Education cannot occur where equality is taken as the preeminent moral virtue, where the past is rejected as hopelessly morally compromised, and when materialism is adopted as the overriding metaphysical presupposition. To engage in education, therefore, is a rejection of all those things. Since most colleges and most professors, often through intimidation, adopt those positions, they have abandoned education. Education can only occur where overt politicization is avoided. Education, as opposed to indoctrination, will involve a respect for students’ moral integrity, and for the past, and thus a willingness to sometimes consider reform, but never to entertain wholesale rejection and abhorrence of all social structures and reality as we know it. A measured and sane education will accept the existence of mystery, and respect tradition as a repository of answers to questions many of which we have forgotten. The Enlightenment has been described as a rejection of intuition and tradition; as such, it announced its hostility to education aimed at wisdom. Continue reading
“How is it you can keep so serene and stay so utterly insensible with a storm of shells and bullets raining about your head?”
“Captain Smith, my religious belief teaches me to feel as safe in battle as in bed. God has fixed the time for my death, I do not concern myself with that—but to be always ready, whenever it may overtake me. That is the way all men should live. Then all men would be equally brave.”
Thomas J. “Stonewall” Jackson in Gods and Generals (2003)
We Texans are at present legally entitled to evade the covid virus in whatever manner we think best. Masks are optional in public places, and hereabouts are seen on scarcely one Texan in ten. Private businesses are at liberty to require masks, but those that mask their employees seem happy to ring up sales to unmasked customers. This wanton and barefaced liberty extends even to the inmates of government schools, primary, secondary, tertiary, and quaternary alike. Continue reading
Does he want to injure, or heal? Is he base, or noble? Would he transgress and so ruin his patrimony, or elaborate and so glorify it?
It is in practice pretty easy to tell, no? It is not after all so hard to parse this, or therefore to decide which side deserves your lot. Go then; decide. Which poet shall you heed?
There is in the final analysis nothing else that is in your power. Everything else, from the morning coffee to the changing of the diaper to the valor of the battlefield is a faint echo – a mighty, magnificent, immensely important echo – of this basic decision.
Is it about you, you worm? Or is it about something more? If it is about something more, then: is it about the Ultimate, or is it about something damnably less?
Let’s on with it then, brothers. Into the fray. Deus vult!
If there is heaven, you would be stupid to forego it by some short term evanescent and unrighteous, ergo in all likelihood maladaptive worldly foolishness. So you would be less likely to engage in short term and mere worldly foolishness (on the contrary, you’d want to be a holy fool!). With eyes always turned to the infinite prize, you would be less likely to grab at – or, a fortiori, work for, or pay for, or sacrifice for – any other, lesser good in contravention thereto.
The intention toward sempiternal life in Heaven, then, tends to social health here below.
This is why it is so important to social health to take religion seriously.
[In the spirit of Ambrose Bierce.]
Note: Most of these definitions assume a certain point of view without which they become incoherent.
Fundamentalist. Noun. When you believe your religion is true and / or you support your people. Synonyms: bιgοτ, deplorable, suprεmαcιsτ.
Mansplain. Verb. To be competent and confident.
Equity. Noun. More for us, less for you.
Democracy. Noun. A political outcome or system which gives results we like.
Fαscιsμ. Noun. A political outcome or system which gives results you like. Synonyms: ωhιtε sυprεmαcy, institutional rαcιsm.
Protestor. Noun. Someone publicly taking our side.
Rioter. Noun. Someone publicly taking your side.
Diverse. Adjective. More of us, fewer of you. Synonyms: vibrant, inclusive.
Tolerant. Adjective. Demanding things be done our way.
Intolerant. Adjective. Wanting things to be done your way.
Cμlτμrαl αρρroρrιατιοη. Noun. When you play with our toys and we hαtε it because we hαtε you.
Rαcιsτ. 1) (Archaic noun) One who hαtεs people only because of their rαcε. 2) Adjective. The quality possessed by anything nonωhιτεs don’t like. 3) Noun or Adjective. ωhιtε people and their activities and achievements.
Science. Noun. A discipline or study which confirms our beliefs.
Superstition. Noun. A so-called discipline or study which denies our beliefs.
Crιτιcαl Rαcε Thεοry. Proper noun. You bad, we good.
Whιτε Prινιlεgε. Noun. Your ancestors established the culture of their nation according to their preferences.
Hαtε. Noun. Disagreement with our doctrine.
Love. Noun. Agreement with our doctrine.
I harp from time to time on the first and crucial importance of linguistic tradition, as the indispensable foundation of almost all others. We cannot very well maintain a social order if in discussing it we have no way to be each and all clear on what it is, exactly, we are talking about.
This is no original thought. Confucius was saying the same thing 2500 years ago. And Orwell saw clearly that deforming the language would deform – and ruin – culture.
The Leftist Establishment is hard at the ruin of language, with the recent risible emphasis on pronoun protocol.
“And, above all else, these angry Western men detest feminism.”
