To Make All Things New

You can’t make all things new until you get rid of all the old things. To make all things new is to remake them from the get go, and from the bottom up, totally, without a jot of remainder. New wine, new wineskins.

So, you’ve got to get rid of all the old wineskins.

This is what is meant by, “First, let’s kill all the lawyers.”

This or that reform here and there is not good enough. You can’t expect to make progress against Moloch, the devourer of children, by means of marginal moves, tactical moves, polite moves. No. You must attack him directly, and totally, as Scipio Aemilianus did. Destroy him utterly, and salt the fields where his worshippers farmed, and pollute their wells.

Delete him from the Earth. Then, and only then, might Rome and her ways prevail again for a time.

Then only might there some day arise a mightily sagacious Bishop and Saint in Hippo, that suburb of Moloch’s Carthage.

46 thoughts on “To Make All Things New

  1. Pingback: To Make All Things New | @the_arv

  2. Short of all-out separation will be eradication and/or annihilation. The para-sight recognizes all-out separation as a certain death sentence. Even a mere day without the host is fatal. This leaves “us” with zero wiggle room.

  3. This or that reform here and there is not good enough.

    Not only is it not good enough, but it tends to exacerbate the problem (which is what I think you’re driving at in the post) when all is said and done. You can’t fix cancer with a bandaid, nor with a concoction that makes a few of symptoms go away for a few hours. Burn it all down until even the smoldering embers turn to ash and are carried away with the breeze.

    • Exactly. This or that reform here or there just keeps the sick system limping along for a while, with the perverse effect that it gets ever sicker and less adapted, and less adept, less powerful, less prosperous, less *good.* It is the phenomenon I discussed in A Modest Proposal: Enclose the Commons:

      In a previous post, I asked:

      … what if the current positive feedback circuit [now operative in our politics] could be re-wired so that it was a negative feedback circuit, like that of the steam engine and its governor? What if the penalties for vicious and imprudent political decisions were immediate and severe, while the rewards for virtuous, prudent political decisions were both explicit and compelling?

      This in reference to the pervasive moral corruption of our lawgivers, and by extension of everyone involved in politics; for:

      As things now stand, the people charged with the reformation of society – chiefly our legislators, but by extension everyone who participates in politics, from executives and bureaucrats to lobbyists and electors, both the regulators and the regulated, and especially the media – are rewarded for increasing the noise of our social system. Where there is a problem, especially of the sort caused by the brakes they have already installed, they are encouraged to apply further brakes to the brakes, and brakes to the brakes to the brakes, and so on ad infinitum. This is why our code of laws has metastasized, so that laws proliferate without let or hindrance, and so that they more and more pervade every aspect of our lives, no matter how humble.

      And this is due to the fact that:

      … the basic feedback circuit of a democracy characterized by universal suffrage is positive, a vicious cycle: the electorate is strongly motivated to vote themselves more benefits and lower taxes, more liberty to act out with fewer limits or constraints, or costs, for doing so. The more people see they can get from the state, the more they vote to get from the state. Nothing signals to them that they are demanding too much, that they are eating cultural seed corn. In the circumstances, any other behavior on their part would be irrational. So the bankruptcy of the system – economic, moral, and intellectual – is hardwired in.

  4. Pingback: To Make All Things New | Reaction Times

    • Not an armed revolution. Rather, something more like metanoia. I mean, armed revolutions do happen from time to time, and we may be in for one, but I’d prefer the sort of peaceful phase change that overtook the Warsaw Pact at Christmastide of 1989. Who wouldn’t?

      • The thing about peaceful revolution (actually counter-revolution against the ongoing revolution, but anyway) is that, in spite of one’s best and most noble efforts, the other side may have no intention of going out without a bloody fight. Hot war, in other words.

        (I’m reminded that wise nations prepare for war even in peace time, because they know their potential enemies decide for themselves whether they want war or peace.)

        The one thing we know for certain is that we cannot predict the reaction of the other side, nor very accurately the events that might lead them to violent conflict. It always floors me when people (“conservatives”) define the left as being non-violent or pacifist. I often wonder if such people and I live in two different universes. The left is pacifist(ic) when it is convenient for it to be so. Otherwise not.

