Francis Berger's Blog, page 134
February 8, 2020
A Most Charming Illusion
The wind drove the illumined clouds across the black canvas of the night sky beneath the constellations and the nearly full moon, but as I stood in the yard staring up at it all, nature cast a little spell, the way nature is apt to do.
The clouds slowed and froze in the sky as the conjuration took effect, and on the yawning side of a blink, the moon and the stars began sailing steadfastly over an ocean of ink, all locked collectively in a dead-ahead course, caring nothing for the cloudfalls they encountered, revelling silently in the movement into which they had been unexpectedly commanded.
The clouds slowed and froze in the sky as the conjuration took effect, and on the yawning side of a blink, the moon and the stars began sailing steadfastly over an ocean of ink, all locked collectively in a dead-ahead course, caring nothing for the cloudfalls they encountered, revelling silently in the movement into which they had been unexpectedly commanded.
February 7, 2020
Classical Art Living in the Modern World
Photographer Alexey Kondakov has created a whimsical and engaging series of images in which he has superimposed figures from classical paintings onto urban settings in Kiev and other contemporary cities. The result is a playful and enchanting series of photos that provide an an answer to the question - What if figures from paintings lived in our modern world?
Of course, placing figures from art and literature into contemporary settings is certainly nothing new; nevertheless, Kondakov's ability to seamlessly set his scenes and make them appear natural is both spirited and impressive.
What I like about Kondakov's photos is the deeper truth at which they hint. The classical figures in modern urban settings elevate these everyday scenes out of the mundane. But here's the thing - the reality we live in is never mundane.
Quite the opposite - it is a living, breathing work of art. Creation in flux. Regarding reality as mundane is evidence of faulty or lazy consciousness. Our reality is only banal if we allow it to be. If we engage with reality using the full force of our imagination - if we begin to interact with reality through our thinking - not only we will see art everywhere, we can start to play a significant role in its creation.
Of course, placing figures from art and literature into contemporary settings is certainly nothing new; nevertheless, Kondakov's ability to seamlessly set his scenes and make them appear natural is both spirited and impressive.
What I like about Kondakov's photos is the deeper truth at which they hint. The classical figures in modern urban settings elevate these everyday scenes out of the mundane. But here's the thing - the reality we live in is never mundane.
Quite the opposite - it is a living, breathing work of art. Creation in flux. Regarding reality as mundane is evidence of faulty or lazy consciousness. Our reality is only banal if we allow it to be. If we engage with reality using the full force of our imagination - if we begin to interact with reality through our thinking - not only we will see art everywhere, we can start to play a significant role in its creation.
February 5, 2020
There is No Higher Reality; Only Reality, And Only Religious Consciousness is Capable of Perceiving It
This is one of those exploratory blog posts that might not make sense in the end, but here goes.
I spent some time thinking about Reality today, and I toyed with the conclusion that I have probably - for most of my life - nurtured flawed notions about what the perception of Reality entails.
For most of my adult life, I have tended to view Reality as something like a vertical scale spanning the lower to the higher, with everyday, common, material reality occupying the lower levels of perception, and transcendent, metaphysical reality occupying the higher levels.
Within this framework, one's quality of perception/thinking determined what level of reality one was capable of perceiving. Consciousnesses rooted primarily in the vulgar and the material tended only to perceive or find meaning in the lower levels, while those with more refined or spiritual consciousnesses were able to glimpse or recognize higher levels of reality.
However, as I thought about this today, I began to suspect this might be a flawed and incorrect way of conceptualizing consciousness and its relation to and perception of Reality because it implies that those who perceive Reality at the purely material level still perceive some sense of Reality, but lack the "muscle" to perceive the higher levels.
Perhaps they do, but what if these perceptions are willfully ignored, unacknowledged, neglected, ignored, or misunderstood? The perception might still exist, but lacking a foundation of intuitive understanding, this perception essentially becomes meaningless, akin to hearing a language one does not speak or understand. The sound is there, but the words make no sense. After a while, a person in this position is faced with two choices: learn the foreign language, or block it out completely. This, however, presupposes that the preceptor even recognizes the heard language as language and not just noise.
Seen this way, perception takes a back seat to acknowledging, accepting, and understanding. Being aware that the noise is language is the first step, but awareness of the language does one no good if one is unwilling to comprehend it. Put another way, the 'reality' of the perceived language remains inaccessible and meaningless if the effort to understand it is not made.
