Archive for July, 2012

Neopaganism and No Starch

Posted July 31, 2012 By John C Wright

This article is another reason why I must remember to send my dues to the Mark-Shea-John-Wright Mutual Admiration Society, aside from the fact that I am one of two members and founders.

What puzzles me about neo-paganism is why it wastes all this time inventing a fake synthetic paganism based on some suburbanites’ supposings about what esoteric sects did centuries ago, when there are lots of real pagans running around in Asia and the global south they could just go join without all this laborious re-inventing of an almost entirely fictional wheel. The focus of the neo-pagans is on pretend recreations of ancient euro-paganism, based on fictionalized history , coupled with modern notions of relativism and libertinism that would have often baffled and horrified many ancient pagans (who were by no means a monolith). So when you consult an actual pagan rooted in an actual historic pagan tradition like, say, the Dalai Lama on things like sexual mores, he sounds disappointingly more like Pope Benedict than like some sexually liberated votress of a goddess from a Joss Whedon fantasy universe dressed like a Frank Frazetta heroine.

Mr Shea agrees with Mr Chesterton and Mr Lewis about paganism, and about how what is called “Paganism” in these days is a sacramentalized liberalism. I have an example as well. Let me quote from Chesterton and Lewis before offering my example.

Read the remainder of this entry »

148 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

Superheroines and Sex Objects

Posted July 27, 2012 By John C Wright

This is not the article I sat down to write.

Laura Hudson of Comics Alliance wrote an article in 2011 called “The Big Sexy Problem with Superheroines and Their ‘Liberated Sexuality'” http://www.comicsalliance.com/2011/09/22/starfire-catwoman-sex-superheroine/#ixzz21lIdypBQ  denouncing the tasteless, fetishistic, and loveless way superheroines are portrayed in comics these days.

At first I thought the irony of an avowed feminist objecting to the objectification of women was ironic, if not funny in a pathetic way, and I felt that emotion so horrible that only the Germans have a word for it: Schadenfreude —pleasure derived from the misfortunes of others.

In this case, since I am not as horrible as a German, the pleasure was in seeing the justice of it; in seeing the feminist chickens coming home to roost.

My first reaction was, simply, that a woman whose philosophy is to celebrate vice in women as strength, and to celebrate the degradation of women as equality, deserves to see what a horrid thing she wishes for, once her wish comes true. My reaction, on behalf of all conservatives everywhere, was to say I told you so.

I thought: you cannot say you did not see this coming. We warned you and you ignored us and laughed at us. Who is laughing now?

But upon reflection my Germanic laughter choked and my heart melted, for I pondered the magnitude of what she was talking about, the grievous insult done her, and I join her in her righteous anger.

These comic writers repaid her lifelong loyalty with the back of their collective hand. They betrayed her. If this is cosmic justice, it is too Draconian for me.

So I am writing not to argue with her position (well, not just to argue) but also to salute her and tell you, my dear readers, to go read her article from last year. Because she is right.

I thought about reposting the pictures she uses as examples here so that you would see that she is not exaggerating in her claim, but even I, who delights in cheesecake images of toon women, particularly of the Catwoman, even I who am famed for my philistine tastes, even I am repelled by them.

Read the remainder of this entry »

140 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

The War on Women

Posted July 27, 2012 By John C Wright

The woman in this case is the Holy Mother Church.

William, Paul and James Newland and their sister, Christine Ketterhagen, who together own Hercules Industries, have no right to conduct their family business in a manner that comports with their Catholic faith.

The federal government can and will compel them to either surrender their business or to engage in activities the Catholic faith teaches are intrinsically immoral.

This is exactly what President Barack Obama’s Justice Department told a U.S. district court in a formal filing last week.

Never before has an administration taken such a bold step to strip Americans of the freedom of conscience — a right for which, over the centuries, many Christian martyrs have laid down their lives, and which our Founding Fathers took great care to protect in a First Amendment that expressly guarantees the free exercise of religion.

