The Golden Transcendence 15: The Earthmind 1:54 PM (4 hours ago)
From THE GOLDEN TRANSCENDENCE, vol. III of my debut trilogy.
In the far future, the Golden Oecumene has elevated the immortals of the solar system to untrammeled triumphs of abundance, liberty, and splendor. But, hidden by masquerade, a sinister threat arises from the dark star Cygnus X1, man’s sole exosolar colony, the long-lost Silent Oecumene.
Phaethon of Rhadamanth, bedeviled and beguiled by agents of the Lords of the Silent Oecumene, returns from exile to confront them. He must battle them in the core of the Sun, the core of his mind and memory, and at the apex of all abstraction, when the Golden Transcendence gathers all minds in the solar system into one communion, and all truths are laid bare.
The Golden Transcendence Ep. 15: The Earthmind
The Gap in the God of the Gaps 8 Apr 7:58 PM (21 hours ago)
Pirates 8 Apr 7:02 AM (yesterday, 7:02 am)
Well, this is a little disturbing. My books are apparently available free of charge, read aloud, at this website:
https://readfrom.net/perpetrator/page,1,286665-superluminary.html
and here
https://readfrom.net/build_in_search/?q=john+c+wright
Looks like all of them.
Good grief. I do not mind the free advertising, if any book sales result, but I rather mind not getting paid for my work.
Not Tired of Winning Yet CCXVIII 7 Apr 3:29 PM (2 days ago)
- Supreme Court rules Trump has authority to use Alien Enemies Act against Venezuelan illegals. Judge Boasberg’s order is void.
The Supreme Court by 5-4 decision vacated the restraining order against Trump, and removed the Venezuelan deportee case away from Judge Boasberg (the ACLU engaged in forum shopping, and brought the case in the wrong venue).
SCOTUS says detainees entitled to some measure of due process. Here is a link to the opinion: supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf - President Trump has announced the U.S. will COMPLETELY eliminate capital gains tax this year. This may be a little premature, so we will see. The Congress is cooperating with the Trump agenda more unwillingly and slowly that expected.
St John of Damascus on the Prayer of Christ 6 Apr 3:27 PM (3 days ago)
My Lenten reading for this year, as I am trying to acquaint myself with the rich and vast legacy of the West, is the writings of Saint John of Damascus, the Last of the Early Church Fathers (675-750 AD). In his work DIALECTICA, John assiduously lists the fundamentals of philosophy, as well as the heresies of his day and before, before turning to theology in DE FIDE ORTHODOXA. Together, the works are titled THE FOUNT OF KNOWLEDGE.
John was born and raised in Damascus, behind enemy lines, for it had been conquered by the Mohammedan in 635 AD.
I here quote in full the saint’s summary of the Christian faith on the question of the Prayers of Christ.
Jesus prays in the Gospel at the tomb of Lazarus, and in His agony the Garden of Gethsemane the hour before His arrest and passion. This passage comes at the end of a description of orthodox trinitarianism, where the doctrine that Jesus Christ was fully human and fully divine is examined in excruciating detail.
One detail of that examination reveals that the humanity of Christ necessarily granted him human reason, human passions, and human vulnerability to temptation and natural fear.
Likewise, the divinity of Christ, while immune in His omnipotence from such passions, nonetheless allowed and ordained Him to suffer these woes and weaknesses, for, without this, He could not cure and unmake such woes and weaknesses in us.
The paradox of God the Son prayer to God the Father, when they are both one in being, is examined and clarified.
The words below are his.
Chapter 24:
Prayer is an ascent of the mind to God, or the asking God for things which are fitting. Then, how did the Lord pray in the matter of Lazarus, and at the time of His passion?
For, since Christ is one and His sacred mind was once and for all united hypostatically to God the Word, it neither needed to ascend to God nor to ask of God.
It was, rather, that He appropriated our appearance and impressed what was ours upon Himself. He became a model for us, He taught us to ask of God and to lift ourselves up to Him, and through His sacred mind He opened the way for us to ascend to God.
For, just as He endured the passions and gave us victory over them, so also does He pray and open up for us, as I said, the way to the ascent to God. And so, also, does He for our sake fulfill all justice, as He said to John, and reconcile His own Father to us and honor Him as principle and cause, thus showing Himself to be not adverse to God.
Thus, in the matter of Lazarus, when He said: ‘Father, I give thee thanks that thou hast heard me. And I knew that thou hearest me always; but because of the people who stand about have I said it, that they may believe that thou hast sent me,’ was it not made quite plain to all that He had said this to show that He honored His own Father as His own cause and that He Himself was not adverse to God?
When He said: ‘Father, if it be possible, let this chalice pass from me. Nevertheless, not as I will but as thou wilt,’ is it not clear to everyone that He is teaching us to ask help of God alone in times of trial and to put the divine will before our own, and that He is showing that He had truly made His own what is proper to our nature, and that He actually had two wills that are natural and correspond to His natures and are not mutually opposed?
‘Father,’ he says as being consubstantial, ‘if it be possible,’ not because He did not know — and what is impossible for God? — but to instruct us to put the divine will before our own. For this alone is impossible, namely, that which God does not wish and does not permit.
