My Version of the Parable

Three men prayed in an otherwise empty Chuch. One, sitting in a pew, went down onto his knees, quiet, head bowed. He spoke to Christ, but with his voice low. God commended this man as good. This was the kneeling man

One man went and knelt at the very foot of the Cross, in the front of the Church. He raised his hands out in supplication to God, and sang a hymn, low at first, then louder as he got caught up in his prayer. He cried out to God in thanks, and asked God for his mercy. And God commended this man as good. This was the singing man.

The third man sat in the back of the Church, and had been on his knees praying quietly like the kneeling man. When the second man started singing, he appeared to the first man to grow more and more agitated. Finally, to the kneeling man’s mild horror, he walked over to the singing man and whispered something in his ear, and the kneeling man was sure the singing man would stop singing. But he just smiled wider and sang louder while the third man stood awkwardly for a moment before sitting back down.

The kneeling man shook his head and thought to himself “I shall call that third man the Pharisee; for look at how he tried to interrupt the joy of a child of God singing his praises and calling his name! What a terrible thing that is!”

And God responded, Oh foolish man, that third man is not the Pharisee, but a true Christian. For he did not ask for him to stop singing, but to add him to his prayers.

The only Pharisee here, kneeling one, is you.

My attempt to translate Steve Gershom’s parable post into an actual parable.

Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments

In Other News…

Just auditioned for Hamlet and utterly bombed. Blanked on my monologue, sputtered and had to look at my phone. Just terrible.

Got a callback.


Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment


I will say that this is probably the best and more careful argument I’ve seen Mr. Wright write about his point of view on authority. And some of it seems to be a fair attempt to argue the superiority of a republic over a monarchy – whether it is successful or not this is a perfectly fine and reasonable debate to have.

But I still have some issues with it.

Note: Spacing is going to be weird because I copied much of this from somewhere else and I don’t find it important enough to bother to fix things.

EDIT: Fixed!

The submission to an elected representative, or winning an election, is not the same as being born in service or born into leadership. One is by birth, hence unrelated to merit; the other is based on the ability to persuade voters to vote for you.

This is quite simply untrue. Let us say I vote for a different representative, or did not vote at all, as a form of protest. I am not thus exempt from submitting to the elected representative, nor was I allowed to pick the government I was born under; I was simply born there.

Mr. Wright seems to think that everyone who disagrees with him is actually a monarchist. I am not a monarchist. Even if I did think monarchy was probably the best form of government – I don’t know this is the case – I still would not have any particular desire to be above or below Mr. Wright.

Another form of the argument is to point out that it is self evident that all men are created equal, and therefore the form of government rests on their consent, or else it is unjust. Where men are equal, the process of changing the form of government can be accomplished peacefully; whereas those who profit from an unequal form rarely if ever surrender power peacefully.

This argument is pertinent only when dealing with brave, free and honest men, who are too proud to bow to any mere mortal as king. The studied policy of the Left for several generations has been to eliminate as far as possible those things which encourage bravery, freedom, and honesty from our lives.

The public school system teaches conformity, non-competition and girlishness to drive out bravery; the popular entertainments preach and the welfare state pays money to encourage selfishness and self-indulgence to drive out freedom; and the news preaches political correctness to drive out honesty.

A people who are craven, slavish, and dishonest not only yearn for superiors to rule them, they require it.

Both of these arguments are conditional, and depend on the habits and the character of the people, to make the correct assessment as to where the greater danger rests.

Likewise, most nations for most of history consist of a ruling class peopled with the descendants of conquerors. Maintaining their hold over the conquered requires a class division. The abolition of civil rights among the conquered, in order to prevent their arming themselves, speaking of uprising, or gathering in assemblies, is needed to police their discontent and prevent mutiny. Such states, however, do prevent anarchy. The overthrow of such states is not a matter to be undertaken for light or transient reasons.

Hence, even when among a slavish and undisciplined people whose disorders demand a despot’s iron scepter to crush their excesses, the natural rights of one and all are equal, and the legal inequalities are still a moral evil, excused by the necessity of keeping the public order.