My problem with this idea is the notion of effort. This directly implies consciousness must be developed and trained like a muscle for it to understand or perceive higher levels of reality, the same way the brain and the organs of speech must be trained to master a language. The implication is that without this sort of development, consciousness is incapable of tackling higher levels of reality in the same way untrained muscles are incapable of tackling certain arduous physical tasks.
But what if consciousness/reality perception was not really about the training of the consciousness in order to perceive higher levels of reality, but rather about aligning consciousness in such a way that it can perceive Reality in its totality? This perception of Reality in its totality - that the lower and higher are actually all connected and interacting - would then lead one to understanding, an understanding that would actually require very little in the way of effort.
In other words, perceiving Reality might not be so much about effort, but more about openness and acceptance.
Reality is there for all to sense and understand, all the time, but most do not accept this Reality as real. The inability to perceive Reality in its totality does not come down to not having developed the proper "consciousness muscles" or "communication skills" due to some apparent weakness in consciousness, but more of a matter of being closed to what the true nature of Reality is. Put another way, Reality exists before all consciousness, and all consciousnesses exist in Reality, but most consciousnesses do not accept Reality as Reality because they do not accept the axioms supporting Reality.
Yes, this is akin to the idea of lower/higher and the division of Reality into rising and descending levels, but the notable difference is this - the process of training consciousness to ascend to higher levels of understanding and perception is eliminated and replaced with a process closer to simply aligning the consciousness with Reality in order to not only perceive it, but intuitively understand it. In other words, it comes down to the basic matter of core assumptions. Aligning consciousness with Reality is the foundation of religious thinking, which is the only mode of thinking capable of perceiving Reality as a whole.
Approached from this angle, mystics and spiritual thinkers are not individuals with elevated levels of consciousness capable of perceiving higher levels of reality, but rather individuals with properly-aligned consciousnesses capable of identifying and perceiving Reality in its totality. Seen this way, any failure to recognize and comprehend Reality does not indicate a lack of "muscle", but a lack of imagination, intuition, and faith.
I spent some time thinking about Reality today, and I toyed with the conclusion that I have probably - for most of my life - nurtured flawed notions about what the perception of Reality entails.
For most of my adult life, I have tended to view Reality as something like a vertical scale spanning the lower to the higher, with everyday, common, material reality occupying the lower levels of perception, and transcendent, metaphysical reality occupying the higher levels.
Within this framework, one's quality of perception/thinking determined what level of reality one was capable of perceiving. Consciousnesses rooted primarily in the vulgar and the material tended only to perceive or find meaning in the lower levels, while those with more refined or spiritual consciousnesses were able to glimpse or recognize higher levels of reality.
However, as I thought about this today, I began to suspect this might be a flawed and incorrect way of conceptualizing consciousness and its relation to and perception of Reality because it implies that those who perceive Reality at the purely material level still perceive some sense of Reality, but lack the "muscle" to perceive the higher levels.
Perhaps they do, but what if these perceptions are willfully ignored, unacknowledged, neglected, ignored, or misunderstood? The perception might still exist, but lacking a foundation of intuitive understanding, this perception essentially becomes meaningless, akin to hearing a language one does not speak or understand. The sound is there, but the words make no sense. After a while, a person in this position is faced with two choices: learn the foreign language, or block it out completely. This, however, presupposes that the preceptor even recognizes the heard language as language and not just noise.
Seen this way, perception takes a back seat to acknowledging, accepting, and understanding. Being aware that the noise is language is the first step, but awareness of the language does one no good if one is unwilling to comprehend it. Put another way, the 'reality' of the perceived language remains inaccessible and meaningless if the effort to understand it is not made.
My problem with this idea is the notion of effort. This directly implies consciousness must be developed and trained like a muscle for it to understand or perceive higher levels of reality, the same way the brain and the organs of speech must be trained to master a language. The implication is that without this sort of development, consciousness is incapable of tackling higher levels of reality in the same way untrained muscles are incapable of tackling certain arduous physical tasks.
But what if consciousness/reality perception was not really about the training of the consciousness in order to perceive higher levels of reality, but rather about aligning consciousness in such a way that it can perceive Reality in its totality? This perception of Reality in its totality - that the lower and higher are actually all connected and interacting - would then lead one to understanding, an understanding that would actually require very little in the way of effort.
In other words, perceiving Reality might not be so much about effort, but more about openness and acceptance.