Read the whole thing here:
http://townhall.com/columnists/terryjeffrey/2012/07/25/doj_family_cant_run_their_business_as_catholics

6 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

On Honesty

Posted July 26, 2012 By John C Wright

A reader whom I respect has hurled his gauntlet at me. Allow me to show that respect by answering at length, and answer every point seriatem:

In reference to my post here Joetxxx says

I understand, and, indeed, even respect your position, but I cannot back down from mine. Your entire argument pivots on giving the word “propaganda” the most invidious possible connotation.  

This is a misstatement of the argument. Even if the word “propaganda” is taken in its less deceptive connotation, to mean merely the propagation of a partisan point of view, disguising propaganda as journalism, which by its nature professes to be objective, is a deception.

Hence, opinion journalism on the opinion page can be honest propaganda, but when placed on the news pages, the same omissions and slants when directed to the purpose not of informing the readers but of propagating to them without their conscious knowledge a doctrine become a species of deception.

My argument does not pivot on this point.

Read the remainder of this entry »

8 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

Upward, Not Northward

Posted July 26, 2012 By John C Wright

A reader overhearing our conversation about FLATLAND asks: “What are you guys talking about? Is this some fantasy series I have overlooked?”

It is a rare pleasure to be able to introduce a literary treasure to one unaware of it! We are talking about the grandfather of all fantasy, or, at least, of mathematical fantasies. It is a classic, and I would urge every science fiction writer to add it once to his reading list.

FLATLAND A Romance of Many Dimensions by A Square is a very slim volume from 1884, the days before the readership was constrained by the categories of fantasy and mainstream, and so it is hard to categorize. Some call it a satire, but I would call it fantastical, both in its speculations and in its flights of fancy.

Read the remainder of this entry »

24 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

Breitbart Is Right

Posted July 26, 2012 By John C Wright

As might you, I remember exactly where I was, and what I was doing when I heard about the Aurora massacre.

I was driving to work, like many a man who has not suffered an unimaginable tragedy. On the radio there came a brief mention — the true magnitude of how many had died was not yet known — of the massacre.

It was only two sentences. The second sentence was a denial that any “overseas” (that was the euphemism used) terrorists groups were involved.

That immediately tickled my suspicions. I used to work for a newspaper, as a writer and as an editor. It takes time to do policework, to check credit card records, to check if a suspect had been overseas, to get warrants, to read his old mail, to talk to neighbors. There is no way, no possible way, any responsible police agency could have investigated between midnight (when the crime occurred) and morning (when I heard the news) when all the businesses were closed and announced that it had ruled out anything.

The newsman was not reporting an official announcement: he was merely making the literally true but deliberately deceptive statement that no evidence had yet emerged of any link to overseas terror. There was also no evidence to a link to Ethiopia, to Elocutionists, to Eggplants, or to Ecumenism, because six hours is too soon for any confirmed evidence of any kind. So why single out terrorists for exculpation?

Parking my car a few minutes later, I walked into my work. I have a dayjob, working for a military subcontractor. As all military facilities in which I have ever worked, there is a television tuned 24/7 to the mainstream news channels in the break room. Why US Military ordains that Orwellian viewscreens should be tuned constantly to channels that disseminate anti-Military agitprop, I cannot guess. As I walked past the break room door, I heard the massacre being discussed by the news entertainment heads.

I only heard two sentences yet again. The first mentioned the location and time of the shooting. The second sentence was speculation that the shooter was a rightwing extremist or a neo-Nazi.

The next thing I heard about it was not the numbers of the victims, nor the heroism of those who threw themselves in harm’s way to save sisters and girlfriends, and not the little twelve year old girl who tried to give CPR to a six year old who died under her hands.

No. The next thing I heard about was Brian Ross, who had announced on ABC news that the shooter was a member of the Tea Party.

I did not see or hear civilized and sane voices calling for prayer, for silence, or for dignity until much later in the week, or, as we measure time now, much later in the newscycle.

That was not where the emphasis was. We live in a Dark Age, where civility, piety, decency and honesty are not praised nor prized.

No, instead, the headlines of the radio and television news, the first thing I heard before I heard any details, was those two assertions being hammered home: the attacker was not a Muslim terrorist. The Right was to blame.