So all men are created equal…but not Americans. Americans, you see, are good and noble enough to shun kings. It’s only the inferior folk – one might, in fact, say those who are unequal to us – who need a boot on their throat.

And I guess he is a utilitarian, since he says point blank that moral evil can be “excused” for a greater good. Since he has been very clear this whole time that moral evil is directly related to political authority, I guess he believes the ends justify the means.

…Or he doesn’t mean that. In which case, what exactly is he saying? Is monarchy ever a good idea? Or is it is never a good idea? And if it is a good idea, what on earth would make you think that a country that within a mere 200 years legally sanctioned by the sword the murder of the unborn in numbers that make a mockery of the Holocaust is in any way fit to be kings of themselves?

In the final desperation of a man whose arguments are not being heard, I resort to a simple and clear challenge:

Do those who yearn for inequality wish to be placed in the political order above me, to give me orders from an unearned position of authority; or do they wish to be placed below me, to take orders in an undeserved posture of submission?

Certainly I do not think any man is under me or over me in terms of human dignity. In terms of political authority? I’d imagine we should probably be on the same plane…though if he WERE my king, unlike him, I would indeed tip my cap.

If you’re wondering why I’m saying this here and not there, I did try and discuss it with him, several months ago. He insulted me viciously, cruelly, and repeatedly while I tried to be as polite as possible. He then apologized. I accepted. But I’ve learned that I simply cannot discuss the subject with him, in any case.

I say that if it is the second, claiming to be below me, then as the superior, I here and now order and command silence on this point. As an inferior in political rank, political matters are beyond your ken. Without any showing of merit on my part, or any reason given, I am allowed to silence all further argument: you are by birth born obligated to obey me. So shut up.

I believe one respondent argued that this proposal was unfair, because a highborn man should be highminded enough to listen to wisdom from any source, even from a slave.

My answer is that this is quite the democratic sentiment coming from a monarchist: but the judgment as to when and where to listen rests with he who has the right to speak, and not with he who lacks that right.

A general can debate a private if he wishes, but the private cannot debate a general without his superior’s leave. (And even so, the general is not allowed to hold such a debate if and when it risks detracting from unit discipline, by encouraging familiarity, fraternization, or insolence.)

And finally – what makes him think that our country’s political leaders in any way need to listen to the writings of anybody they consider “beneath” them? Last I checked the President picked a personal council of advisers to carefully filter what advice they did or did not get. How is that different than any king deciding which advice he does or does not hear? Even Alexander the Great respected Diogenes.

A large portion of this is a very well-argued and rational argument for the superiority of republics over monarchies. Okay. I have no problem with that. And then he veers off into stuff that I find completely bizarre.


Posted in Uncategorized | 10 Comments

No, There’s No Equality Before God Either

Get ready, kids. This one is gonna be fun.

Let us consider me: I am a middle class white suburbanite. I had an excellent childhood with a loving family, was raised in a Catholic home, and went to a Catholic high school and college, where I took orthodox theology classes with brilliant teachers. I considered very briefly the Priesthood at one point, but not seriously enough to pursue the matter. If I commit to any vocation, it will almost certainly be marriage. My “reach”, to coin a phrase, will ultimately end up being rather modest (the reason we see more unmarried than married Saints is actually quite simple – those who are married need to be concerned with their own families, but the clergy have much broader responsibilities).

Let us consider an African orphan child. He has only the vaguest concept of Christianity and knows very little about it. Frankly, his future vocation doesn’t really concern him so much as not starving to death. His “reach” is going to be small as is, and in regards to inspiring people to follow Christ, almost non-existent.

Let’s consider Pope Francis, the head of the universal Church, vicar of Christ, Bishop of Rome, Monarch of the Vatican. To this day the preeminent world religious leader. Millions, perhaps billions, look to him daily for spiritual guidance. His reach is enormous, his responsibility tremendous.

All three of us die on the same day, struck by lightning. Does God cast down the exact same judgment on all three of us, accounting for all of our sins in exactly the same way?