Reality is there for all to sense and understand, all the time, but most do not accept this Reality as real. The inability to perceive Reality in its totality does not come down to not having developed the proper "consciousness muscles" or "communication skills" due to some apparent weakness in consciousness, but more of a matter of being closed to what the true nature of Reality is. Put another way, Reality exists before all consciousness, and all consciousnesses exist in Reality, but most consciousnesses do not accept Reality as Reality because they do not accept the axioms supporting Reality.
Yes, this is akin to the idea of lower/higher and the division of Reality into rising and descending levels, but the notable difference is this - the process of training consciousness to ascend to higher levels of understanding and perception is eliminated and replaced with a process closer to simply aligning the consciousness with Reality in order to not only perceive it, but intuitively understand it. In other words, it comes down to the basic matter of core assumptions. Aligning consciousness with Reality is the foundation of religious thinking, which is the only mode of thinking capable of perceiving Reality as a whole.
Approached from this angle, mystics and spiritual thinkers are not individuals with elevated levels of consciousness capable of perceiving higher levels of reality, but rather individuals with properly-aligned consciousnesses capable of identifying and perceiving Reality in its totality. Seen this way, any failure to recognize and comprehend Reality does not indicate a lack of "muscle", but a lack of imagination, intuition, and faith.
February 4, 2020
Yes, That's What The Establishment Wants. That's How They Do It. But Why?
Blogger Malcolm Pollack has written an excellent summary of what the Democratic Party hopes to achieve in the United States:
Their vision of America is a rootless, deracinated, atomized people, cut off from tradition, heritage, religion, and all reverence for the past; they seek to encourage this not only by reviling and denouncing America’s past in education and mass media, but also by flooding the country with uncountable millions of aliens who share none of America’s traditions, folklore, culture, byways, or mythos, thereby making any reliance upon such things for the preservation of social cohesion — and without such shared values and beliefs there can be no more social cohesion within a nation’s borders than there is in an airport lounge — an act of “bigotry” “xenophobia”, and “exclusion”. The aim is to eliminate altogether the “civil society” and horizontal ligatures that have throughout all of human history bound people into organic and healthy communities, leaving behind a flattened and stifling two-level hierarchy: below, a solipsistic, radically individualized populace, stripped of everything but the appetites of the present moment, and severed from the extension in time, and thereby the deep sense of duty and connection to the dead and the unborn, that has been the hallmark of healthy societies always and everywhere; while above them squats a vast, tutelary, managerial bureaucracy.
In terms of succinctly capturing the means and methods the Establishment employs in its war against the West, the paragraph Pollack has written is a master stroke - a veritable coup de maître - and I applaud his clarity and lucidity. I would humbly add that what Pollack describes is not limited to the Democrats in the US alone, but can readily be applied to the entire Establishment and System in the West. One need look no farther than the EU or the UN to recognize the same forces, machinations, and objectives in action.
Pollack's perception of what the Left aims at is both keen and incisive. Rarely have I seen the how and the what of the Establishment's overall objectives described so well. Unfortunately, as penetrating as these insights into the how and the what are, when it comes to the why, Pollack has little to offer here. I do not mean this as a personal criticism of Pollack - in all fairness, he did not aim to provide an explanation of the why in his excellent post - but posit it more as a general observation that can be applied to many bloggers and writers on the right who brilliantly and skillfully dissect the how and the what of the Left, but rarely stop to consider the why.
So let's ask the question now. Why? Why does the Establishment in the West aim for the kind of world Pollack so masterfully describes above?
Power? Maybe - but the Establishment already essentially runs the entire material world, so how much more power could they possibly squeeze out of us and the planet?
Wealth? Unlikely, especially in the upper echelons of the Establishment who make a show of donating billions from their own personal fortunes to fund their leftist causes.
Pleasure? I'm sure the Establishment can already satiate any and all of its earthly desires now.
Philanthropy? Does the world Pollack describes sound like the kind of place built by people who actually love humanity?
Totalitarian control? Yes, undoubtedly, but to what end. The Establishment has already has a quasi-totalitarian System in place now. Total control will not be an end, but rather a means - but a means to what?
Legacy? Status? The public figures in the Establishment already have both to some degree; the secretive ones do as well, but will not make these public.
I could list many other possibilities as to why the Establishment seeks to implement a globalized world of atomized, alienated, hedonically-driven individuals lorded over by an oppressive Ahrimanic bureaucracy, but none seem satisfactory, at least not to me.