      • The Left’s argument is that the Right should be peaceful and disarm; that the Right should shut up and allow the Left to speak freely; that the Right should allow the Left to practice its religion; that the Right should fund and defend the Left; and so forth.

      • Yes… This is the left’s argument, but their frame is “absolutely no separation.” Advantage: para-sight.

        So it is a vicious cycle of “shut up and disarm” to *your* face until you see a blinding rage.

        Then it is the moment of Truth.

        Do I eradicate evil incarnate?

      • Wrong, Winston Scrooge… The Right’s argument is that the self-annihilators get no seats at The Table of Civilization.

    • It is not a matter of advocacy…

      “We” are in a r/evolution altready.

      Can one transcend “it” is the 64,000 dollar question?

      • Let’s try this again…

        The understanding is that the “left” is in permanent “revolution.”

        What this memes is that a “leftist” simply goes around and around. In other words, he will not strive for (S)upremacy.

        In turn, this “revolution” GIVES THE ILLUSION of perpetuation. As such, the masses simply know “cycles” and “redundancies” as the only sign of life. Ergo, r-selected parasitism seems to be “alive and well.”

        So, it is the Right versus r-selected parasitism, ie., a r/evolution of para-sights (he who peeks all evil).

  5. re: “The right’s argument is that the left should be forced to practice the right’s religion.”

    The reverse is true, at least in the realm of current politics. Take as examples abortion and same sex “marriage”. The Right’s position on the High Court held that these issues should be decided by the people in the States. Yes, even if there were nine Justice Scalias, the issue of SSM would have been returned to the States. The Left’s position on the Court was that the people in all 50 States should be forced to acknowledge, and in some cases participate in, the Left’s religion.

      • Orthosphereans generally make a distinction between left-liberals and right-liberals. But, yes, if the Supremes who lean to the right on certain issues like abortion, gay marriage and whatnot have significant liberal commitments, then they are liberals no matter what they call themselves. We’ve been through all of this before.

      • Winston, a few thoughts for you to ponder on:

        (1) When you write the word “Orthospherean,” why do you always and arbitrarily replace the final “e” in the root with an “i,” incorrectly rendering the spelling “Orthospherian?” (Key words in the question are “always,” meaning without exception, and “arbitrarily,” meaning without warrant).

        (2) What is the difference between a “tenet” and a “tenant,” and why do not subtle hints silently offered cause you to check yourself for such mistakes and to correct them?

        I suggest a little introspection (in a humble search for the underlying causes here) would go a long way towards curing you of the virus that has so infected your mind and your heart. But you’ll have to admit you have a problem first.

        Take, for example, your attempted parody (or is it mainly satire? – hard to tell) of Thordaddy above: it isn’t your fault of course, but apparently no one ever explained to you that (as my father admonished me often during my formative years, both in word and deed), “anything worth doing is worth doing right.” He left it to me to figure out the opposite of the adage (anything not worth doing is not worth putting any effort into) is true as well.

        In any case, the point is simply, and as Dr. Bertonneau so well and succinctly explains elsewhere, that liberalism is an “endorsement of the Fall,” and as such its “toxic fallenness inveigles everything,” rendering everything it touches “graceless” and ugly.

        There is beauty in good parody that we can all appreciate; and then there is ugliness in its opposite. Your attempt above is its opposite; it is ugly precisely because you half-assed it; you half-assed it for a reason. You need to discover what that reason is and cure yourself of the disease. But that’s up to you.

      • The problem with this distinction between left and right liberals is that it collapses at the cuckservative. The cuckservative is left by way of submitting to the ultimate meaninglessness of race and sex. He is only “right” as “free trade” zealot. In sum, cuckservative freely trades in the meaninglessness of race and sex. And what do you know? In this void is the “space” for the revolutionary to go around and around.

        Winston… You come to mind, I might add, as someone desirous for perpetual revolution. You seem to enjoy going around and around for a round’s sake.

      • I would not say I entirely enjoy it. If I understand you correctly, I suspect this exists in both you and Terry based on the number of comments you guys have left on my blog and in response to comments I’ve made here.

