed the same crime as the attacker.

In short, the crazy man (and I want to be clear: ALL crazy men) are fundamentally unlawful in their thinking and understanding of the law, life, and the passing scene.

You are not complicit in another’s crimes, not according to the law of the land, not according to your standing before the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ—as limited by the Wisdom of Him found in the Bible.