Jan 29, 2016

When Was the Last Time Fear Stopped You from Saying the Truth?

The Allegory of Prudence
Tucker Carlson has a good column, here. (Caveat lector: there's a crude comment repeated from Trump.) Carlson states a lot of true things, but the best is this question he poses:
When was the last time you stopped yourself from saying something you believed to be true for fear of being punished or criticized for saying it?
If you live in America, it probably hasn’t been long. That’s not just a talking point about political correctness. It’s the central problem with our national conversation, the main reason our debates are so stilted and useless. You can’t fix a problem if you don’t have the words to describe it. You can’t even think about it clearly.
People sometimes argue about whether abstractions like "liberty" and "equality" have improved in the United States recently. Some probably think they have. "Hey, we have freer access to no-fault divorce, abortion and pornography than at any time in human history! Homosexual marriage! Rainbows! Legalized drugs!" But concrete questions like Carlson's reveal the truth. We need to devise more like these; we need to press ourselves actively to understand our true condition:
Do you speak without fear? No? Then you, my friend, are not living in a free country. Does the government control more of your life than it did your grandparents' lives? Then, you, my dear, are less free. Do we honor what is honorable and reward what is meritorious? No? Then, we are not just. Is it harder to live in godly estate as man and woman and raise children in the fear of the Lord? Then, we are not well ordered.
Carlson is too optimistic, however, in implying that we could fix our problems if we could speak about them. When the U.S. ends, I doubt the reasons will include that Americans couldn't publicly discuss the sickness destroying the nation. Everyone already knows enough about the basic reasons for our decline. There is no more citadel, less outer walls. The banner no longer flies. We don't have to talk about why exactly we lost asabiyyah and for what we abandoned our Rock. Our laws are too many, too confused: too lax or too severe. We have lost the inner political precept of unity, respect and participation. The difficulty is not knowing that we have lost ourselves; it is admitting it to ourselves.

Here's an analogy. The way to live an individually virtuous life is not to pretend that death and sickness are not real. Universal psychology teaches that recognizing the inevitability of death sharpens understanding. In realizing what little we have left and soon will lose, we gain a stronger sense of proportion and value for what remains. Ethical and political reflection are both improved by considering action in the face of the shortness and vulnerability of individual and corporate life. Most importantly, we cannot turn fully to God until we say with Job: "If the only home I hope for is the grave, if I spread out my bed in darkness, if I say to corruption, 'You are my father,' and to the worm, 'My mother' or 'My sister,' where then is my hope? Who can see any hope for me?" 17:13-15. Why do we lack the wisdom and repentance that comes from acknowledging death? The problem is not a lack of conversation and depiction about death. The problem is facing the inevitability of death.

National conversation is not the answer; national conversion is. We have too much talk, too much techne, not even an aspiration to arete. We have had enough medicinal method, enough therapies without metanoia, enough science but no sense of sin. Enough of journalists, we need just one Jonah. If we face what we will receive, like Nineveh, we might respond, or perhaps it is the time of Nahum.

Nov 10, 2015

NYT Attacks Christian Arbitration

Is Afraid of Christians Escaping Absolute Secularist Control
"Objective" NYT reporters dog-whistle how double-plus ungood Christian arbitration is because the Christian program that used it occasioned a young man's repentance about his homosexual activities. Is there even a theory where this is relevant to the reporting of this story? Also, why did the reporters pass on some unsourced hearsay that the man's high school in Knoxville, which had nothing to do with the arbitration or his unfortunate death, "allowed teachers to question evolution"? If we have Christian arbitration, what's next? Teachers questioning climate change, single-sex showers? What does any of this have to do with the policies of private arbitration?

I am unmoved by the reporters' suggestion that secular courts act from some sort of consensus view in America about justice and fairness. Now that the Obergefell Court has held that orthodox Christians are all bigots whose values are outside the U.S. constitutional order, Christians reasonably are doing all they can to get decision-makers who lack an appearance of prejudice against them.

If secular U.S. courts want Christians not to opt out of their jurisdictions, perhaps they shouldn't express contempt for their beliefs so often.

Oct 31, 2015

Feminist Nancy Fraser: Feminism Furthered Female Exploitation -- [Updated] Factory Women Paid $1/Hour to Make $70 Feminist T-Shirts

Liberated!
Liberated II, by Making $70 "What A Feminist Looks Like" T-Shirts for $1 per hour
Here and here, Professor Nancy Fraser -- a leading uncrypto-Marxist feminist theoretician of the New School in N.Y. -- argues that contemporary radical feminists have been dupes for the anti-national, anti-family economies that have emerged with globalization and the rise of multinational corporations. 

According to Fraser, feminism did the work of justifying the destruction of the family order in the name of liberation of women, but it was really serving the agenda of power-hungry states and business interests. This is why the purportedly patriarchal legislators, courts and businesses "fell" so easily to the supposedly downtrodden feminist masses; pushing women into the workforce served the interests of government and business. Shockingly, feminists didn't win the day because of a massive moral conversion of evil patriarchs nor did the feminists' protests force these change. 