Read the remainder of this entry »

43 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

An another blog lost in the bogs of the Internet, we read these words:

“There isn’t a form of media on this earth that isn’t biased. As George Orwell said, all art is propaganda. And good journalism is art in the same manner of Ulysses and the statue of David. It exists to reveal truths about the world and influence people to think, believe and/or feel certain things.”

There was a longer argument attached, some typical PC blather about Fox News, which is, for some reason unclear to me, a PC croquemitaine. I did not read past the paragraph above quoted.

Need I interpret this for anyone? This is the voice of Nihilism, the blatant denial that truth exists or that loyalty to truth is commendable. It is a flat-out and naked statement that all communication is sociopathic falsehood meant only to manipulate the listener like a Pavlovian dog.

At that point, there is no reason to read another word. The witness has impeached himself. He has said everyone lies. If true, then he is a liar because he is one of everyone. If false, then he is a liar because he says what is false.

Read the remainder of this entry »

46 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

Quote of the Day

Posted July 25, 2012 By John C Wright

Edward Feser from THE LAST SUPERSTITION:

“The mainstream Western religious tradition itself very firmly rests on and embraces reason and science.

“That tradition also insists that religious conviction and moral virtue must be adopted of one’s own free will, not imposed by force; and while it holds that some of the things people choose to do are morally unacceptable, secularists who also profess to believe that there is a difference between right and wrong, hold the same thing. The Protestant John Locke and the Catholic Second Vatican Council (to take just two examples) endorsed religious toleration and democracy, and on theological grounds at that, while secularists are none too happy with democracy when, say, it results in school boards that mandate the teaching of ‘Intelligent Design’ theory alongside evolution.

“So what, pray tell, is distinctively ‘secularist’ about reason, science, free choice, toleration, democracy, and the like? Nothing at all, as it happens. The fact is that secularists are ‘for’ reason and science only to the extent that they don’t lead to religious conclusions; they celebrate free choice only insofar as one chooses against traditional or religiously oriented morality; and they are for democracy and tolerance only to the extent that these might lead to a less religiously oriented social and political order. Again, the animus against religion is not merely a feature of the secularist mindset; it is the only feature.”

David Bentley Hart from ATHEIST DELUSIONS:

“I suspect that our contemporary ‘age of reason’ is in many ways an age of almost perfect unreason, one always precariously poised upon the edge of – and occasionally slipping over into – the purest barbarism.

“I suspect that, to a far greater degree than we typically might imagine, we have forsaken reason for magic: whether the magic of occult fantasy or the magic of an amoral idolatry of our own power over material reality. Reason, in the classical and Christian sense, is a whole way of life, not the simple and narrow mastery of certain techniques of material manipulation, and certainly not the childish certitude that such mastery proves that only material realities exist.

“A rational life is one that integrates knowledge into a larger choreography of virtue, imagination, patience, prudence, humility, and restraint. Reason is not only knowledge, but knowledge perfected in wisdom. In Christian tradition, reason was praised as a high and precious thing, primarily because it belonged intrinsically to the dignity of beings created in the divine image; and, this being so, it was assumed that reason is also always morality, and that charity is required for any mind to be fully rational.

“Even if one does not believe any of this, however, a rational life involves at least the ability to grasp what it is one does not know, and to recognize that what one does know may not be the only kind of genuine knowledge there is.”

Read the remainder of this entry »

11 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

The Last Free Election

Posted July 24, 2012 By John C Wright

Presented here as a public service, because the Crisismagazine website is on the blink, at least at the moment. As soon as they come back online, I’ll remove this article by Rev Rutler, and link to it.

The money quote is this:

Unless there is a dramatic reversal in the present course of our nation, those who measured their Catholicism by the Catholic schools they attended, will soon find most of those institutions officially pinching incense to the ephemeral genius of their secular leaders, and universities once called Catholic will be no more Catholic than Brown is Baptist or Princeton is Presbyterian. […]

Catholic businessmen with more than fifty employees will be in the same bind. Catholic institutions and small businesses owned by those with religious and moral reservations about government-imposed policies, will wither within a very short time, unable to bear the burden of confiscatory tax penalties. …

Add to that the approaching discrimination against Catholics seeking positions in commerce and public life. Catholics will not be suitable for public charities, medicine, education, journalism, or in the legal profession, especially judgeships and law enforcement.