Mary Harrington, “It’s Horrifying how some Young Western Men are so Alienated by Woke Culture that They Even Admire the Taliban’s Twisted Mindset.” Daily Mail (August 28, 2021)
“Feminism was one of the biological factors involved in the downfall of the [Roman] empire . . . . No civilization has ever been able to survive after the natural biological differentiation of the sexes was weakened.”
Paul Popenoe, The Conservation of the Family (1926)
“The only groups in the United States reproducing at rates far above replacement are located in certain rural areas . . . remote from those educational and cultural influences which are symbolic of social progress.”
Paul Henry Landis, Population Problems (1943).
The author of my first epigraph agrees with Orthosphere commenter a.morphous that unfeminized Western men are quietly cheering the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan because the bearded blitzkrieg represents a small victory for patriarchy. She makes the usual progressive error of projecting her leftist love of abstractions onto the right. Whether we are young or old, angry or jolly, alienated or adapted, unfeminized Western men love particulars, not abstractions. In the case at hand, we love our own particular people, both male and female, and advocate patriarchy as necessary to their welfare.
So long as our own people is staggering under the multiple maladies of foul feminism, however, we are not in the least bit consoled by the thought that the beacon of patriarchy is burning on a dusty hill on the other side of the world. Continue reading
Steven Pinker writes books proclaiming that, thanks to the Enlightenment, everything is getting better and better. Traditionalists will beg to differ, and it does not suit progressives whose plans for the future are based around the idea that everything now and in the past is just terrible, to clear the ground for their planned utopia.
One of Pinker’s claims is that worldwide poverty has gone from 90% suffering from extreme poverty to just 10% – an astonishing reversal that is, of course, dependent on how poverty is defined. He also points out that violence and wars have diminished considerably, with far fewer dying in battles as a percentage of the population as was the case in the past. Missing from his analysis is any spiritual component. Traditionalists will argue that there may have been improvements in material conditions, but architecture is uglier than ever. Medieval cathedrals represented a high point for the love of beauty inspired by love of God and notions of the transcendent. These last two things are sorely diminished and largely replaced by hatred of imagined oppressors who are to be hunted down, excluded from the political process as much as possible, and silenced. The all-powerful oppressors can be conveniently identified by skin color, even if they themselves are dispossessed Appalachian mountain dwellers, or working class folk scraping by. So, Pinker misses an extreme spiritual impoverishment represented by ersatz religions aimed at heaven on earth achieved through scapegoating by a Gnostic elect who have somehow arrived at all the correct moral positions denied to the benighted knuckle-draggers.
Charles Haywood of the The Worthy House in a podcast, also available as a short article, On Battlefield V, addresses the question of how movie studios and video game manufacturers could continue making movies and video games that are detested by their audiences. Battlefield V cost $250 million to make with expected sales of one billion. By pushing a Woke agenda and anachronistically populating WWII battlefields with female soldiers, the giant gaming company Electronic Arts, halved their customers. Contemporary Star Trek and Star Wars movies similarly revile the males who make up the bulk of their past audience. It is now routine for tiny and weak actresses to pretend to beat up jacked men twice their size. A new apogee is being reached with Thor being played by microscopic Natalie Portman. The men who played the part had in the past worked hard to build giant muscles on their impressive physiques. For those of us utterly indifferent to comic book movie nonsense it is irrelevant except as a cultural bellwether. Continue reading
“When kings are kings, and kings are men—
And the lonesome rain is raining!
O who shall rule from the red throne then,
And who shall covet the scepter when—
When the winds are all complaining?”
James Whitcombe Riley, “The Flying Islands of the Night” (1878)
Orthosphere readers a.morphous and Scoot are engaged in a gentlemanly exchange of views in the comment thread of my recent post, their polite back-and-forth enriched with additional comments by Kristor. I have been silent because I have been, for the better part of the past few days, glued to the steering wheel of an automobile. While glued to that steering wheel, I did however brood on certain points that a.morphous and Scoot raised, once going so far as to jot a note as I stiffly hobbled across the hot tarmac of a raucous roadside rest area. Continue reading
The tradition of modernity is to repudiate tradition per se. It’s right there in the term: ‘modern’ is from Late Latin modernus, from Latin modo, “just now.” So ‘modern’ means “what is just now.”
Traditionalists take the modern tradition with utmost seriousness, thoroughness, and consistency: they repudiate the tradition of modernity.
Traditionalists are the iconoclasts of iconoclasm. So likewise are they then the true postmodernists. In their hearts and in their minds, and so far as is possible in their acts, they live into whatever it is that shall inevitably ensue, once modernity has finished eating itself, and collapsed; once the people have awakened and shaken it off like a nightmare or Soviet Communism.
Traditionalists are ransacking the cupboards on the morning after Belshazzar’s Feast, looking for the coffee as the sour dregs of the Party lapse into biliary nausea, bitter existential regret, and alcoholic coma, and as the Persians begin to assemble their siege engines.