The feminist revolution imposed on Western societies, celebrated by the media and academy, simply served the interests of the powerful. Feminists thought that their rebellion against God's order would provide them with freedom, instead, according to Fraser, feminism provided "the justification for new forms of inequality and exploitation" of women, men and children. Rebelling against the familial bounds set by God, they succeeded only in setting the chains of the modern world more tightly around everyone's necks.

According to Fraser, feminists successfully attacked:
 the ideal of a male breadwinner-female homemaker family [but] Feminist criticism of that ideal now serves to legitimate [a] form of capitalism [that] relies heavily on women's waged labour, especially low-waged work in service and manufacturing, performed not only by young single women but also by married women and women with children; not by only racialised [sic] women, but by women of virtually all nationalities and ethnicities. As women have poured into labour markets around the globe, state-organised capitalism's ideal of the family wage is being replaced by the newer, more modern norm – apparently sanctioned by feminism – of the two-earner family. Never mind that the reality that underlies the new ideal is depressed wage levels, decreased job security, declining living standards, a steep rise in the number of hours worked for wages per household, exacerbation of the double shift – now often a triple or quadruple shift – and a rise in poverty, increasingly concentrated in female-headed households. Neoliberalism turns a sow's ear into a silk purse by elaborating a narrative of female empowerment. Invoking the feminist critique of the family wage to justify exploitation, it harnesses the dream of women's emancipation to the engine of capital accumulation.
In other words, feminists didn't win a fight for liberation. They became useful idiots -- to borrow from Fraser's Marxist jargon -- in the modern state's battle to destroy the solidarity of the family and to convert every member as soon as possible into a member of the atomized, lumpenproletariat workforce. Feminism is a covering ideology used by the economic and political elites to gain what they wanted, a larger workforce and a less cohesive civil society. With their false claim that the family was oppressive and that freedom meant becoming a wage drudge in the contemporary economic labor machine, feminists have not liberated women but have destroyed the central seminal institution of solidarity in all human societies. Alongside other radical egalitarians like the communists, the radical feminists desire to destroy God-ordered social hierarchies did not bring liberation but oppression. Fraser does not even mention the millions of babies killed to accomplish feminist "liberation" in the abortion mills of the world because she cares more about economic inequalities than dead babies and the violation of women's bodies inherent in abortion.

Like all revolutionaries in the face of their failures, Fraser's response is not to repent. She thinks that even more radical social changes are required. The failure of the revolution proves only that a greater and more egalitarian feminist revolution is required.

[Update] Nice story here on the utter hypocrisy of posing feminist radicals who destroy traditional familial communities and replace them with sweat-shop wage laborers.

Oct 15, 2015

"True and Pure Equality" Requires Drafting Young Women to Fight

Contemporary feminism is a form of radical egalitarianism, ignoring God's Word to recreate the world in the image of envious and sinful humanity. Radical egalitarianisms oppose and seek to force the overthrow of all providentially established differences in sex (feminism), property (communism), nation (cosmopolitans, internationalists, the open-borders movement) or any other kind of established social hierarchy. The blood of egalitarianism's victims from Robespierre through to Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot cries out with millions and millions of voices to testify against the murderous evil of these egalitarian movements.

Women will eventually have to register for the draft if "true and pure equality" is to be realized in the U.S. military, Army Secretary John McHugh said Monday. "If your objective is true and pure equality then you have to look at all aspects" of the roles of women in the military, McHugh said, and registration for the draft "will be one of those things. That will have to be considered." 
When did the U.S. military, the bulwark against communism, become an engine to enforce "true and pure" equality? True and pure equality always requires true and pure totalitarianism. To overcome the real created differences among humanity always requires more and more government control. Will pregnant young women also be drafted? Will young women be compelled to remain childless so that they can fight? Will they be forced to undergo hormone replacement so that they are stronger and faster? Will public schools be forced to reeducate America concerning the duties of men to die to protect women?

Will U.S. fathers and mothers fear enemies of their nation more or the nation that forces their daughters to the battlefield? How will men who, purportedly rejecting "truth and purity," want to protect their wives, sisters and daughters be able to organize their protection through their government if the government insists on drafting their wives, sisters and daughters? What will it mean to fight for home if your wife, sister and daughter have been also forced to fight?

These are heavy questions, which McHugh's replacement will have to face. Do you think they will be considered in a way that honors and respects Christian beliefs about human sexuality and the right moral relation between men and women? Obama is currently touting the progressiveness of his nomination of Eric Fanning, who will be the first openly gay military secretary as the replacement for McHugh. What an ideal way to assure the American people that the U.S. military will implement its policies with respect and tolerance for the moral values of America's Christian peoples!