Read the remainder of this entry »

8 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

A calculation tool no SF writer should be without.

Posted July 24, 2012 By John C Wright

(Hat tip to Mark Shea) If you wish to calculate your age on other planets, go here:

http://www.exploratorium.edu/ronh/age/

Please note that the author of this website correctly stated the number of planets in this, the sane version of the solar system, is nine. I would not have linked to it had it said otherwise.

The insane version of the solar system rumored to have been created by some evil scientists, in which there are only eight planets, is one that all fans of Clyde Tombaugh must oppose until the day when the dread scourge of Plutophobia is abolished from polite society.

This website unwisely links, however, to the misnamed “Nine Planets” website, which says there are only eight planets in the solar system, and does NOT include Pluto.  I can only hope that the servants of the Mi Go who lurk in secret among us do not report this egregious (and unintentionally hilarious)  lapse of judgment to their grim masters, the Outer Powers of Yuggoth.

 

39 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

Feminine Names for Strong Women’s Novels

Posted July 17, 2012 By John C Wright

I read an article, to which I will not bother to link, which criticized HUNGER GAMES by Suzanne Collins on the grounds that the title of the work was not named after the main character, as it would have been (or so the writer implied) had the work starred a manly masculine man dripping with machismo.

Such works (or so the writer implied) are always and inevitably named after the hero, for example, the ODYSSEY is named after Odysseus, or OEDIPUS REX is named after a dog named Rex.

Read the remainder of this entry »

137 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

Eugenics and Other Evils

Posted July 17, 2012 By John C Wright

A review of EUGENICS AND OTHER EVILS An Argument Against the Scientifically Organized State by G.K. Chesterton. You can read it (and it will well reward your time) here.

G.K. Chesterston displays sparkling wit and trenchant insight into human nature in this as in his other writings: the man is charming.

He is a trenchant observer of the inevitable evil resulting from attempting to reorder human society by the arid theories of intellectuals, and a Jeremiah of the brutality and nastiness which results from a culture that allows for such monstrosities as eugenics produces; and I do not mean by breeding, I mean by the process that selects who shall organize the state, and have absolute power.

He is also an ignoramus of staggering proportion when it comes to basic matters concerning political economy. His criticism of the free market consists of a belief that the poor are wretchedly poor because the rich derive wealth from the poverty of the poor. Poverty exists because the rich, merely by wishing the poverty into existence, create it. Once the poor are wretchedly poor, only then will they be cowed enough to work in factories. Chesterton, with a straight face, announces that the poor who are moderately poor do not seek wages, and rich people do not seek to hire them.

He also thinks the rich could wish poverty out of being using the same magic power that they used to wish it into being, but that they selfishly refuse to use this power, because, if the poor were not wretched, the factories would find no employees, and the rich would be less rich. I am frankly baffled, in this analysis, what Chesterton thinks the factory owners do with manufactured goods once they are produced: if the rich had the power to wish wealth into being, would they not wish for wealthy customers to buy their goods? If no one buys the goods, what good are they?

Chesterton concludes his (ahem) ‘analysis’ by saying that the rich have unwisely ‘allowed’ the poor to multiply in great numbers, so that the overpopulation would increase the labor supply and drive down the height of wages: but they miscalculated in their villainy, and now they fear the numbers of the poor they way the Pharaoh feared the swelling ranks of the Hebrews. The Eugenics movement of the 1910’s was a plot by the wealthy to control the numbers of the poor, who, apparently, can magically raise population rates when it suits them, but not lower them again.

He also pauses to call the rich all the usual nasty names that writers blissfully ignorant of economics call them: parasites, robbers, flint-hearted sinners, etc. Apparently wealth merely exists as a given, appearing naturally for no cause and at no cost, like manna from heaven, but the rich (somehow) with their hoodoo magic have usurped all the wealth, so the manna meant for us falls only on them. This is the economic theory of a cargo-cultist.