‘Nevertheless, not as I will but as thou wilt,’ He says as God, since He is of the same will as the Father, while at the same time He says it as man to show the natural will of His humanity, for this last naturally shrinks from death.
Now, the ‘My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?’ He said because He had appropriated our appearance. For, unless by subtle imaginings a distinction should be made between what is seen and what is thought, God as His Father would not be called ours.
Nor was He ever deserted by His divinity — on the contrary, it was ourselves who were left behind and overlooked.
And so He appropriated our appearance and prayed these things.
My comment: In the immediate next chapter, St. John expands on what he means by ‘an appearance.’ He is not proposing the heresy of the Docetists, which held the body of Christ to be a mere airy illusion without flesh. He is using the term in a fuller sense.
The words below are his.
Chapter 25:
One should, moreover, know that there are two kinds of appropriation, the one being natural and substantial and the other apparent (προσωρική) and relative. Now, the natural and substantial is that by which the Lord out of His love for man assumed both our nature and all that was natural to it, and in nature and in truth became man and experienced the things that are natural to man. It is apparent and relative, however, when one assumes the appearance (πρόσωπον) of another relatively, as out of pity or love, and in this other’s stead speaks words in his behalf which in no way concern himself.
It was by this last kind of appropriation that He appropriated our curse and dereliction and such things as are not according to nature, not because He was or had been such, but because He took on our appearance and was reckoned as one of us. And such is the sense of the words, ‘being made a curse for us.’
Chapter 26:
God’s Word Himself, then, endured all things in His flesh, while His divine nature, which alone is impassible, remained unaffected. For, when the one Christ made up of both divinity and humanity suffered, the passible part of Him suffered, because it was of its nature to suffer, but the impassible did not suffer with it. Thus, since the soul is passible, it does feel pain and suffer with the body when the body is hurt, although it itself is not hurt. The divinity, however, being impassible, does not suffer with the body.
And it should be known that, although we speak of God having suffered in the flesh, we by no means speak of the divinity suffering in the flesh or of God suffering through the flesh. For if, when the sun is shining upon a tree, the tree should be cut down by an axe, the sun will remain uncut and unaffected, then how much more will the impassible divinity of the Word hypostatically united with the flesh remain unaffected when the flesh suffers. And just as if one should pour water upon a red-hot iron, that which is naturally disposed to be affected by the water — the fire, I mean — will be quenched, while the iron remains unharmed, because it is not of its nature to be destroyed by the water; how much less did the divinity, which is alone impassible, endure the suffering of the flesh and still remain inseparable from it.
Now, examples do not have to be absolutely and unfailingly exact, for, just because it is an example, one must find in it that which is like and that which is unlike. For likeness in everything would be identity and not an example, which is especially true with divine things. So, in the matter of theology and the Incarnation, it is impossible to find an absolutely perfect example.
On Wisdom 4 Apr 8:00 AM (5 days ago)
Demanding evidence for the existence of God is a dishonest question, if one’s doubts are not based on lack of evidence.
Basic truths, that is, the axioms of thought, are affirmed or denied based on reasoning from first principles, not on evidence.
- The statement “Life has meaning” is not proved nor disproved by evidence. It is an axiom of ontology.
- Nor is the Law of Cause-and-Effect. It a metaphysical axiom of physics.
- Nor is the Law of Non-Contradiction. It is an axiom of logic.
- Nor is the Golden Rule. It is an axiom of ethics.
- Nor is the statement “Creation is evidence of a creator.” This is a statement not of fact, but of wisdom.
But the meaningfulness of life, causation, reason, morality and creation are all proofs of God.
Wisdom the ability to see the meaning of a fact, to regard it judiciously, which means, to see it in its proper proportion and context. Wisdom is a prerequisite to any understanding of the meaning of statements of fact.
The Fool in his heart says there is no God. This is not because the fool sees evidence nor fails to see it. Evidence is irrelevant to this question. He says there is no God because he is foolish, and so the meaning, context, and due proportion (without which evidence and reasoning on the question cannot be understood) are, indeed, not understood by him. Sin darkens the intellect. Folly blinds the fool.
Sadly, I speak from experience. I was the fool blinded by folly. Logic told me there was a moral order to the universe, on which all manmade law and custom must rest. I could not account for the origin of that moral order. I held it to be a product of objective reasoning, based on self-interest rightly understood, or survival instinct: this, despite that moral heroism involved selflessness, that is, love, and the the highest form of moral heroism involved self-sacrifice. A soldier in one instant might throw himself on a hand grenade to save his squad, or a mother over decades might sacrifice all her time and thought to her beloved children. I knew this, and, logical as I ever strove to be, if one lacks wisdom, one cannot see on which side of the pan the weight of evidence falls.
Most conclusions in life are not based on the syllogisms of formal logic. Rather, they are the accumulation of countless trivial experiences which only makes sense when seen in matrix of the pattern of evidence they form.
The atheist sees a pagan Summer King rite, or hears a Tartuffe speaking hypocrisy, or stumbles across Red propaganda demeaning the Crusades, or sees an adventure film depicting the Spanish Inquisition as sadistic, and so the whole idea of organized religion, therefor the idea of God, fall into disrepute in his imagination.
He decides all religions are equally mythical, and all myths are false, except Christian myths are the most false of all. They he reads Voltaire, Darwin, Freud and Marx, sees these men as scientists, not crackpots, and says that science evolved in the West despite, not due to, the Church. Everything good and fine in life he attributes to churchlessness.
Ontological arguments showing the necessity of an uncaused First Cause cannot dislodge this monument of contempt in his imagination.
Likewise, the monotheist reads the stark grandeur of the creation account of Book of Genesis, and compares that to the childish absurdity of Norse or Canaanite myths of gods licked out of iceflows by a primordial cow, or a storm-god killing his dragonish mother to build the cosmos from her corpse.
He compares the austerity, compassion and wisdom of real historical figures like St. Mary, St. Francis of Assisi, St. Thomas Aquinas, with the adultery, sodomy and parricide of pagan figures of Venus, Apollo, Jupiter.
He sees the stepped pyramids of Mexico adorned by bloodthirsty gods with goggle-eyes and protruding tongues, and compares that the soaring sublime architecture of the Cathedral at Chartres.
So he decides not all religions are equal, and perhaps not all denominations.
And then he hears the lies, the lies, the lies and the lies about lies from modern secular materialists, who self-identify as meat-robots, or imagines the smell from the endless killing fields and open mass graves in Lenin’s Russia, Stalin’s Ukraine, Mao’s China, or the pickled body parts of babies kept in jars on the desk of Kermit Gosnell.
Even maintaining a polite respect for his fellow atheists becomes increasingly difficult, as history puts on stark display what philosophers as ancient as Aristotle pointed out about the absurdity of communal ownership of common goods, or writers as wise as Moses and Confucius about the wickedness of pride and hypocrisy.
Was there ever an atheist who eschewed adultery? The private lives of Karl Marx and Ayn Rand do not bear close inspection. Was there ever a Muslim prophet who healed the sick and raised the dead?
On Dextrophobia 2 Apr 8:00 PM (6 days ago)
The Left eructate their favorite, default libel, and call all and sundry Fascist, including Rockefeller Republicans, Romney-style Uniparty-folk, Law-biding Libertarians, and mainstream Democrats.
By Left logic, all patriots are racist, and all racists are White Supremacist, even Larry Elder, and no black is racist, including Joy Reid. All White Supremacists are Fascist, therefore all patriots, regardless of party, regardless of race, are Fascist.
(Whether Leftists apply this notion to patriots of nonwhite nations, China or Congo, I leave to others to investigate. Self-inconsistency is a core leftwing value).
This is nonsense on stilts. Let us introduce a modicum of reason.
Let us define our terms.
What is Fascism?
As described by Mussolini, who coined the term, fascism is the combination of corporate power and political power into socialist totalitarianism: “All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.”
Confusion arises because Mussolini was decidedly mystical and unclear in his description.
Mussolini seems to use a political form of Apophatic theology to describe fascism, much as St John of Damascus used when describing the indescribable and infinite Supreme Being. He says what it is not, and never clearly says what it is.
Mussolini says fascism is a spiritual and heroic vision of man. This is vague enough to mean anything, but he means it to denounce the materialism of Marxism and the individualism of democracy. He says the state must shape and train man to contribute to progress, not merely act as a nightwatchman protecting his goods and seeing to his physical wellbeing.
Mussolini is as decidedly vague about the progressive goal of the state as Nietzsche is about the Superman. Progress is given as a good, without any mention of aim or direction.
Mussolini says man has no meaning outside his place in history, for he is formed by the state, and not, as Marx would have it, formed by the means of production, or material factors of history.
The unclarity of Mussolini grows like a rolling snowball as one reads on. He rejects socialism as materialistic, liberalism as non-spiritual, democracy as mere aggregations of numbers.
He is against trade unionism as a communist enemy of state unity, but a champion of any workingman or trade union who takes up a proper place and role within the state.
Mussolini condemns both republics and monarchies with a sneer, saying either can be more reactionary or more progressive than the other.
“The State, as conceived and realized by Fascism, is a spiritual and ethical entity for securing the political, juridical, and economic organization of the nation, an organization which in its origin and growth is a manifestation of the spirit. The State guarantees the internal and external safety of the country, but it also safeguards and transmits the spirit of the people, elaborated down the ages in its language, its customs, its faith. The State is not only the present; it is also the past and above all the future. ”
Thus Mussolini waxes poetic.
He goes on in like vein:
“The State educates the citizens to civism, makes them aware of their mission, urges them to unity; its justice harmonizes their divergent interests; it transmits to future generations the conquests of the mind in the fields of science, art, law, human solidarity; it leads men up from primitive tribal life to that highest manifestation of human power, imperial rule. ”
In other words, Fascism is idolatry of the State, assigning to it the role of father and king and priest and prophet. Caesar is Christ.
Mussolini seems to be a student of Hobbes, regarding the Leviathan of the state as a manmade god, but where Hobbes was cynical and materialist, Mussolini is romantic, drunk on dreams and blood and conquest, heroism and self-sacrifice, yearning for the lost glories of Imperium.
Unfortunately, Mussolini is so poetical and vague, that nothing much can be said about fascism aside from a craving for nationalistic totalitarianism: and Communists, who are gnostic totalitarians, despise nationalism in all its forms, and so calls any patriot, even a republican who insists on limited government, or a libertarian who insists on unhindered free markets, or anyone else not a communist a ‘fascist.’
The word is useful for describing Italian and German socialist nationalist totalitarians in the Godless Century (1912-2012).
Otherwise the word ‘fascist’ is merely a noise-word, indicating an emotion of hatred and fear, having no relation to external reality. When applied to non-threats, it is a sign of neurosis, or paranoia.
The neurosis may be called Dextrophobia, the hysterical hallucination that anyone to the political right forms a fascist menace when there is no fascism and no menace.
The Golden Transcendence 14: Daphne Prime and Tercius 2 Apr 9:08 AM (7 days ago)
From THE GOLDEN TRANSCENDENCE, vol. III of my debut trilogy.
In the far future, the Golden Oecumene has elevated the immortals of the solar system to untrammeled triumphs of abundance, liberty, and splendor. But, hidden by masquerade, a sinister threat arises from the dark star Cygnus X1, man’s sole exosolar colony, the long-lost Silent Oecumene.
Phaethon of Rhadamanth, bedeviled and beguiled by agents of the Lords of the Silent Oecumene, returns from exile to confront them. He must battle them in the core of the Sun, the core of his mind and memory, and at the apex of all abstraction, when the Golden Transcendence gathers all minds in the solar system into one communion, and all truths are laid bare.
The Golden Transcendence Ep. 14: Daphne Prime and Tercius
On Unisexuality 1 Apr 10:39 AM (8 days ago)
I here repost a column from a dozen years ago, sadly still relevant.
Those raised on the politically correct dogma of unisexualism never encounter the idea that men and women are different, except in trivial or arbitrary ways, and certainly never encounter the idea that these differences are highly desirable, whether arbitrary or not.
The doctrine of unisexuality is a by-product of the doctrine that all human interactions, particularly between the sexes, is a war between oppressor and oppressed, exploiter and victim, a condition of mutual recrimination and hatred, with no possible conciliation.
Those who promote this doctrine to its logical extreme are forced to conclude that all differences between the sexes are a conspiracy of men to exploit and oppress women, and that the only path to liberation is to abolish insofar as possible all differences and marks of difference. For the radical feminist, any sign of femininity is akin to the yellow star worn by ghetto Jews, a brand of surrender to oppression.
As with all doctrines issuing from the Cultural Marxism, this one goes by a deceptive name. It is called Feminism, as if it aided females, rather than demeaned and denatured and harmed them.
It calls its opposition Sexism, as if to admire and celebrate the complimentary differences of the sexes were race-hatred applied to the opposite sex rather than applied to a race.
A proper name for the doctrine is unisexualism: the theory that men should be feminine and women should be masculine in order that both be equal and therefore at both sexes be at peace.
It could equally be called unsexualism, the Orwellian program of eliminating sex altogether.
In other words, the theory is that any difference between the sexes creates conflict and exploitation.
The true name of its opposition is Romance: the theory that men should be masculine so that life is charged with wonder and heroism and drama for women, and that women should be feminine, so that life should be filled with beauty and love and drama for men, in order that both have lust and infatuation and romance and friendship and ecstasy and divinity, and both be happy, and therefore at both sexes be at peace.
In other words, the theory is that treating women like short and weak dickless men with boobs leads to contempt and conflict and exploitation.
The two theories rest on opposite ideas of the cause of any conflict between the sexes.
As a visual aid to the discussion, allow me to introduce exhibit A, a scene from the 1990’s Disney film A GOOFY MOVIE.
Now, the question for any interested students of romance is this. Which one of these characters is masculine and which feminine?
Theoretically, since these are not only animated characters, they are anthropomorphs or humanized animals with doggy noses, it should be impossible to tell their sex, since they posses no real sexual characteristics. We do not see either one of them giving birth nor nursing, for example. I am using these as an example precisely because they posses gender without possessing a sex; that is, they possess social or ceremonial or symbolic sexual signs without possessing physical, mental or spiritual reality under those signs.
Second, was there any doubt in any mind, even for a split second, which character was which?
Is there even the slightly question in any mind that the animators intend Roxanne to be the female anthropomorph in the scene?
Ergo all the clues your mind picked up where in the voice, demeanor, or costuming. One had long hair, a higher pitched voice, with long eyelashes adorning large eyes.
More to the point, despite the fact that Roxanne is the one making the introductory move, an aggressive role usually reserved to the male, at no point is she masculine or unfeminine.
Indeed, this is cutie pie femininity at its most saccharine. Even I, ardent pro-Romantic that I am, find this lovestruck teen puppy love scene of, well, puppies in love almost too sweet for my taste. But fear not! There is even a MORE sickly sweet form of purely sugary femininity at large in the world. The Japanese have made a special science of cutie pie girlishness, and have a special word for it: Kawaii.
Here is a sample. Brace yourselves.
Now, please note again, that none of these girls are nursing or giving birth. The clues that they are feminine (or, rather, hyper-feminine) are deliberately exaggerated by several factors. They are too young to wed (except in Alabama with parent’s consent); they are dressed in bright yet soft colors with flowers in their hair, in costumes that might as well be “cosplay” costumes. Note how they hold their hands and make their gestures, again, with exaggerated delicacy and youthfulness, clapping and smiling, singing, dimpling their cheeks with their fingers, bubbling with enthusiasm.
There is no trace of sober, solemn gravity in these girls. They are not standing on their virginal dignity and freezing the hearts of men with the cold purity of their unsmiling glances. They are not acting like warlords or crowned kings or Supreme Court Justices.
Now, at this point, a unisexualist might say, “But wait! None of these behaviors or gestures are natural and spontaneous! All are artificial! Therefore all are a cruel attempt to exploit, enslave, humiliate women! It proves all men are rapists who hate women!”
Unfortunately, the leap of logic between saying “this is artifice” and saying “this is an enemy attack prompted by hatred” is wider than the Grand Canyon.
Contemplate the exaggeration of infantile characteristics: this girls are absurdly girlish. The unisexualist, analyzing everything in terms of a remorseless Darwinian struggle to extermination, would assume the evil rapist-patriarch-oppressor wishes his victims small and weak so that he might more easily conquer and ravish them. The romantic, analyzing things in terms of reality, recognizes that healthy men have a natural desire to protect women and children whose lives he innately recognizes as more vulnerable and therefore more precious than his own. The romance of being a superman who rescues a Lois Lane that otherwise would not notice you is also not far from the core of masculine thought.
Unisexualists want men to be weak and women to be strong for the same reason they want Nazis to be weak and Jews to be strong: only an equality of strength can suspend the Darwinian war of mutual extermination between male and female. The mere fact that there is no such war and never has been is something that cannot occur to the unisexualist.
The Romantic man wants men to be strong because it is heroic, and romantic women want men to be strong because it is sexy. No girl wants to swoon into the arm of a man who will drop her, or be carried off by a prince on a white stallion too physically unfit to pick her up and carry her off.
Let us introduce exhibit three, which include not only girls dressed in “kawaii” outfits with giant hearts on their bosoms, but also girls dressed a greasers from the 50’s, an era in America which was particularly romantic after the horror of world war were passed, and popular culture attempted to exaggerate masculine and feminine characteristics:
Sorry, no English subtitles here. However, I am pretty confident that it is a love song of some sort.
Note that the fight scenes still take place in the masculine role: the girl dressed like a greaser is still fighting for the girl dressed like a bobbysoxer. (Girl-on-guy violence is portrayed as cheek-pulling, not known to cause death on the battlefield.)
Note here that the girls when dressed as guy still look very girlish, as if dressing up as guy merely emphasizes that they are not guys. They are still cute, that is, cute enough attractive to the opposite sex, or, considering their young age, cute enough to bring out fatherly feeling of protectiveness and admiration in men.
But guys in drag look comical, i.e. not sexually attractive to women.
Unisexualists might simply deny this fact, since their whole philosophy and mindset rest on denying facts for their appeal. But supposing it were admitted, the unisexualist might say that girls-as-guys are judged differently from guys-as-girls because and only because of a cruel, foolish, and evil and arbitrary social value judgment intent on humiliating and exterminating gays and sissies, and therefore while the fact of the difference exists, the difference must be abolished in the name of social justice.
What the unisexualist cannot admit, lest the entire philosophy collapse, it is that females look for different sexual characteristics than males in selecting a mate.
Females are less shallow than men, and tend to think in the longer term: they want permanence. Whether there are evolutionary reasons for this based on the fact that men father children but women bear and nurse them, I leave for others to discuss: if it is evolutionary, it is an example of evolution following and reinforcing common sense.
Men are shallow. I use the term not in a derogatory way, but merely to point out that they tend to be sexually stimulated visually. They are looking for surface features. Common sense would tend to argue that seeking a mate able to bear children, and seeking to rear one’s own child rather than fall victim to a Cuckoo, a father should seek youth and health and energy and zest in a woman, because child-rearing is exhausting, and a young woman is more likely to be a virgin, and a virgin cannot, absent supernatural intervention, bear another man’s child as a changeling for your own.
Likewise, common sense would urge the woman to seek an older male with high rank and status, a good provider and protector, someone able to clothe and feed and shelter Mom and junior, as well as drive off wolves and predators, both (in ancient times) literal wolves, and (in modern) figurative. Hence, she should look for confidence, courage, aggressiveness, competence. She wants a winner.
The unisexualist might at this point shriek and whine and scream in outrage (they cannot discuss things in a normal tone of voice) ‘But why, oh, why should the standards of what the two sexes find romantic be different! Now that dishwashers have been invented, and microwave ovens, women do not need to nurse, and in a welfare state, Uncle Sam will provide both paycheck and protection to the young mother! There is no need for men to be manly! In fact, manliness and aggression, causing wars and arguments, creates unhappiness and should be abolished!’
Well, the only proper response to this argument is to state that it is false. Even a cursory examination of single-parent Moms raising multiple bastards sired of multiple live-in boyfriends on public welfare shows the children have absurdly high chances of ending up in one self destructive behavior or another, from drug abuse to juvenile delinquency, to petty vandalism. Likewise, the child murder rate has climbed, since the number one cause of child murder is at the hands of a live-in boyfriend not a blood relation of the child.
A man does not need an aggressive show-offish macho woman to mother his children, only a fiercely loyal one. The characteristics being discussed here, cuteness and sweetness are signifiers of that loyalty. But a woman needs an aggressive macho man to drive away wolves, both the masher kind and the bill collector kind.
A girl dressed as a guy does not seem less cute and sweet to a guy; but a guy dressed as a girl does seem less macho to a girl.
Now to the main point: the unisexualist is forever terrified that the war where men try to enslave women in preparation to exterminating them will break out. Hence the unisexualist is forever terrified of a completely imaginary therefore completely manageable danger: that is, a danger with none of the inconveniences of a real danger.
They are are terrified that girls acting artificially girlish will trigger the apocalypse and a return of the Dark Age, that is, circa AD 1950, when women where bought and sold in public markets like cattle, and forced to fight each other to death in the gladiatorial arena with whips while dressed like catwoman in a skintight leather catsuit and nosebleed high heels.
Unisexualists do not want to see the return of the dystopia portrayed in A HANDMAID’S TALE by Margaret Atwood. That such a society never existed is a fact that does not concern them: they are not concerned with fact, but with emotions, particularly hysterical emotions.
So they would argue that girls acting artificially girlish is a dangerous thing, and may trigger a sudden epidemic of rape and wifebeating. In order to avoid this danger, it is important to raise boys to think that girls are just as strong and aggressive as boys, to take girls off the pedestal and encourage boys to beat them as equals.
Likewise, it is important to train girls to think they can outbox and outwrestle boys taller and bigger than they, and disregard reaction time, reach, grip-strength, muscle mass, lung capacity, and weight class. Featherweight girls can beat heavyweight bruisers and linebackers built like apes because it is thoughtcrime to think otherwise.
In other words, what the unisexuals advocate to decrease the danger increases it.
The utter illogic of this is invisible to the unisexuals: they are a unconcerned with logic as they are with facts.
Attempts at equality are counterproductive: women in roles of power, even the ablest of queens or businesswomen, wrestle with neurosis and unhappiness. Women of high status find it hard to regard men of low status as possible mates. Equality hinders romance. The natural submissiveness of the fairer sex is suppressed, and tends to emerge in unhealthy ways: notice the grotesque rise of fetishism in literature and in life, from FIFTY SHADES OF GRAY to TWILIGHT to the entire LGBT movement and the feminist glorification of sodomy and abomination and self-mutilation.
The Nineteenth Amendment has not made women happy. Politics, which is a peaceful form of warfare constrained (if it is constrained) by chivalrous and hierarchical impulses, is as masculine as whiskers.
Females, who are deadlier than the male, tend to be ruthless and shortsighted in combat, for obvious reasons. They do not enjoy combat, and rarely fight except as a last necessity, as when a mother bear defends her cubs. Females are never found contemplating the option of future friendship with a current foe, hence never see the flaw with kicking a man when he is down, attacking from ambush, or using an unfair advantage. This is the way weak men fight. Any schoolboy who befriended a foe after a schoolyard fight, on the other hand, grasps the basic concept of chivalry, and the need for rules and usages of war.
For the same, the ruthlessness of Marxist totalitarianism is because this is fundamentally a craven and unmanly doctrine, using maternal compassion for the poor and downtrodden to excuse mass theft and murder. Marxists rely in lies and subversion to gain their goals. They fight like eunuchs, craven and sadistic. Marxism is the natural outgrowth of a female soul placed in a position of power.
Whether he knows it or not, admits it or not, he wants a mate who is nubile, hale, and fertile enough to bear healthy children, matronly enough to rear them with firmness, kindness, and patience, and virtuous enough not to cuckold him. Being able to cook is a plus. Likewise, whether she knows it to not, admits it or not, she wants a mate able to father healthy children, lead them, lead her, drive off threats, and bring home the bacon. A sense of humor is a plus.
Such is the swap that nature and nature’s God arranges between the sexes.
But the root problem is the role of artifice in human affairs. Here, unfortunately for the unisexuals, the argument is so weak as not to exist. Their argument is that since some aspects of the display of the sexual differences are augmented by artifice, no differences exist.
The Kawaii Japanese schoolgirls in these videos do not act like warlords or Supreme Court Justices or crowned kings, that is, with dignity and gravity.
But dignity and gravity is as artificial as girlish gaiety. Justices wear black robes; they do not show up naked in court. Kings wear crowns and sit on thrones and surround themselves with ceremony intended to impress subjects and enemies alike with his regal dignity and power. They also do not appear naked in public. The artifice is meant to exaggerate the natural characteristic.
Likewise with feminine modes of dress and speech and behavior. Indeed, the cleverness of using clothing to exaggerate sexual characteristics is that corsets and bras draw attention to the bosom of women, and high heels and skirts draw attention to their hips, because these are characteristics men lack. Women attempt to minimize drawing attention to their facial hair and armpit hair and leg hair, because they are less hairy than men naturally, and so will shave or pluck to emphasize or exaggerate that difference.
It is true that in other cultures, other aspects are exaggerated, which, to outsiders, may seem grotesque: the bustles on buttocks among Victorians may strike the modern eye as odd, or the extreme whiteness of skin and elaborate coiffures of geisha women may look quaint to Westerners, or the Chinese fetish for small feet, which can be carried to inhuman extremes. Not to worry, the silicon breasts and balloon-inflated lips of the current fashion looks equally grotesque to men of other lands or generations.
The unhidden secret of this all is that when, on her wedding night, the bridal veil is torn and her gown shucked off, and she presents herself in all her naked beauty to her bridegroom, those very parts she covered up, by the mere act of covering them up, made them more alluring than they would be in a world of nudists. The male likewise but to a lesser degree, since the female is less concerned with his physical looks than with his confidence and demeanor, status and strength.
The whole point of the mating dance and the dating game is to display, with the help of artifice, these natural traits, in order to allure or pursuit the mate. (The female allures; the male pursues).
Far from being a condemnation, that fact that these artifices are artificial proves that they are regarded (by everyone except for unisexuals) as necessary and proper to the pursuit of love.
Of course they are artificial. So are all tools. The reason why we use tools is because we are human. And it is that, our humanity, which at the root of all things, is the enemy of the unisexuals.
Lost on the Last Continent now on RoyalRoad 28 Mar 9:41 AM (12 days ago)
I am republishing LOST ON THE LAST CONTINENT on Royal Road, hoping to drum up some publicity. The version published here under “Samples” is now password protected.
If you would like to reread it:
https://www.royalroad.com/fiction/109432/lost-on-the-last-continent
Spread the word.
On the Seven Deadly Sins 26 Mar 10:17 PM (13 days ago)
I have written on this theme before, but the point bears repeating.
The Seven Deadly Sins refers to a specific idea in Christian tradition with a specific meaning. They are ‘deadly’ because they lead to other sins.
In order: Pride, Envy, Wrath, Sloth, Avarice, Gluttony, Lust. There is a reason for this order.
Pride is the first and greatest of the seven deadly sins, and the queen and mother of them all, for it replaces God with Self.
The sins of the spirit (Pride, Envy, Wrath) are deadlier than the sin of worldliness (Sloth) which is deadlier than sins of the flesh (Avarice, Gluttony, Lust).
Envy is more self-destructive than Wrath.
Sloth is not laziness, it is indifference to spiritual things, a desire not to be bothered with divines things which inevitably becomes dislike, then hatred of them. (This is why agnostic expressions of indifference to God ring hollow. Atheism is incoming, and then Antichrist.)
Avarice, which cannot be sated, is worse than Gluttony, which can. A glutton can have a full stomach for an hour. A miser cannot have a full coffer.
Note that Avarice denotes lack of generosity, i.e., selfishness, whereas gluttony is lack of self-control, i.e. self-indulgence. (Scrooge, for example, is avaricious, but spartan.) This is another reason why Avarice is worse: it is closer to selfishness. A glutton might throw a feast for his cronies.
Lust is the least, for its a corruption of the virtue of love. It may be the hardest to quell, but it is not, technically speaking, the greatest nor deadliest of the seven.
It is still deadly, of course. In the opera DON GIOVANNI, for example, we have a clear portrayal of how lust leads step by step to gluttony and avarice to pride, where finally the villain, too proud to flee, too proud to fear heaven, would rather be dragged to hell than repent.
Likewise, the Cardinal and Christian virtues have a certain order to them, but, unlike the Seven Deadly Sins, no clear agreement exists in the tradition.
Each virtues depends on the prior: Temperance without Fortitude is impossible, since one cannot bridle the lion of passion without the strength to close his jaws; Fortitude without Justice is foolish brutality; Justice without Prudence is draconian; Prudence is derived from Right Reason, and its absence is folly.
Hence, Wisdom is before Prudence, is before Justice, is before Fortitude is before Temperance.
Of Faith, Hope and Charity, we have it on good authority that the greatest of these is Charity.
But the cardinal and Christian virtues are not the list of the heavenly virtues meant to oppose the deadly sins. St Thomas Aquinas lists these as humility, gratitude, patience, zeal, charity, temperance, and chastity.
Humility is the high virtue that saves one from Pride, and this the first all Christian men must cultivate.
When the Devil says “Non Serviam” (I will not serve!) the Virgin says “Ecce Ancilla Domini” (Behold the handmaiden of the Lord).
St John of Damascus holds that Compassion, which is pain arising from another’s ill fortune, saves one from Envy, which is pleasure arising from another’s ill fortune.
But St Thomas holds that Gratitude is the enemy of Envy, and there is more than a little wisdom here. Myself, I hold gratitude, thanksgiving, as a great cure to very many sins indeed.
The rest are self explanatory: Patience saves one from Wrath, and also Forgiveness. Zeal or Diligence saves one from Sloth; Charity or Generosity saves one from Avarice; Temperance from Gluttony; Chastity from Lust.
Finally, note that each and every deadly sin is a virtue in the progressive political religion: Pride is called Self-Esteem, and has a whole month devoted to its celebration.
