This is the home of the 'serious' a4g. To visit my dark side, go to Point Five. (The dark side seems to post every day... Why do you think that is?)

Friday, March 18, 2005

The Cult of the Soul Eaters, Part I

So when Michael Schaivo's attorney George Felos gives a press conference today, and compares the legislative bodies of the United States of America to the Soviet Politburo, it is just another over-the-top left wing bit of invective to add to the ever growing manure pile that dumps copious from our own Fifth Column. Another Bush=Hitler. Another 'Patriot Act makes America into a police state.' Another 'America under Bush is worse than Iraq under Saddam.'

Yes, it is obvious hyperbole, and, as always, I roll my eyes—'there you go again'—and yet feel a vague unease, as if there is more to the statement than its stated meaning. As if it is more than just a lie to serve the immediate ends. His statement has a quality of violence to it. A violence against Truth.

And then like a great unrolling, spread before me is the epiphany.

I would call the actions of Michael Schaivo, Felos and Greer reminiscent of the horrors of Nazi Germany-- for what more clearly in our popular consciousness represents an ideology that would starve a woman to death? But of course I have heard such accusations somewhere before. For years, in fact, spewed at our side. And rendered meaningless through repetition. Until Nazi and Hitler and Gestapo no longer mean anything but merely 'those with whom I disagree.' And my voice has been ripped from my throat—for once, I want to cry out NAZI but I am late to the party, it has already lost all meaning. I want to cry out GENOCIDE but what has that become? When Darfur isn't, but Iraq is?

They read well, when they were assigned Orwell. But like Alex de Large, they were rooting for the wrong side, Pilate instead of Magdalene. So it's not just the newspeak of 'African American' or 'Founding Framers' or 'Undocumented Immigrant' that we let them impose on us with a bit of unvoiced outrage, and then a sort of parental roll of the eyes, but, oh well, I suppose we can put up with this foolishness until they grow out of it. No, here we are when we need our intellectual weaponry, our words and meanings and truths, and we have been outflanked by an epistemological attack on a massive scale. From every outlet, from every mouth, spews the Great Lie. And it is repeated over and over ad infinitum.

A woman whose eyes see and mouth wails is brain dead.

A war that we fought after 12 years and 17 resolutions for 5 reasons was naked aggression based on a single premise that was a lie.

A baby isn't a baby, and even if it is, it doesn't matter.

The latest murder and the newest celebrity are more important than a million Lebanese patriots in the streets.

Truth is only a concept.

Believing in God makes you a tyrant, but believing only in yourself makes you... nuanced.

We who passionately believe in things are less capable of just reasoning than those who, as a matter of principal, refuse to resolve anything.

If we wish to save a life, we are killers. If we wish to free a people, we are imperialists. If we wish to save ourselves, we are ravenous beasts.

Like all men of good faith, I try to remember my Greek. Hubris, the man killer. I listen to my enemies and try not to become what I despise in them. So when they deign to judge all Republicans as enemies, who don't have a different agenda, but an evil one, I jot a note in the journal...'Remember not to call political opponents evil.' For they are calling me evil, and I have first hand evidence of the fallacy of that statement. So, as a man of reason, I suspect that if they can mistake my goodwill for evil, perhaps I am doing the same.

And so they have inoculated themselves against me. I will not call them evil or I fear I will have fallen into the same logical trap. But I have sidestepped the pit only to walk into the snare.
It has been rightly called projection, that they look into their own hearts and try to understand us in terms that are familiar to them. But it is also protection. They have robbed me of my righteous judgment.

Intelligent design theory says that there could not be such physical complexity in this world without a designer. That no possible set of random occurrences could result in the symphonic orchestration of even the tiniest microbe. Tut, tut, say I. Why not? Why in the brief flame of man's existence should we have insight enough to declare the universe this way or that? So I remain unconvinced, an Evolutionist and an Atheist.

But I always follow the evidence, no matter what road it takes. How does Occam explain the concerted distortions of the left? The layers of malicious efficacy. The soul-eating evil (and circular secular language has no tortured verbiage with such succinctly effective meaning as evil).

Is it possible, behind the grand symphony of their lies, their hatred of faith, their worship of death, that there is a silhoutted figure directing with bony clawed fingers what can only be chillingly described as intelligent design?

Wednesday, March 09, 2005

The Black Pit of the Human Heart

In Arrogance Supreme, I mentioned the tension between the two schools of thought on either side of the recent Supreme Court ruling regarding 'juvenile' executions. With the echoes of that juxtaposition fresh in my head, I seemed to hear an extra emphasis on talk radio lately about the factoid of 'common knowledge' that the defining difference between the right and the left is the dichotomy of Locke and Hobbes -- that is, that the left believes man in nature is essentially good, and that the right believes man in nature is essentially a brute.

