16 February 2016

Reinventing the Wheel

John Williams thinks every student should have a mentor, someone who can act as counselor, sounding board, advice giver -- and maybe, if the student is lucky, someone who can open doors in the working world.
Back in the benighted days, before public-funded compulsory education, and well before everyone went to college, every student had a mentor who acted as counselor, sounding board, and advice giver.  That mentor was called a parent.

Back in the day, parents would teach their children how to function in the adult world by being a role model.  Mothers would teach daughters how to handle domestic duties.  Fathers would teach their sons their trade.  Occasionally, fathers would apprentice their sons to another man to learn a trade.  For the most part, though, parents taught their children everything they knew, and introduced them to the world at large.

Parents who raise their children to pursue the higher education should not be surprised if their children eventually grow distant, particularly if said parents do not have an education.  By expecting your children to pursue higher education and a “better” life, you implicitly teach them that your way of life is inferior and not worthy of replication.  Do not weep if they take this lesson to heart.

Many men will find happiness and contentment working by the sweat of their brow, building, growing and hunting.  Many women will find happiness and contentment in tending to domestic work and focusing their labor on their family.  Money doesn’t buy happiness, and in much knowledge there is sorrow.  Happiness is found in work and home, and wise are those who master this and teach their children the same.

An Interesting Take

Leon Wieseltier:
The interest of Scott’s book lies not in its contribution to the solution of the problems it treats, but in its exemplification of our moment in American culture and American cultural journalism. It is an accurate document of the discourse of “takes.” This movie, that book, this poem, that painting, this record, that show: Make a smart remark and move on. A take is an opinion that has no aspiration to a belief, an impression that never hardens into a position. Its lightness is its appeal. It is provisional, evanescent, a move in a game, an accredited shallowness, a bulwark against a pause in the conversation. A take is expected not to be true but to be interesting, and even when it is interesting it makes no troublesome claim upon anybody’s attention. Another take will quickly follow, and the silence that is a mark of perplexity, of research and reflection, will be mercifully kept at bay. A take asks for no affiliation. It requires no commitment. [Emphasis added.]
Here is another thing that I wish to add to a litany of complaints about modernism:  the only vice is being boring.*  Put another way, the only virtue is being interesting.

It doesn’t matter if an argument or criticism is true—though plausibility helps—what matters is its novelty.  Saying that Americans blacks are, on average, poorer than American whites because they are more likely to behave like poor people (i.e. act lazy, act impulsive, have short economic time-preferences, be undisciplined with money, etc.) is a banal observation.  Coming up with an impressive theory of institutional and governmental oppression is at least novel, which is why it’s approved.  In short, stating the obvious truth is repulsive to modernists not because it is true, but because it’s obvious.

The modernist embraces a mysticism of terrestrial complexity.  Because he denies the metaphysical realm but, like all humans, wishes to revel in mystery, he must therefore believe that the physical realm is far more mysterious and inexplicable than it actually is.  Thus, the physical truths that are obvious spiritually alive are viewed lies by the materialist.  The true reality is a vast conspiracy of shadowy actors who manipulate various people, events and institutions to their advantage.

Because the materialist modernist needs the world to be a mystery, he looks up to those who can shroud the obvious in a mist of complexity.  His priests, as it were, are academics and scientists.  He reveres economists and physicists, among others, for they make complex, highly elaborate models of reality. In truth, it doesn’t matter if these models are accurate, in the predictive sense.  What matters is that they are complex, for their complexity provides a mystery.  Moreover, their predictive inaccuracy provides yet even more mystery, and thus an accurate model would be a very boring thing indeed, and so it is perfectly acceptable, and perhaps even expected, for the complex sciences to be constantly wrong.

Simple rules and heuristics, and simple systems are chided as the crutches of an inferior mind.  It is complexity above all else.  But, because that which is complex is predicated on a denial of reality, it is often prone to catastrophic failure.  The housing bubble collapse of 2008 is a perfect example of this.  Antifragile by Nassim Taleb expounds on this concept at length.

Making the obvious into a mystery is both tragedy and farce.  Likewise, discarding simple truth for complex lies turns a man into something subhuman altogether, rendering him blind to the beauty before his eyes and makes him a fool who believes himself wise.

* Cue Family Guy


Do you know why nearly every parent doesn’t eat right and doesn’t exercise enough? Answer: Marriage. Kids. 
Do you know why most adults are self-medicating with alcohol, illegal drugs, and prescription drugs? Answer: Because married life sucks and single life sucks just as much. (Single life sucks because society is organized for marriage.) 
Do you know why so many adults can’t get the training they need for a job? Answer: Marriage and kids. Not enough time or money left over. 
Now look around at your friends over thirty and ask yourself which ones have financial problems. Is it the divorced ones? Yes, it is. Marriage leads to divorce about half the time, which often leads to emotional and financial ruin.
I suspect Scott Adams is trying to rationalize his divorce.  Nonetheless, his complaint illustrates a common blind spot in the modern way of thinking.