I find the explanations above, and countless others I have encountered over the years, unsatisfactory: none strike at the core of what motivates the Establishment. None really explains why the Establishment yearns for the hell on Earth Malcolm Pollack has so perspicaciously described.
In my humble opinion, the only why that makes sense is spiritual. The Establishment has pitted itself against Divine Creation and avidly works to destroy Divine Creation. The System they are implementing stands in direct opposition to Creation and Reality. The Establishment aspires to one thing above all else - damnation. The Establishment seeks to de-align people from Reality. The System they are creating aims to turn people away from and, consequently, inspires them to work against the Divine, thereby all but ensuring self-damnation.
In a nutshell, the why boils down to evil. The what and the how of evil and its machinations only make sense if the why driving these machinations is fully acknowledged. The why is rooted in the spiritual; the objective is damnation. I have found all other explanations of the why to be nugatory and lacking.
Note: I have not linked directly to Malcom Pollack's blog because of an apparent http - https issue, but readers are invited to visit his site at: malcompollack dot com.
Their vision of America is a rootless, deracinated, atomized people, cut off from tradition, heritage, religion, and all reverence for the past; they seek to encourage this not only by reviling and denouncing America’s past in education and mass media, but also by flooding the country with uncountable millions of aliens who share none of America’s traditions, folklore, culture, byways, or mythos, thereby making any reliance upon such things for the preservation of social cohesion — and without such shared values and beliefs there can be no more social cohesion within a nation’s borders than there is in an airport lounge — an act of “bigotry” “xenophobia”, and “exclusion”. The aim is to eliminate altogether the “civil society” and horizontal ligatures that have throughout all of human history bound people into organic and healthy communities, leaving behind a flattened and stifling two-level hierarchy: below, a solipsistic, radically individualized populace, stripped of everything but the appetites of the present moment, and severed from the extension in time, and thereby the deep sense of duty and connection to the dead and the unborn, that has been the hallmark of healthy societies always and everywhere; while above them squats a vast, tutelary, managerial bureaucracy.
In terms of succinctly capturing the means and methods the Establishment employs in its war against the West, the paragraph Pollack has written is a master stroke - a veritable coup de maître - and I applaud his clarity and lucidity. I would humbly add that what Pollack describes is not limited to the Democrats in the US alone, but can readily be applied to the entire Establishment and System in the West. One need look no farther than the EU or the UN to recognize the same forces, machinations, and objectives in action.
Pollack's perception of what the Left aims at is both keen and incisive. Rarely have I seen the how and the what of the Establishment's overall objectives described so well. Unfortunately, as penetrating as these insights into the how and the what are, when it comes to the why, Pollack has little to offer here. I do not mean this as a personal criticism of Pollack - in all fairness, he did not aim to provide an explanation of the why in his excellent post - but posit it more as a general observation that can be applied to many bloggers and writers on the right who brilliantly and skillfully dissect the how and the what of the Left, but rarely stop to consider the why.
So let's ask the question now. Why? Why does the Establishment in the West aim for the kind of world Pollack so masterfully describes above?
Power? Maybe - but the Establishment already essentially runs the entire material world, so how much more power could they possibly squeeze out of us and the planet?
Wealth? Unlikely, especially in the upper echelons of the Establishment who make a show of donating billions from their own personal fortunes to fund their leftist causes.
Pleasure? I'm sure the Establishment can already satiate any and all of its earthly desires now.
Philanthropy? Does the world Pollack describes sound like the kind of place built by people who actually love humanity?
Totalitarian control? Yes, undoubtedly, but to what end. The Establishment has already has a quasi-totalitarian System in place now. Total control will not be an end, but rather a means - but a means to what?
Legacy? Status? The public figures in the Establishment already have both to some degree; the secretive ones do as well, but will not make these public.
I could list many other possibilities as to why the Establishment seeks to implement a globalized world of atomized, alienated, hedonically-driven individuals lorded over by an oppressive Ahrimanic bureaucracy, but none seem satisfactory, at least not to me.
I find the explanations above, and countless others I have encountered over the years, unsatisfactory: none strike at the core of what motivates the Establishment. None really explains why the Establishment yearns for the hell on Earth Malcolm Pollack has so perspicaciously described.
In my humble opinion, the only why that makes sense is spiritual. The Establishment has pitted itself against Divine Creation and avidly works to destroy Divine Creation. The System they are implementing stands in direct opposition to Creation and Reality. The Establishment aspires to one thing above all else - damnation. The Establishment seeks to de-align people from Reality. The System they are creating aims to turn people away from and, consequently, inspires them to work against the Divine, thereby all but ensuring self-damnation.