      • There’s a shocker. Your juvenile attempts to shut me up by trying to insult me won’t ever work, Winston. There are those among us who will just go silent on you, rather than risk your turning every issue into a tar baby by engaging you, but I’m not one of them. Whenever you misrepresent the Orthospherean position as above, if no one else corrects you, I’ll be around to do so. Might just as well get used to it. Insult away.

      • “So you are saying” is problematic in the same way that “based on the number of” and the like are problematic. In the above, to which your question is addressed, I am saying what I am saying, and nothing more. As I’ve said before, you’re acting dumber than what you are (that’s a compliment, not a personal insult, in case you didn’t catch it).

      • Thordaddy said, “Winston… You come to mind, I might add, as someone desirous for perpetual revolution. You seem to enjoy going around and around for a round’s sake.”

        Don’t you think your current behavior including the sheer number of your comments directed my way as well as the obvious hostility behind them is described well in Thordaddy’s quote? If not, why not?

      • Winston, there is no “obvious hostility” towards anyone in pointing out the truth. That is a liberal idea, and I simply reject it.

      • Winston, I’m perfectly fine with everyone reading the exchange and drawing his own conclusions. It might surprise you to learn, however, that not everyone is prone to think with his emotions the way you seem to be.

      • Thordaddy:

        The problem with this distinction between left and right liberals is that it collapses at the cuckservative.

        Yes, the objection has been raised here before as to the veracity of such a distinction, but it seems to be helpful to most, in parsing out the various strains of liberalism as we observe them in operation, to distinguish them in some way or the other. Right and Left liberalism is just a convenient way of doing so.

      • wS…

        I think you are attempting to provoke hostility, yet, not getting the desired responses BECAUSE you never actually state your professed beliefs and so no certain stand can be taken against you ESPECIALLY a “hostile” one. In this scenario, there is perpetual r/evolution with those willing to engage temporarily.

        At YOUR PLACE, you WERE FORCED to finally shut me out when you realized that you where unwilling to answer whether you actually desire (P)erfection as a white man seeing that you are a professed Catholic white man?

        In other words, I had the endurance to withstand your perpetual r/evolution because I kept my eyes on the prize.

        Here at the Orthosphere, you are a Catholic engaging in perpetual r/evolution with other Catholics.

      • Mr. Morris…

        I was not suggesting that the left/right liberal distinction was not important then when it was first realized, but rather, pointing out that right-liberals have cucked on the issues of race and sex and thus collapsed in to left-liberals YET STILL retain the label “cuckservative,” which tomorrow, shall be understood as cuck-speak, itself.

      • In other words, when any individual white male “collapses” (embraces “universal equality”) on the issue of race (one’s father) and sex (one’s fatherhood), he has collapsed the conservatism within, absolutely. There can be nothing Right about “him.” Zhe “is” radically autonomous.

      • Ah, I see. Well, I have always understood the “right-liberal” label to mean simply that the person to whom it applies is a committed liberal who *leans* right on certain issues like abortion and gay “marriage” today, but who can be persuaded tomorrow that defending these too is a “conservative” value. All that needs to happen is for the left to go slightly more radical and, poof!, yesterday’s liberalism is today’s conservatism, as with “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

        As I said above, Orthosphereans generally make the distinction, but at the end of the day the right-liberal is just a liberal with significant liberal commitments no matter what he calls himself. I’ve told the story before about the conservative Catholic woman whose self-described “conservatism” I questioned based on her support for abortion rights. She doesn’t believe in abortion, you see, but only in the sacredness of “a woman’s right to choose.”

      • I shut you out because you would never explain yourself clearly enough for us to have a coherent conversation. — wS

        Yes, winston, but this lack of coherency can be wittled down to something as simple as “I believe in (P)erfection as a white man and you do not.”

        And then asking me what this memes JUST ADDS to the incoherence.

        So you seem to “win” again, but only if perpetual r/evolution is your “end?”

        My desire, as a white man, is objective (S)upremacy.

        This ^^^ is “incoherent” to you. This desire literally puts a halt to your perpetual r/evolution.


Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.