I certainly hope not. I hope God judges all three of us *very* unequally.

The Indian caste system is the example I see most often for a society that does not believe all men are equal before God, because of the “Untouchable” caste and the historically horrible treatment they have been confronted with throughout history. But this actually has nothing to do with equality before God. It has to do with two things:

  1. Bad logic. There is of course no good reason for us to believe that the untouchables deserve their terrible lot. To think they do is sheer ignorance (which nowadays is often confused with “bigotry” and “racism”. They’re not the same thing, though ignorance in some ways is the most harmful). It’s simply wrong.
  2. Not giving them the dignity due to all men. As human beings, they are indeed created in the image of God, and thus deserve to be treated as such. We shall call this the standard baseline for treatment of human beings – a level of respect and care due to all mankind, no matter what.

The problem with the Untouchables, then, has nothing to do with them not being equal, either before the throne of God or politically. It has to do with the much more fundamental issue of them not being treated like humans at all, but like animals.

There is a lot more to say – indeed, I started to say it, then started backspacing – but I’ll leave this here to chew on for now.

Related Reading: How the “good kind” of equality leads to mass murder.

Posted in Uncategorized | 16 Comments

Right and Wrong and Right and Wrong…

I’ll cop to being wrong about my post “An Observation”; it seems that even those who express a legitimate issue with the Shield Maiden as role model for women genuinely don’t see Wondie in that precise role. Hey, cool, fine. I’ve been wrong before, I’ll be wrong again. I’m trying to admit it more.

Consider this post a hashing out of thoughts. I’ve thought about it, and I still remain very much unconvinced that “Wonder Woman” is the sort of film we should be supporting. Each time I explain it, I feel as if people don’t get it. Maybe I’m not being clear enough? For example, I’m honestly not sure why my opinion on whether or not “Harry Potter” is pro-consequentialism matters. I don’t think it is, actually, but if you think you can convince me, I’ll hear you out when I (or you, if you have your own blog) get around to discussing Harry Potter. And then we can go from there on whether or not the HP franchise is something we should be giving money to. I think all sorts of different things differentiate the two franchises, in ways that are actually pretty complex…but I’m talking about “Wonder Woman”, not Harry Potter.

Zippy brought up Harry Potter, but he’s just one of a few people now, and it makes a good example; he’s not the first person to go “Well, haha, you supported X property, now why won’t you support Y property!”. I am admittedly confused as to why people think this matters so much to my argument, such as it is, about “Wonder Woman”. If you want to discuss whether other properties would also fall under my “Wonder Woman” arguments, go right ahead; I’d be happy to join you…on a thread not about “Wonder Woman”. Whether I am a mean old hypocrite is really besides the point of these posts.

As for not supporting the creators of the work…I am sure Gal Godot and Patty Jenkins love their mothers and have wonderful families. I am also sure that even if the movie *on its own* (except it’s not on its own, of course) failed as attempted propaganda, I think the video I linked to earlier, along with the marketing campaign, makes it pretty much undeniable that they were absolutely attempting to make propaganda – propaganda pushing feminism, and thus propaganda promoting the effective end of western civilization. I am not giving those fools money – and nor should any of you. It is exactly the same reason I didn’t give “Rogue One” my money – they came out explicitly against me and what I stand for. Very well; I am now against you too, and whether or not your movie is good matters not a whit to me. This is, of course, just one factor, and not necessarily a large one (people I don’t agree with are going to make stuff I nevertheless enjoy, and there’s not much I could or should do about that), but it is a factor.

Okay. So let’s pivot, and take a look at the Hugo Awards. The arguments underlying the Puppies campaigns in the Hugo Awards were that conservative works (works by conservatives or with an unmistakable pro-conservative, or at least American right wing, ideology) were basically unofficially blackballed from being nominated or winning the award; the Sad Puppies was an attempt to get conservative properties nominated to see if, once they were there, people would be willing to judge them fairly.

The answer, of course, turned out to be no, and those conservative works were consequently Noah Warded.