Envy is Social Justice, also called Entitlement, the claim that one has a right to health care, or housing, or the fruit of any other man’s talent or effort.
Wrath is Self-Righteous Indignation which cries “No Justice, no peace!” and called murderers martyrs when the die when committing acts of terror and jihad.
Sloth, which is, indifference to heaven, is called Enlightenment, a sacred wall of separation between Church and State. Zeal is denounced as Christian Nationalism, White Supremacy, and Fascism, and traditional Catholics are put on terror watchlists.
Avarice is lauded as enterprise and financial ambition. The Right cloak this as a desire to make oneself wealthy, and Left as a desire to take the wealth of others. Self-control is called ‘sales resistance.’
Gluttony is promoted in every advertisement for foodstuffs imaginable, but an obsession with food and drink, wine and beer, tobacco and marijuana can also manifest when overly nice dieting leads to undereating.
Lust is so well regarded in our society that when a Christian songster writes a droll ditty telling his daughter to be modest, he is hounded from the public square by his fellow Christians, not just by woke perverts. To insist on chastity — no sex before nor outside marriage — provokes scorn and accusations that one is insane, suffers phobias, or Victorian neurosis.
The modern world is more committed and loyal to the Seven Deadly Sins and heaps more contempt on virtue than any prior period of history, bar none.
The Romans are their most hedonist, the Turks and their slave trade, the Mongols trampling cities and rearing piles of skulls, the Aztecs selling cannibal baby-meat in the marketplace, or the Spartans dropping babies into the pit of the Apothetae, the craven Jihadists and their lies, were not as entirely opposed to all virtues as is the modern Progressive Elite.
Pride is the queen of sins. This generation is the most entirely swallowed up and lost in pride.
The Golden Transcendence 13: The Wounded Sun 26 Mar 9:20 AM (14 days ago)
From THE GOLDEN TRANSCENDENCE, vol. III of my debut trilogy.
In the far future, the Golden Oecumene has elevated the immortals of the solar system to untrammeled triumphs of abundance, liberty, and splendor. But, hidden by masquerade, a sinister threat arises from the dark star Cygnus X1, man’s sole exosolar colony, the long-lost Silent Oecumene.
Phaethon of Rhadamanth, bedeviled and beguiled by agents of the Lords of the Silent Oecumene, returns from exile to confront them. He must battle them in the core of the Sun, the core of his mind and memory, and at the apex of all abstraction, when the Golden Transcendence gathers all minds in the solar system into one communion, and all truths are laid bare.
The Golden Transcendence Ep. 13: The Wounded Sun
Not Tired of Winning Yet CCXVII 24 Mar 3:28 PM (16 days ago)
Not tired of winning, but impossible to keep up. Some of this may be counting chickens before they are hatched:
-
President Trumps new executive order on election integrity includes:
– Mandatory voter ID with proof of citizenship
– No more ballots counted after Election Day
– Paper ballots ONLY, no QR codes, no barcodes
– Federal funding tied to real election security
– Biden’s EO 14019 officially revoked
The executive order merely enforces existing law. It applies only to federal elections. - Kash Patel to gut the ATF.
- Federal taxpayer-funded housing for illegal aliens is terminated by the new HUD secretary.
- Robert F. Kennedy Jr has announced plans to ban pharmaceutical advertisements on television.
- Idaho just unanimously passed a bill to give child sex abusers the automatic death penalty.
- New Tesla Model Y inventory is now completely sold out in Texas, Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, Georgia, Utah, Virginia, Alabama, South Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee, Mississippi, Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Indianapolis, Iowa, Nebraska, Hawaii, Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, Idaho, Wisconsin, Maryland and Delaware.
- The Supreme Court just sided with Donald Trump blocking the lower court’s (unconstitutional) order Forcing Trump to give aid to foreign countries.
The Art and Craft of Writing Romance 21 Mar 1:33 PM (19 days ago)
Hey, Jagi, here, shanghaiing John’s blog:
First, our Kickstarter was a huge success!
Thank you very much!
Second, if any of you avid readers are interested in writing yourselves, I will be teaching a class on The Art and Craft of Writing Romance.
The class will start on April 7th and consists of five lessons.
This six-week class is run over email.
The cost is: $275 ($150 for returning students)
(Scholarships are available)
If interested, please respond to: gmail—username: arhyalon
Thanks!!!
The Golden Transcendence 12: The Falsehoods 19 Mar 10:30 AM (21 days ago)
From THE GOLDEN TRANSCENDENCE, vol. III of my debut trilogy.
In the far future, the Golden Oecumene has elevated the immortals of the solar system to untrammeled triumphs of abundance, liberty, and splendor. But, hidden by masquerade, a sinister threat arises from the dark star Cygnus X1, man’s sole exosolar colony, the long-lost Silent Oecumene.
Phaethon of Rhadamanth, bedeviled and beguiled by agents of the Lords of the Silent Oecumene, returns from exile to confront them. He must battle them in the core of the Sun, the core of his mind and memory, and at the apex of all abstraction, when the Golden Transcendence gathers all minds in the solar system into one communion, and all truths are laid bare.
The Golden Transcendence Ep. 12: The Falsehoods