In a nutshell, the why boils down to evil. The what and the how of evil and its machinations only make sense if the why driving these machinations is fully acknowledged. The why is rooted in the spiritual; the objective is damnation. I have found all other explanations of the why to be nugatory and lacking.
Note: I have not linked directly to Malcom Pollack's blog because of an apparent http - https issue, but readers are invited to visit his site at: malcompollack dot com.
Regarding Our Current War As A 'Culture War' Is Akin to Seeing Only The Tip Of The Iceberg
As far as I can tell, the term culture war stems from the German Kulturkampf, which refers to the conflicts between cultural and religious groups during the 1871-1878 campaign in which Chancellor Otto von Bismarck of the German Empire fought against the influence of the Roman Catholic Church.The origin of the term draws attention to the innate spiritual aspects of the earlier struggle. Unfortunately, many who fight against the Left in our contemporary struggle accept and endorse only the inherent material, physical, social, cultural, economic, and political values inherent in the war at the expense of the spiritual/metaphysical dimensions, which have been either willfully neglected or explicitly rejected.
I am sympathetic to and support those who fight our current war at the purely material level. At the same time, the shortsightedness of this position frustrates me to no end, and I often struggle to comprehend how those who fight against Leftism under the banners of tradition, nationhood, class, race, morality, hierarchy, natural law, excellence, etc., are so utterly oblivious to or scornful of the spiritual reality underpinning all of these things.
The values and beliefs mentioned above are all significant, but their core significance is only meaningful and comprehensible when interpreted through the reality of the spiritual, which is the spring from which all other 'real' values, virtues, and beliefs flow. Those who fight the so-called culture war at the material level seem blind to this fundamental flaw.
To begin with, engaging at the purely material level plays into the hands of the Left's overall strategy of framing everything solely within the material. Cultural warriors who battle the Left at that level are, in essence, seemingly no higher or better than the Left themselves. Their dismissal of the Divine, with its innate transcendence and immanence, equals an outright rejection of Truth, Beauty, and Goodness. Without a belief in the Divine, all truth, beauty, and goodness is relative. Similarly, without an acknowledgement of the Divine, the objectives these culture warriors set remain firmly embedded in the realms of hedonism or determinism or utilitarianism or other such 'isms.'
Secondly, cultural warriors who repudiate the existence of the Divine essentially provide the Left exactly what the Left wants - conditions for perpetual revolution. Pitting relative values against other relative values actually serves the Left's interests in maintaining a pretext of continuous struggle in the name of progress.
Thirdly, cultural warriors who deny the divine reinforce and reaffirm the greatest trick the Left ever pulled - convincing people that the spiritual simply does not exist. Of course, only the vast majority of the Left believes the spiritual to be a fairy tale. The minority within the Left does not share this belief. Unlike the majority it directs, this core minority, or inner circle, not only believes in the existence of the Divine and Creation, but actively and purposively focuses all of its activities on perverting, inverting, and subverting the Divine and Creation for the ultimate purpose of mass damnation. Thus, cultural warriors who fight the Left but reject the Divine are really no higher than the witless minions who serve the demonic forces fueling the Left.
Fourthly, cultural warriors who scoff at the Divine usually end up making idols of their values and beliefs - the nation, the people, the economy, liberty, This is a denigration of Reality, the same kind of denigration the Left employs when they attack the nation, the people, etc., with their own defied idols of human rights, equality, inclusivity, and universality.
I could list several more flaws in the purely material approach to the war with the Left, but for the sake of brevity, I will stop here. As I mentioned at the beginning of this post, I am sympathetic to those who fight the Left on purely materialistic grounds, but when it comes to our shared struggle, I believe these individuals and groups are only seeing the tip of the iceberg confronting us all.
The true purposes feeding this seemingly endless war lie beneath the surface, hidden from view, much the way the greater bulk of an iceberg lies concealed beneath the water. Being oblivious to or scornful of the ice beneath the surface does not eliminate the presence of submerged ice which can lead to shocking and devastating consequences.
A ship that sees an iceberg, but ignores the massive chunk of ice hidden beneath the surface as it averts the tip jutting out of the water is sure to be damaged or sink. The same could be applied to our esteemed warriors who view our current war as merely cultural. This assumption is, at best, a limited understanding of what is actually transpiring.