Now let’s look at what I’m proposing with “Wonder Woman” – a boycott. I support a boycott of “Wonder Woman” because it is the head of a Shibboleth that’s a part of the crusade to take down western civilization.

One point I’ve come around to over time is that many of the things we scream are bad, bad, bad are, in fact, necessary, to the point that we do them all the time without thinking. Of *course* there are philosophies so terrible we should never be supporting them, no matter how well written they are. If a brilliant movie comes out – really brilliant – that is ultra-pro-Marxist, I think the majority of my readers will agree that the movie should die a fast and well-deserved death. Literally everybody I know agrees with this to an extent.

The question, then, is this: Were the SJW’s right to think that conservative ideologies were so horrible that they should be blackballed for the good of society? Or were they completely insane?

I believe the latter.

And I think feminism is such a rotting, bleeding, soul-sucking cancer that we should be doing what we could to avoid supporting propaganda machines designed explicitly as feminist message vehicles.

Some disagree. Go ahead. But there you go.

Posted in Uncategorized | 11 Comments

The Societal Vacuum

I want to make it clear that I’m not really responding to anyone specifically so much as trying to explain myself here. I’m not sure how well I’m getting my thought process through.

How well “Wonder Woman” works as feminist propaganda *in a vacuum* is besides the point to me, because we don’t live in a vacuum. It might be (I haven’t seen it, though multiple people have told me this who I generally trust) true that the movie itself, taken *completely* on its own, is poor propaganda. Which is good, I suppose.

But the movie was not made in a societal vacuum. It was made in a society where men are emasculated more and more by the day and female eunuchs are being declared praiseworthy. That we don’t see this in the movie proper isn’t really the point, because that is what people are going to read into it – what they *want* people to read into it, and – and this is critical – *what people are in fact reading into it*.

The marketing and advertising and framing of the movie is a big deal here. If “Wonder Woman” were marketed as a superhero movie celebrating femininity qua femininity, masculinity qua masculinity, how traditional sexual roles are important for a healthy society, and how feminine virtues can be utilized for their proper – or if it were made in an environment where such a thing wasn’t really questioned at all, like “Nausicaa” – we would be having an entirely different conversation. Ditto if we were in a society that understood implicitly that such a thing was an exception, not the rule, and should remain one.

But we don’t live in that society. We live in a society where Wondie the eunuch is being celebrated as a role model for women to aspire to, and the helpmeet role of women is being continually denigrated. Then there’s a movie out with a message that’s ambiguous enough that feminists, SJW’s, and even neutral non-conservative-but-not-radical mainstream folks watch and see exactly that, because they are being told – when the message isn’t explicitly stated otherwise –  that it *is exactly what they’re supposed to see*. Hence you get Gal Gadot and Patty Jenkins staring in awe at burly man-women rushing into battle as feminists burst into tears, walk out of the theater with strange feelings of ferociousness, and girly men cry over it with their girlfriend. It’s another case of weaponized ambiguity.

How do I know it’s ambiguous without watching it? Because I know people who see it as promoting conservative values AND people who see it promoting leftist values, each of them absolutely convinced they’re looking at it exactly the right way. The execution is flawless. “Wonder Woman” in that sense is one of the great feminist propaganda achievements of the modern age.

There is another way “Wonder Woman” could work. That would be if the feminist marketing and advertising was so poorly done that nobody took it seriously anyway – but that’s not the case now, in the real world, either. And we have to deal with reality.


Posted in Uncategorized | 39 Comments

Totally Not a Feminist Movie

I apologize a bit for the snark; people I know who are smart, who are Christian, who I respect, and who think quite a bit like I used to (and assuredly still do on certain things) love and defend “Wonder Woman”.

But, yeah, I’m going to mock it and arguments defending it, because it deserves to be mocked.

With that said:

But it’s totally not a feminist movie you guys.

(If you want to have a laugh, look up Patty Jenkins’ first movie, and then look at *this* movie, and ask yourself again why people are thinking of her as a “woman director” first. Why, it must be sexism, surely!)

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment