BRUCE Charlton writes:

We are tested every day by the sin of fear. And the temptation – offering a delusory escape from fear – is safety.

If we compare our post 2020 world with life a few decades ago; it is clear that we are now controlled primarily by the negative sin of fear (with a side-order of spiteful resentment: the stock-in-trade of socialism, feminism, antiracism and the other leftisms). These are negative sins because they are directed-against.

IF GOD preferred uniformity to variety, then why did He create so much thrilling diversity? He created true diversity, not the cultish, artificial “diversity” we hear about all the time.

Scientists can spend entire careers studying a single species of insects or plants.

“Estimates of the total number of insect species, or those within specific orders, often vary considerably. Globally, averages of these estimates suggest there are around 1.5 million beetle species and 5.5 million insect species, with about 1 million insect species currently found and described.” (Source)

So many different insects inhabit the world that many haven’t even been studied and named.

Do birds try to be other birds? They may eat other birds or parasitically feed on their eggs, but they don’t strive to become what they are not and no scientist has observed — ever — a fish morphing into a bird. Except when they want each other for food, animals mostly leave each other alone.

They are themselves: Humming, feeding, flying, running, jumping — an endless and marvelous diversity of life. The only effect man has had on all this enchanting diversity is to reduce it. But nature reviles him. And its diversity persists. Read More »

Frederic Edwin Church, Sunset in the Hudson Valley

Acceptance
— by Robert Frost

When the spent sun throws up its rays on cloud
And goes down burning into the gulf below,
No voice in nature is heard to cry aloud
At what has happened. Birds, at least must know
It is the change to darkness in the sky.
Murmuring something quiet in her breast,
One bird begins to close a faded eye;
Or overtaken too far from his nest,
Hurrying low above the grove, some waif
Swoops just in time to his remembered tree.
At most he thinks or twitters softly, ‘Safe!
Now let the night be dark for all of me.
Let the night be too dark for me to see
Into the future. Let what will be, be.’

ALAN writes:

In a comparison of “free speech” in the USSR and the USA, Lev Tsitrin wrote that there is little substantive difference between restrictions placed upon such speech by the dictators of Communist Russia and the limitations placed upon it today here in the US by the sweetheart alliance of Big Government, Big Corporations, and the Mass Communications/Propaganda industry.

From their standpoint, Mr. Tsitrin concludes, “free speech that is epitomized in ‘samizdat’ [i.e., self-published writings] can — and should — be suppressed. In their mistrust of free speech, …. the US and the USSR ultimately converge.”

[Lev Tsitrin, “Free Speech in the USSR and in the US”, New English Review, August 2022] Read More »

INTERESTING observations in this video about the differences between Poland and Ireland. Read More »

IMAGINE a novel about “the end of black people.” One day the main character, a black man, wakes up and finds that his skin is white. The same thing happens to black people everywhere on earth. The character does not like being white.

Imagine this literary work, titled The Last Black Man, being celebrated by all the major publicity organs of the entire Western world, and maybe the rest of the world too. The novel is compared favorably with Franz Kafka’s bleak tale (obligatory reading for impressionable adolescents) The Metamorphosis. Some words used to describe the book:

“Deliciously ominous,” “deft,” “on-the-ground immediacy,” “transformative,” “breathless, incantatory,” “compellingly readable and strangely musical,” “strange, beautiful,”  “Sincere,” “earnest,” “peculiarly hopeful,” and more.

The New York Times prominently promotes it and proclaims that the book offers “a vision of humanity unvexed by racial animosities” because all people in the world are at last white.

Can you imagine all this? No, you can’t.

Any author who wrote a novel favorably envisioning “the last black man” would be a few legalisms away from a jail cell. The chances of his book receiving a review even in a local weekly would be nil. The only publicity he would get would come from a police report. The only photo of him that would appear would be a mugshot.

The Last White Man, however, is a real, recently published, fantastically celebrated novel, so brilliant, so “strangely musical,” it is hailed by the whole world. Its author is a Pakistani immigrant to Britain, Mohsid Hamid, who is now fantastically rich for serving up a literary vision of the destruction of one race. My local library system has eight copies, not surprising given the promotion and that suburban whites are particularly prone to the masochistic thrills of racial self-obliteration.

Interestingly, even though Hamid’s book describes the end of white people, the author is accused of a racial misdemeanor:

“we … don’t hear anything about how Black people feel about their numbers being swelled by all these dazed-and-confused involuntary converts.”

More from NPR: Read More »

“WE ought to run after crosses as the miser runs after money. Nothing but crosses will reassure us at the Day of Judgment. When that day shall come, we shall be happy in our misfortunes, proud of our humiliations, and rich in our sacrifices.”

— St. John Vianney

(@TempusFugit4016)

 
 ONLY smart people could believe in something so astonishingly dumb.

Bombardment of Fort Sumter, 1861 (Currier and Ives)

THOUSANDS and thousands of books have been written about the American Civil War, more accurately called the “War Between the States,” and vast legions of scholars have spent their entire careers immersed in it. Ordinary people have also devoted immense, independent labor to studying it. Gee, it’s intimidating to discuss. I am not remotely an expert, not even one of those highly informed amateurs. Let’s say, I’m an amateur’s amateur.

But it interests me. And it’s important to discuss it.

The War Between the States led to an oppressive form of federal government that remains with us today. The ongoing rhetoric about the war is deliberately inflammatory, unnecessarily divisive and involves systematic defamation of Southerners. It distracts from today’s entrenched, despotic system of debt slavery, a bondage shared by black and white. We are living everyday in the war’s aftermath. I plan to highlight intermittently some myths about the conflict as food for thought and as inspiration for your further study. I remain open to correction. Bear in mind, the American Founding itself, despite many noble principles and provisions, established a form of secular government that was not ideal, based as it was on rationalistic, “Enlightenment” ideas.

It is often said that the South started the war. According to this view, the South was the aggressor, first, by seceding from the United States and, secondly, by firing on Fort Sumter near Charleston in 1861.

Was the South unwise in seceding? Probably it was, given the outcome of the war. But it had every right to do so under the terms of the Constitution, which established the united states not the united state. The Founders deliberately avoided the word “national” in the founding documents, preferring federal. They were establishing a federation of sovereign entities. The federal government was not authorized by the Constitution to prevent states from leaving.

As Philip Mericle writes in a review of Adam Miller’s books on the war, which I highly recommend: Read More »

“WHAT our country, — indeed, what every Christian country under the sun, — needs most, are these great-souled wives, mothers, and sisters in the dwellings of our over-burdened laborers; women for whom the roof above them and the four walls which enclose their dear ones are the only world they care to know, the little paradise which they set their hearts on making pleasant, sunny, and fragrant for the husband who is out in the hot sun or the bitter cold, beneath the pelting of the rain or the snow or the sleet, who, poorly clad and shod, with his scanty fare of hard bread and cold tea, is working away for the little home and the wife and babes, and who is singing in his heart as he bethinks him of the warm welcome that awaits him when the long day is over, of the bright smile and the loving words that will be sure to greet him when he crosses the threshold of his own little Eden, of the cheerful fire in winter and the humble meal made so delicious by the love that prepares it and the sweet words that season it, of the rest and the security and the peace which force the over-flowing heart of the husband and father and brother to think and to say that there is no spot of earth so dear and so blessed as the little sanctuary built up and adorned and made full of song by a true woman’ s heart.

“O woman, woman! If you only knew how much you have it in your power to do, with His assistance who can never fail us when we do our best, to make true men of the husband of your choice, of the sons whom God has given you as his most precious treasures; true women, in their turn, of the little girls who are growing up at your knee, to be, when you are gone to your reward, mothers blessed and praised by all who know them!”

— Rev. Bernard O’Reilly, L.D., The Mirror of True Womanhood: a Book of Instruction for Women in the World, (P.J. Kenedy, 1886)

I SAW a homemade billboard along the Pennsylvania Turnpike the other day.

It said:

“Normal” is not coming back.

Jesus is.

“PERFECTION is founded entirely on the love of God: “Charity is the bond of perfection;” and perfect love of God means the complete union of our will with God’s: “The principal effect of love is so to unite the wills of those who love each other as to make them will the same things .” It follows then, that the more one unites his will with the divine will, the greater will be his love of God. Mortification, meditation, receiving Holy Communion, acts of fraternal charity are all certainly pleasing to God — but only when they are in accordance with his will. When they do not accord with God’s will, he not only finds no pleasure in them, but he even rejects them utterly and punishes them.

“To illustrate:—A man has two servants. One works unremittingly all day long— but according to his own devices; the other, conceivably, works less, but he does do what he is told. This latter of course is going to find favor in the eyes of his master; the other will not. Now, in applying this example, we may ask: Why should we perform actions for God’s glory if they are not going to be acceptable to him? God does not want sacrifices, the prophet Samuel told King Saul, but he does want obedience to his will: “Doth the Lord desire holocausts and victims, and not rather that the voice of the Lord should be obeyed? For obedience is better than sacrifices; and to hearken, rather than to offer the fat of rams. Because it is like the sin of witchcraft to rebel; and like the crime of idolatry to refuse to obey4 .” The man who follows his own will independently of God’s, is guilty of a kind of idolatry. Instead of adoring God’s will, he, in a certain sense, adores his own.” [emphasis added]

— St. Alphonsus de Ligouri, Uniformity with God’s Will

Federal troops burn the railway station at Madison, Harper’s Weekly, Jan. 7, `1865

MANY PEOPLE to this day believe the American “Civil War” was fought to end slavery. This falsehood dates to the war itself and has been perpetuated by apologists for the sort of lawless, centralized government that emerged during the war. As Adam S. Miller, author of three books on the war, wrote:

The war between the North and the South was not fought by the North (Union) to secure the freedom of slaves, nor to end slavery itself as many were told and others still think. Here are facts which prove this:

  – At a conference in Washington, D.C., on February 27, 1861, Northern delegates met and voted against a constitutional amendment to end slavery. Why would they not vote to end slavery if they were supposedly about to go to war to do so? The reason is because the war was not fought to free the slaves. The war was fought by the North to keep the South from seceding and to strengthen Northern control over the Southern states. The North, or Union, was fighting against the rights of states; it was fighting to destroy the agricultural way of life of the South so as forcibly to bring about the dominance of the industrial way of life of the North.

 – On July 25, 1861, a bill was passed in Congress -the Crittenden Resolution- which declared that the war was being fought to preserve the Union, not to stop, or even change, slavery in its established form.” (Source)

Furthermore, as Miller points out, Abraham Lincoln and his government solicited the support of slave states, including Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia, Kentucky and Missouri. The Union included more slave states at the start of the war than the Confederacy. “Thus, the North could not have been fighting to end slavery, for it would have been fighting against a large portion of itself when the war began,” Miller states.

Only one in fifteen white Southern adults were slave-holders. The vast majority of those who fought for the Confederacy had no direct stake in the institution.

The idea that the North was fighting to end slavery was propaganda, inflaming passions and rallying both whites and blacks to the federal government’s acts of aggression against its own people. Read More »

“THE DIGNITY which chivalry required was removed at an infinite distance from any disdain of men and from any selfish vanity. It arose from a reliance upon God; it was connected with all that was pure and holy; it was united to faith and love; it abode with him only as Wordsworth says:

Who in the silent hour of inward thought
Could still suspect and still revere himself
In lowliness of heart.

— Kenelm Henry Digby, “Maxims of Christian Chivalry,” from The Broadstone of Honor or, The true sense and practice of chivalry

Any opportunity to disestablish tyrannical American government is now long past. Most Americans today have made it clear that they are perfectly comfortable with a tyrannical government so long as it papers over its tyranny with enough do-gooder slogans including the word “help” and does not deprive them of their toys and amusements (TV, rock music, movies, porn, sports, alcohol, and loud cars).    

ALAN writes:

It is remarkable to consider how seldom over the span of my life I have seen or heard any mention in the mass communications industry of Fabianism or Fabian change agents.  People who imagine themselves to be the best-informed people in the world remain astoundingly ignorant of those who have been working quietly for more than a hundred years to convert the USA into a Communist nation. In the 1940s, journalist John T. Flynn named the Fabians as more dangerous than the Communists to Americans’ liberty and rights.

In 1966, Rose Martin wrote: Read More »