That explanation seems me as insufficient to encapsulate the true difference in world view. I believe, instead, that the true fundamental difference of outlook is far more ironic. The secular left believes paradoxically that mankind, although an essentially material being, is nonetheless free of his materialism via the intellect, a blank slate capable of infinite flexibility of being if only cocooned in the proper social structure. Thus if only trained, contained, and constrained properly, the great Utopia can be achieved.

Conversely, and equally as paradoxical, the right believes man, though made real by the breath of God, and hence a creature whose metaphysical reality is much more emphatically spirit than soil, is yet a creature whose essential nature is fundamentally staid, concrete, and immutable.

So the left, far from believing in the good of all men, rather puts faith in the programmability of all men-- it is not the men who are good, but the programmer (as long as they get to decide who writes the code). Mankind is potentially good because of the collective utopia that will be poured forth into the waiting clay pots. War and punishment is not necessary because the man can be rearranged.

The right, on the other hand, sees man as Cain, wandering the earth marked with the stain of his sin, unable to be redeemed until the enveloping arms of Death pull long sleeves of darkness around his cold, lifeless form. There is no utopia for this man, only the rule of law to rein in his base desires. And when he flies wicked over the world, he is to be brought down by force of arms, because it is not the context that has made him a tyrant, but the black pit in his own heart. A heart that cannot be turned by others, only stopped.

Which view of man is true?

If man is a vessel for context, then every totalitarian state should be a shining example to the world. Utopias designed with the acumen of planned communities. Yes, behind gates, but what nicely manicured yards of color-coordinated perfection.

But if man is sinner, then what would happen if this untamed feral beast were to run loose in Utopia?

Would it cost 100,000,000 lives? History has a comment on this subject.

Tuesday, March 08, 2005

A semantic point

In good faith, I assume when Giuliana Sgrena accuses the US of deliberately targeting her, she does so because, to her, it is the explanation that makes the most sense. I do not doubt her.

Where our difference lies is that she misunderstands her gut feeling to declare that the US forces would target her. Rather, I suspect her conscience is gently warning her that they should.

Thursday, March 03, 2005

Arrogance Supreme

"But what about Brown v. Board of Education?"

If I have to hear that argument again...

With the recent ruling on "the execution of teenagers" which is actually the ruling on executing adults ten to twenty years after they committed a crime while 16 or 17, a highly useful marker has been created by the Supreme Court in the outing of self-loathing individuals in our society.

For what is the argument over the Supreme Court's role in protecting us from the "tyranny of the majority" but a proxy for the larger question of man in nature and the inherent viability of democracy itself? It seems that anyone who takes a stand on this decision tips their hand -- the two camps are those that oppose the decision, who trust that the will of the people is best able to define justice, and those that support it, who believe that the will of the people is inherently suspect, brutish and cruel (although these same people don't seem to note the delicious irony that they, too, are people, and seem to trust their own will).

So what is the historical precedent for this feverish fear of majority decisions? Let's take America's most notorious example: slavery. Slavery, which a majority compromise rendered legal. Slavery which chained millions in bondage while salon conversation presented point and counterpoint. Tyranny, yes, stipulated. But a tyranny that drove deep wedges and cracks in this nation, with results of such violent retribution that no war in our history has equalled its penitential blood spilled.

Is history itself not an argument for the essentially self-correcting nature of democratic republics? Did slavery cease to exist when we would have liked? No. But neither has poverty, nor dictatorship, nor even gravity when it is not particularly in keeping with our desires not to hit the ground hard. The antebellum Supreme Court, which, self-annointed, delivers us from all evil, did not even side with the slaves. Yet we are now supposed to smugly smirk self-satisfied that the erudite intellect of five black-robed tyrants has protected us from our baser selves.

So no, I don't favor Brown. And no, don't believe that "black's would still be segregated" if not for the Court. We want change today -- now -- instantaneously, but the forge of history strikes its hammer slowly -- there are 561 years between June 15, 1215 and July 4, 1776. Five and a half centuries to tear down a king. And there are those that would give every ounce of his power back just to get their way today instead of tommorrow.

I for one would rather hold a rifle high above my head and let those who would lord over me know that I am an American, struck in the land of freedom. Through my blood runs the inheritance of patriots and martyrs. Untested though I am, if called, I will serve. I won't sell the terrible, terrifying uncertain adventure of self-determination for the fat, greasy comfort of a european entitlement cheque.

You'll take my liberty from me out of my cold, dead hands.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?