Marriage is an institution, and like all institutions, its efficacy is predicated on the commitment of those who join it.  Also, like all institutions, it has a very specific form, purpose, and organization.
Most of that which is considered institutional failure is not actually institutional failure.  Most institutional failure is actually personal failure.

To wit, a marriage consists of a husband (male) and wife (female) who are joined in marriage for life for the purpose of producing and rearing children.  The husband is the head of the household and the woman is his helpmeet.  The children live in submission to their parents.  When the man and woman who are joined in marriage are committed to the roles the institution demands, success follows.  Success happens by definition because success is adherence to the institutional form and purpose.  Thus, dedication to the form and purpose is success.

An institution is simply an arbitrary way to organize and focus human behavior.  Institutional success, then, is simply a measure of how disciplined the organization is and focused its collective behavior is.  Institutional success is more processional than consequential.*

As such, condemning marriage for causing depression is simply asinine because marriage as institution is not concerned about parental emotional states.  Moreover, blaming marriage for divorce and financial ruin is even more asinine because marriage isn’t supposed to end in divorce.

The real issue is that people are joining an institution without being completely dedicated to its form, purpose or organization.  Consequently, they fail at marriage because they are not disciplined in its organization, nor are they focused on its behavior.

Some marriages fail because the man does not commit to the role of husband, and thus do not take full responsibility for the duties of the position, nor do they focus on the behavior of their wife and children.  They simply go through a few of the motions, and defer their responsibilities to those considerably less suited to carrying them out.

Some marriages fail because the woman does not commit to her role as a wife, and thus does not take full responsibility for the duties of the position.  She does not focus on the behavior of her husband and complement it, nor does she focus on the behavior of her children.  She simply goes through a few of the motions and defers her responsibilities to those considerably less suited to carrying them out.

Marriage works.  Marriage works as an institution.  The failures attributed to marriage are really failures of people who are not committed to the institutional roles and responsibilities of marriage.  Thus, marriage does not need to be fixed or changed.  Rather, it is the people who would wish to join in it.

* The reason why institutional success is more focused on process than outcome is because a) there are too many factors impacting outcome that exist outside an institution’s control and b) if outcomes were the most important factor, there would be little point to establishing any sort of order since the most logical course of action would simply be to take the easiest path to attaining an outcome with complete disregard for all external consequences.

12 February 2016

Getting to the Heart of Atheism

Getting to the heart of atheism rests on three questions.  One, do you seek God?  Two, could you recognize him if you found him?  Three, would you worship him if you recognized him?

No one will find that which they do not seek.  Thus, those who loudly proclaim God’s nonexistence with great certainty are not seeking God.  It should thus come as no surprise that they have not found him.  By the same measure, it shouldn’t be surprising if God has not revealed Himself to them.  Their atheism is not honest, nor are they, and they should simply be ignored.  They choose to disbelieve and disobey. You will not change their mind.

In keeping with this, no one will ever find that which they cannot recognize.  It doesn’t matter how much time you spend searching for something if you do not know that for which you are searching.  The atheist who proclaims himself a seeker—albeit an ignorant one—might merit some attention and education.  Ignorance is certainly an understandable reason for not seeing God, especially since the adversary loves to deceive.  Failure borne of ignorance is understandable, and even amenable, provided it is sincere.

Finally, those who refuse to worship God when in His presence should be surprised that He would not take pains to reveal Himself to them.  What would be the point of presenting yourself to an ingrate?  Thus, it should come as no surprise that those who would not worship God would also deny his existence.

If a man isn’t seeking God, couldn’t recognize him if were, and wouldn’t worship him if he did, then there is no reason to give him even the time of day.  His disbelief is dishonest, and not amenable to evidence or reason.  It is best to leave him be.

11 February 2016

A Taste of Things to Come

Jian Ghomeshi’s sexual assault prosecution has been the trial of the decade for men, as it’s a winner for us on every level. Ghomeshi, a former CBC radio host, bragged about being a women’s study major and male feminist. He now finds himself being prosecuted under the same matriarchal legal system he lobbied for. [Emphasis added.]
Funnily enough, if Jian were to live under, say, a Judeo-Christian patriarchal legal system, he’d also find himself being prosecuted.  Not for rape, of course, but for fornication.

Patriarchal systems really frown upon extramarital sex.  The Judeo system prescribed death for convicted adulterers, for example.  Lest readers think this sort of thing is confined merely to archaic Middle Eastern religions as they were practiced thousands of years ago, it’s worth noting that, “16 different American jurisdictions from eastern and southern had passed various statutes against fornication,” and that fornication is illegal under common law.

Of course, American laws against fornication are no longer enforced, and wouldn’t apply to the Ghomeshi case even if they were.  Nonetheless, it’s pretty hilarious that Cernovich thinks Ghomeshi’s problem is the matriarchy.

Ghomeshi’s real problem is that he is a fornicator.  Fornication is wrong.  Fornication is evil.  Fornication is bad.  To say this is to state both the obvious and the self-evident.