The cultural part is merely the tip of the iceberg. The hidden part, the spiritual part, is the part that really matters. In fact, the spiritual is really all that matters because it is the source from which all 'material/physical realities' of culture emanate.
The point of this post is not to disparage those on the right who harbor atheistic or secular beliefs, but rather to point out that the war isn't and never was only a 'culture' war. It's a spiritual war. The time to begin treating it as such is both sorely needed and long overdue.
Family: A Fundamental Reality That Strikes Terror Into the Heart of Evil
Dr. Charlton has written a thought-provoking post on his blog today in which he stresses the paramount importance and deeper implications of family. The post was inspired by another post written by William Wildblood focusing on ethical problems inherent in genetic engineering.
In his post, Dr. Charlton establishes a line of demarcation regarding family, a line he refers to as a "moral bright-line":
If such a moral bright-line were accepted, I think it would entail accepting the fundamental reality and divine authority of the family as God's way of structuring human, and ultimately divine, society in creation.
By 'ideal' I mean that it is what we, our laws, our social organisation, should be aimed-at. In practice, the family ideal will be unattainable for everybody, all of the time - but knowing and acknowledging the ideal is what enables us to live coherently, with meaning and motivation; aligned with divine creation.
This description of accepting the fundamental reality and divine authority of family correlates with views I expressed in a post last week in which I addressed a Hungarian leftist politician's abhorrence of the traditional family as a "scary formation."
In that post I argued that the mainstream leftist campaigns against the traditional family focus primarily on the 'unreality' of family, which is considered a 'social construct'; one that inspires exclusion and oppression.
Thus, the vast majority of the Left (the foot soldiers) attack the traditional concept of family because they see it as an impediment to individual freedoms and universal brotherhood, but also as vehicle of oppression - against personal freedoms, gender equality, xenophilia, etc. Family also oppresses because it validates and promulgates traditional values at the expense of progressive ones. In other words, family serves to emphasize and legitimize anti-progressive 'power' concepts such as 'race', 'gender', and 'nationality'.
All of this is readily apparent in the Left's communications and actions - in their vilification of traditional family models, their celebration of non-traditional family models, their objection to nations, their support of open societies with open borders - but do these represent the real reasons why the Left oppose the concept of traditional family so vehemently?
In my previous post I argued that a minority within the Left clearly understand the deeper implications of family, implications Dr. Charlton mentions in the excerpt above, and which I expressed in the following manner:
What scares the minority within the Left about family, about the Christian family in particular, is this - not only does the family exist in objective reality, but it also represents the very essence of Reality itself - the ultimate Reality of Divine Creation and the Love that nurtures and binds it all together.
It goes without saying that no representative of the Left will ever admit to family being a 'fundamental reality' or 'God's way of structuring human, and ultimately divine, society in creation'. Doing so would immediately negate the Left's self-professed rejection of the supernatural, the metaphysical, and the divine.
Nevertheless, this explicit expressed rejection does not rule out implicit belief in what has been rejected - at least not among the Left's inner circle. I am convinced, more than ever, that this inner circle possesses an unambiguous understanding of the 'fundamental reality' of family - that is, the accepted, mainstream objections the Left launches against family are, in actuality, one-dimensional and frivolous and do little more than serve to mask their genuine aims of totalitarian control over an ocean of isolated and atomized individuals for the overarching purpose of mass damnation.
This is why that Hungarian leftist politician's "scary formation" comment last week concerning family so revelatory. On one hand, it made the reason for the Left's true hatred of family crystal clear from a metaphysical perspective. On the other hand, it revealed that the Left not only hate, but also fear family. I found this rather reassuring. It is good to know that 'God's way of structuring human, and ultimately divine, society in creation' fills the Left with angst, uneasiness, and dread.
Summing up, having a traditional family in this time and place is not only one of the best ways to align oneself with fundamental reality and divine authority, but also one of the best ways to strike terror into the heart of evil.
Note added: Strike terror might be hyperbolic, but I can guarantee you that, at the very least, family makes evil extremely anxious.
In his post, Dr. Charlton establishes a line of demarcation regarding family, a line he refers to as a "moral bright-line":
If such a moral bright-line were accepted, I think it would entail accepting the fundamental reality and divine authority of the family as God's way of structuring human, and ultimately divine, society in creation.