Chesterton’s economic theory does not realize that the consumers, not the whim of the factory owner, sets the price of goods and the price of every factor of production, including the wages of labor.

His theory does not notice that the poor factory worker was mass-producing cheap goods for the poor, at prices they could afford, leading to the general rise of wealth and luxury of the nation. It is the capitalist, who invests, builds the factory, and creates the jobs. It is the capitalist who allows the poor shoeless man and the poor shoe-factory worker to make a mutually advantageous exchange.

If the rich man who built the factory were a thief, and hanged as other thieves are hanged, the victims that he robs would be the richer when he leaves off robbing them.

In reality, if the rich man does not invest, the factory is not built, and the poor man who wanted to buy shoes will go unshod and the poor man working in a shoe factory will go begging.

Read this book for its lucid prose and droll paradoxes in which Chesterton finds delight: but for an understanding of how the market system works and why it works, read HUMAN ACTION by Ludwig von Mises. (Which you can read here. If even one tenth part of the lessons of von Mises were heard and understood, nine tenths of the mischief of the modern world, including the evils of the so called scientifically planned state, would never arise.)

71 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

Epistemology

Posted July 17, 2012 By John C Wright

A reader and I are revisiting an old, old dispute.

I said this:

The real meat of the question is what epistemology (that is, what theory of what constitutes a legitimate proof) can serve to prove or to disprove the existence of God, a being allegedly benevolent, omnipotent, simple, source and creator of the universe, and fundamental axiom of goodness and means by which goodness is known? Assuming someone posits the existence of such a supreme being, what type of proof is legitimate to prove or to disprove His existence?

If you answer that it is the same means we use to prove the rate of gravity on Earth, that answer is wrong, for the simple reason that weights would fall at the same rate whether the cosmos is a created artifact, or the accidental by-product of a blind natural process, or was created by a demiurge or some being lacking the properties under discussion. The one has nothing to do with the other.

His question in reply:

What type of proof is legitimate to prove or disprove the existence of a common ancestor of humans and apes? If you answer that it is the same means we use to prove the rate of gravity on Earth, that answer is wrong, for the simple reason that weights would fall at the same rate whether or not humans and apes have a common ancestor. Can you find the flaw in this reasoning?

I applaud your attempt to use the Socratic method! In that spirit I will answer any and all questions you put to me!

Read the remainder of this entry »

33 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

Chesterton and Hitchens

Posted July 16, 2012 By John C Wright

Famed journalist and apologist for a vehemently anti-intellectual strain of atheism Christopher Hitchens, in an article posthumously published after he passed to his reward decided, not to his credit, to sharpen his pen in a last barb against the Great White Whale of journalism, the legendary and irrepressible G.K. Chesterton, a famed journalist and apologist for a vehemently intellectual strain of theism, Catholic Christianity.

The full tone-deaf absurdity and infantilism of Mr Hitchens’ final, or post-final, effort with ink is saved from loud public acclamation mostly because the loud public knows not who G.K. Chesterton is. This forms one of many reasons why the faithful should pray for the loud public: forgive them, Lord, they know not what they should be reading.

Read the remainder of this entry »

30 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

Breakthrough in Neuroscience

Posted July 16, 2012 By John C Wright

For those of you who have asked for a change of topic, here is an interesting article about an advance in neuroscience: a British physician apparently can communicate with a patient diagnosed as being brain-dead (persistent vegetative state) through an MRI system. (hat tip to Mark Shea.)

Adrian Owen still gets animated when he talks about patient 23. The patient was only 24 years old when his life was devastated by a car accident. Alive but unresponsive, he had been languishing in what neurologists refer to as a vegetative state for five years, when Owen, a neuro-scientist then at the University of Cambridge, UK, and his colleagues at the University of Liège in Belgium, put him into a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) machine and started asking him questions.

Incredibly, he provided answers.

Read the remainder of this entry »

16 Comments so far. Join the Conversation