To put it another way, the odds that Ghomeshi would be accused of rape if he were celibate are extremely low (i.e. practically zero).  The odds that Ghomeshi would be accused of rape if he were married and sexually faithful to just one would woman would likewise be similarly low.  The more you fuck around, the more likely you are to be fucked.

There is a natural order to the world, and those who rebel against it will face rather predictable consequences.  Pain, heartbreak, humiliation, shame, mockery and punishment are reserved for those who violate the natural order of things.  Fornicators, liars, adulterers, pedophiles, homosexuals and all others who rebel against and otherwise undermine the natural order will ultimately find themselves in a world of shame, pain and despair.  Most rebels will get a taste of the consequences to come in this life.  Those who are wise will repent and be reconciled.

Birds of a Feather

If you doubt that we live in a culture of false rape culture, consider this article by SJW “journalist” Jesse Brown. In “Why Did Jian Ghomeshi Keep Lucy DeCoutere’s Letter?” Brown accuses Ghomeshi of wrongdoing for saving letters, emails, and texts from women he had sex with. 
    Jian Ghomeshi kept Lucy DeCoutere’s handwritten letter to him for 13 years. She was never his girlfriend. They never had sex. Given what we heard at trial last week, it’s hard to imagine he was carrying a flame for her. So, why did he hold on to it for over a decade? 
Yes, why would a famous man save letters from women…Oh wait, Ghomeshi is on trial for rape and those letters and texts are saving his life. 
Are you seeing what the game is? A woman who claims you raped her must be believed, no matter what. 
    The materials he had were threatening enough to keep most women from going to the police. That threat was realized last week in the cross-examination of Lucy DeCoutere. One of my initial sources wrote to me that what Lucy DeCoutere endured on the stand made her feel relieved that she spoke to the media and not to the police. 
Save text messages and photographs. “Journalists” may later criticize you, but at least you’ll stay out of prison.
Reporter: Okay, what part of your satirical argument that you're making can you maybe understand that they took and turned it into that lie? 
Roosh: Not honest. They were not honest and they knew it. The people who wrote that and said that the article is true, that that is a "pro-rape" article, they lied. That's it. They are lying people. Most people in the media are liars.
This reminds me of a verse in the New Testament:
But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liarsthey will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death. [Emphasis added.]
The sexually immoral and liars are of the same flock.  Men who live to pursue women that are not theirs to have are no better than the women who bear false witness against them.  Moreover, they are not any more honest than their accusers.  To wit, consider Roosh’s claim that, “I must state right now that not a single woman has been hurt by me.”

The correlation between casual sex and psychological discord (i.e. lack of emotional well-being) is pretty well-established, so it is incredibly far-fetched to say that pumping-n-dumping women is completely without any negative effects.  Moreover, it takes two to tango, so no man can reasonably claim that his female hook-up partner’s des2-1ire to have casual sex completely negates the guilt of his decision.  She may have wanted it, but so did you.  Another person’s sin doesn’t justify yours.

Essentially, Roosh is a liar and a fornicator, and he finds himself in the company if the same.  Jian Ghomeshi is a liar and a fornicator, and he finds himself in the company of the same.  This should come as no surprise:  birds of a feather flock together.

10 February 2016

A Litmus Test

Pat Lohman’s most powerful weapon in her long war on abortion has been deception.
It’s a tactic she has embraced for nearly three decades to disrupt one of Northern Virginia’s few abortion clinics. Lohman operates her Manassas crisis pregnancy center right next door. 
Same brick building, same sign, same generic office decor. The abortion clinic, Amethyst Health Center for Women, was on the right. The pregnancy center, AAA Women for Choice, is on the left. 
Confused women seeking abortions would wind up in Lohman’s place, where she threw all she had at them — pamphlets, pleas, prayers, promises of help, used baby gear, bloody imagery, God — to change their minds. 
“Deceptive? People say we’re deceptive? Okay,” Lohman told me. “But what the other guys are doing? That’s deceptive, too. Those girls have no idea what abortion really is. When I hear ‘pro-choice,’ that is a deception. And this country has forgotten about God.” 
Here’s the part that’s really astonishing. Several months ago, the abortion provider retired and the Amethyst Health Center closed. That’s when Lohman, 69, and her supporters swooped in, orchestrating their grandest deception yet. 
Nothing indicates that the abortion clinic is closed except a locked door. The clinic’s Google ads still pop up, and the phone number still works. When women dial the closed abortion clinic, the call is forwarded straight to the pregnancy center. Everything remains in place to lure women to the clinic and hope they try the door, figure they made a mistake, then go right next door to the carefully named AAA Women for Choice.

I’m most interested in seeing how self-described Christians react to this sort of story.  Is one’s Christian Identity that of a warrior, fighting against evil, using every tactic at one’s disposal to overcome the evil one?  Or is one’s Christian Identity that of the noble loser, content to cede the enemy's every advance out of fear of getting dirty in the war against evil?  Is Christianity the mantle of conquerors?  Or is it the mantle of cowards?