By 'ideal' I mean that it is what we, our laws, our social organisation, should be aimed-at. In practice, the family ideal will be unattainable for everybody, all of the time - but knowing and acknowledging the ideal is what enables us to live coherently, with meaning and motivation; aligned with divine creation.
This description of accepting the fundamental reality and divine authority of family correlates with views I expressed in a post last week in which I addressed a Hungarian leftist politician's abhorrence of the traditional family as a "scary formation."
In that post I argued that the mainstream leftist campaigns against the traditional family focus primarily on the 'unreality' of family, which is considered a 'social construct'; one that inspires exclusion and oppression.
Thus, the vast majority of the Left (the foot soldiers) attack the traditional concept of family because they see it as an impediment to individual freedoms and universal brotherhood, but also as vehicle of oppression - against personal freedoms, gender equality, xenophilia, etc. Family also oppresses because it validates and promulgates traditional values at the expense of progressive ones. In other words, family serves to emphasize and legitimize anti-progressive 'power' concepts such as 'race', 'gender', and 'nationality'.
All of this is readily apparent in the Left's communications and actions - in their vilification of traditional family models, their celebration of non-traditional family models, their objection to nations, their support of open societies with open borders - but do these represent the real reasons why the Left oppose the concept of traditional family so vehemently?
In my previous post I argued that a minority within the Left clearly understand the deeper implications of family, implications Dr. Charlton mentions in the excerpt above, and which I expressed in the following manner:
What scares the minority within the Left about family, about the Christian family in particular, is this - not only does the family exist in objective reality, but it also represents the very essence of Reality itself - the ultimate Reality of Divine Creation and the Love that nurtures and binds it all together.
It goes without saying that no representative of the Left will ever admit to family being a 'fundamental reality' or 'God's way of structuring human, and ultimately divine, society in creation'. Doing so would immediately negate the Left's self-professed rejection of the supernatural, the metaphysical, and the divine.
Nevertheless, this explicit expressed rejection does not rule out implicit belief in what has been rejected - at least not among the Left's inner circle. I am convinced, more than ever, that this inner circle possesses an unambiguous understanding of the 'fundamental reality' of family - that is, the accepted, mainstream objections the Left launches against family are, in actuality, one-dimensional and frivolous and do little more than serve to mask their genuine aims of totalitarian control over an ocean of isolated and atomized individuals for the overarching purpose of mass damnation.
This is why that Hungarian leftist politician's "scary formation" comment last week concerning family so revelatory. On one hand, it made the reason for the Left's true hatred of family crystal clear from a metaphysical perspective. On the other hand, it revealed that the Left not only hate, but also fear family. I found this rather reassuring. It is good to know that 'God's way of structuring human, and ultimately divine, society in creation' fills the Left with angst, uneasiness, and dread.
Summing up, having a traditional family in this time and place is not only one of the best ways to align oneself with fundamental reality and divine authority, but also one of the best ways to strike terror into the heart of evil.
Note added: Strike terror might be hyperbolic, but I can guarantee you that, at the very least, family makes evil extremely anxious.
February 3, 2020
Most Annoying Pop/Rock Song of the Nineties?
I enjoyed and still enjoy quite a few pop/rock songs from the nineties, but there were a few I considered downright ghastly when they were released. One that annoyed me to no end was the 1993 song Mr. Jones by the band Counting Crows.
I'm not sure why this song grated on my nerves so much. Was it the superficial lyrics and the story it told - two struggling musicians drinking in a bar ogling women and dreaming of becoming big stars - or was it the singers irritating voice or was it the lilting, tedious guitar riff? Perhaps it was the combination of all of the above. Whatever the case, the song irritated me immensely - and continues to do so today.
Though I am certain I could think of at least a dozen other songs from that decade that irked me even more, for the time being I submit this one as my pick for the most tiresome nineties song, which is funny because it was incredibly popular and many people were, and still are, positively enamored by it.
Guess I'm the odd man out on this one.
I'm not sure why this song grated on my nerves so much. Was it the superficial lyrics and the story it told - two struggling musicians drinking in a bar ogling women and dreaming of becoming big stars - or was it the singers irritating voice or was it the lilting, tedious guitar riff? Perhaps it was the combination of all of the above. Whatever the case, the song irritated me immensely - and continues to do so today.
Though I am certain I could think of at least a dozen other songs from that decade that irked me even more, for the time being I submit this one as my pick for the most tiresome nineties song, which is funny because it was incredibly popular and many people were, and still are, positively enamored by it.
Guess I'm the odd man out on this one.
February 2, 2020
Falling Stars - Mihály Zichy
Falling Stars - Mihály Zichy - 1879
Lifeboat - Mihály Zichy
Lifeboat - Mihály Zichy - 1847
January 31, 2020
Oh, The Humanity!
Former Hungarian Prime Minister Ferenc Gyurcsany has jumped into the Niedermüller fray over here - and why wouldn't he? After all, he is an avowed leftist, avidly serves the global elite, and is the founder of the political party of which Niedermüller is a member.
I don't particularly care about Ferenc Gyurcsány, but I am intrigued by some of the rhetoric being employed by the Left as they attempt to squirm their way out of this rather uncomfortable Niedermüller situation. For his part, Gyurcsány has decided to employ the "I'm a white, heterosexual Christian male, too; but unlike most white, heterosexual Christian males, my Christianity doesn't prevent me from loving people who are not like me" spiel.
His words (translated by me):
Other humans exist. They aren't white. They aren't Christian. They aren't heterosexual. Humans. My fellow humans. But there are those who scorn the non-white, the non-Christian, the non-heterosexual - and speak of them contemptuously. And their actions mirror these attitudes. They harm these people, beat them, persecute them, and kill them. I find all of this horrifying. In my view all of it amounts to a crime against humanity, humanism, and Christianity.
The kind of world I would like to have is one in which people will be cared for and feel safe, not just because they are white, Christian, and heterosexual, but because they are human beings. And this is the most important thing.
I don't believe any explicit commentary is necessary, but, among other questions, I would like to ask Mr. Gyurcsány where he kept these noble sentiments over the past two decades when mostly non-white Christians were being harmed, beaten, persecuted, and killed in the Middle East and northern Africa.
In any case, we know the drill. Christians are the oppressors and the intolerant bigots. No one is expected to embrace anything remotely pro-Christian, pro-heterosexual, or pro-native European in the West. On the contrary, people are encouraged to flaunt and promote everything that is anti-Christian, anti-heterosexual, and anti-native European (which is essentially what Niedermüller's original 'scary formation/construction' about family boils down to).
Conversely, native-European, heterosexual Christians are expected to enthusiastically embrace, support, and love everything that actively works against them and their faith for the sake of humanity because that is what defines a good, native-European, heterosexual Christian.
The sad thing is, most native-European, heterosexual Christians already have embraced all of that. And by doing so, they have elevated the leftist idol of humanity above everything else.
Oh, the idolatry . . . I mean, humanity!
I don't particularly care about Ferenc Gyurcsány, but I am intrigued by some of the rhetoric being employed by the Left as they attempt to squirm their way out of this rather uncomfortable Niedermüller situation. For his part, Gyurcsány has decided to employ the "I'm a white, heterosexual Christian male, too; but unlike most white, heterosexual Christian males, my Christianity doesn't prevent me from loving people who are not like me" spiel.
His words (translated by me):
Other humans exist. They aren't white. They aren't Christian. They aren't heterosexual. Humans. My fellow humans. But there are those who scorn the non-white, the non-Christian, the non-heterosexual - and speak of them contemptuously. And their actions mirror these attitudes. They harm these people, beat them, persecute them, and kill them. I find all of this horrifying. In my view all of it amounts to a crime against humanity, humanism, and Christianity.
The kind of world I would like to have is one in which people will be cared for and feel safe, not just because they are white, Christian, and heterosexual, but because they are human beings. And this is the most important thing.
I don't believe any explicit commentary is necessary, but, among other questions, I would like to ask Mr. Gyurcsány where he kept these noble sentiments over the past two decades when mostly non-white Christians were being harmed, beaten, persecuted, and killed in the Middle East and northern Africa.
In any case, we know the drill. Christians are the oppressors and the intolerant bigots. No one is expected to embrace anything remotely pro-Christian, pro-heterosexual, or pro-native European in the West. On the contrary, people are encouraged to flaunt and promote everything that is anti-Christian, anti-heterosexual, and anti-native European (which is essentially what Niedermüller's original 'scary formation/construction' about family boils down to).
Conversely, native-European, heterosexual Christians are expected to enthusiastically embrace, support, and love everything that actively works against them and their faith for the sake of humanity because that is what defines a good, native-European, heterosexual Christian.
The sad thing is, most native-European, heterosexual Christians already have embraced all of that. And by doing so, they have elevated the leftist idol of humanity above everything else.
Oh, the idolatry . . . I mean, humanity!
