Tuesday, June 30, 2015

Low Hanging Fruit

Free Northerner has a post up about why young people leave the church, and what to do about it. There's a graph involved that you really should go there to look at:

Follow the yellow line, it represents the church. In 1940, the church was the third likeliest method of meeting your spouse, after family and friends. Now it is the lowest, practically non-existent, while family is the second lowest.

Some of this could possibly be chalked up to declining church attendence rates, especially among the young, but, church attendence has remained near 40% since 1940.

Church leaders are always asking why young people leave the church. The first graph is all that needs to be said.

Young people are looking to find love. This is natural, this is healthy. If they can not find love in the church, they will find it elsewhere.

The church should be supporting young people in finding love, so healthy, productive marriages will result. Instead, the church has entirely abandoned its responsbility to promote family formation, and has left the process to peers, clubs, and online dating.

Allegedly, the majority of women tend to pair-bond in their teen years, and despite all the craziness in the media- tend to settle down with one man. To me, this is low hanging fruit that the Church, or any other organization interested in existing throughout the generations has been really stupid to lose. And they've been losing it.

It is always useful to remember that God is the God of the Living. If your organization is no longer oriented to life, well, life can grow up in the cracks.

Monday, June 29, 2015

Jindal Misdirects Too

Bobby Jindal, governor of Louisiana:

“The Supreme Court decision today conveniently and not surprisingly follows public opinion polls, and tramples on states’ rights that were once protected by the 10th Amendment of the Constitution. Marriage between a man and a woman was established by God, and no earthly court can alter that.

This decision will pave the way for an all out assault against the religious freedom rights of Christians who disagree with this decision. This ruling must not be used as pretext by Washington to erode our right to religious liberty.

Between paragraph one and paragraph two, there ought to be a whole lot of diatribe about what Jindal and the state of Louisiana can do to nullify, but mysteriously, we see a politician segue right past any path that might imperil his position with the federal government, and instead he moves straight into 'fighting for religious liberty.'

He wants to be president. I don't think he realizes he has to be bad enough to be blackmailed.


Vox Day posted about the Texas governor's statement about gmarriage. (The term comes from William M. Briggs and actually means government defined marriage- of course, this has been a problem since well before this particular Supreme court ruling.)

Anyway, the misdirection part is Governor Abbot not talking about specifically nullifying this court, but instead moving to a promise of protection. Why would that be? My guess is it is a backhanded way of saying vote for me or else. A continuation, in my opinion, of the empty lies. No, he, and anyone else at his level, must, if they are actually doing their job, directly risk themselves. In other words, if they were doing what was right, they'd be at least mildly worried that some federal agents somewhere might be showing up to put them in jail. As governor, Abbott has access to resources that individual people just don't have, like the national guard, state police, various and sundry officials.

But promises to help Christian Texans avoid persecution? Please. This will probably encourage persecution. The republicans make persecutions happen just before election time so they can scare the plebes into voting for them again.

No, none of them deserve a vote unless they are willing to take real risks.

Does America Need Romanides?

Modern history, should any American have any sort of hazy recollection of it, generally tends to be taught as propaganda for progressives. In other words, you have a particular event or person in history, and the moral delivered from the supposedly non-moral pulpit of the classroom is that this person/event did or did not conform to the great movement forward. In many cases there is an initial sanctioning followed by a rejection- people can be praised for being more progressive than their predecessors, but they must, of course, be denigrated for being less progressive than their successors.

The side effect of this false moral interpolation is that the average American cannot articulate a reasonable defense against the move from that which that grew up accustomed to, to the next mile marker on the progressive road to hell.

Romanides was an Orthodox priest who obviously has a different view.

The conclusions, I believe, seem clear. The underlying forces which clashed on the battlefield were not the Decretals, canon law, and the Filioque, but Romans and Franks. The Franks used church structure and dogma in order to maintain their birthright, to hold the Roman nation in "just subjection." The Romans also used church structure and dogma to fight back for their own freedom from oppression and for their independence.

Both sides used the most convenient weapons at hand. Thus, the same canonical and decretal arguments are to be found now on one side, now on the other, according to the current offensive and defensive needs of each nation. The Filioque, however, became a permanent feature of conflict between East Romans and Franks with the West Romans attempting to side with the East Romans.

From all that has been pointed out, it should be evident that there are strong indication that Roman historical terms are much closer to the reality of the schism than is Frankish terminology. The first is consistent with its own past, whereas the second is a deliberate provocation of a break with the past.

Yes, most Americans will just go to sleep again, just like they did the when they were first taught. Additionally, someone with clear flair for writing for Americans probably ought to re-write Romanides for American audiences. But assuming Americans could be taught a bit of Romanides, it could provide containment for the progressive disease. The new mile marker on the road to hell could be rejected- more importantly still, we could get of the road.

I would also think this a uniquely helpful viewpoint for Americans due precisely to our amnesiac qualities. To be fair, our tendency towards amnesia arose, not out of stupidity, but for the fact that for much of the nation's history, you could move away and start anew, rather than find yourself with the constant need to engaged or re-engage a culture you had begun to find questionable. So one's history could have a gap- most folks had a bible and maybe some access to ancient texts, and then whatever recent history one's family had upon coming hither from yon.

Relentess Propaganda Makes Everything Look Questionable

Given that I know that blacks have, or did have, a rather conservative view about things like what marriage is and abortion, I felt like looking up the past, and asking myself, "self, did anything happen right before Roe v Wade that might have increased racial tensions in order to decrease the likelihood that the elites in this country wouldn't get their way?"

Well, there was Mark Essex. An ex-navy black man who decided to go on a shooting spree in New Orleans. He targeted police.

I have no idea how this was played in the media of the day. There were also other events, no doubt, but I was merely looking for what might have come just before the decision was announced. Maybe I should go looking for one that fits the more modern day requirement of the evil white man being the culprit. I don't have the energy to chase shadows, though.

One of the lasting images that I will always have in my mind is the scene in House of Cards where they are keeping vigil around a police scanner waiting, just waiting for that one death that they can make political hay with. I know it is a fiction; but I also know it is true, that politicians must be doing this stuff. This strange removal of flags from various outlets- and the whisper that it was a government edict- what the hell what that?

Much about today is even more inexplicable than merely looking for the right event to amplify.

Friday, June 26, 2015

Can The Republican Learn To Love Nullification?

Now that the Supreme Court appears to have made same-sex marriage legal across the land (who can make something non-existent legal?) I am now wonder what the blowhards that try and pretend that they are conservative will do.

The states that are still run by supposed Christians, conservatives, traditionalists, whatever, ought to now join with their dope-smoking cousins and start passing laws that flout the federal government. You can go look up Tom Woods, or the Tenth Amendment center, or probably a half-dozen other places- like papers from our founder fathers about what they were up to when they wrote the Constitution- and figure this is a legitimate thing for a state to do.

This is all you have left, Republicans. I know you probably won't do it, because you are mostly lawyers, and you and your buddies need the extra money that all the new divorces will bring in. But if there aren't any nullification laws passed, I'm pretty sure we'll see the end of the Republican party very soon.

Thursday, June 25, 2015

Questioning Corporate Actions

I've heard Amazon has removed the Confederate battle flag, and earlier had removed gender from their toy search.
I've heard Walmart has done something similar with the Confederate flag too.
Whoever else shows up to this party.

Do these actions reflect the desires of their customers?

I don't happen to own a Confederate flag, or any flag really. I tend to think they are unhelpful pieces of kit, designed to make people patriotic towards symbols rather than having a clear understanding of what needs to be defended. During monarchies and small city republics, I suppose it was easier, but here, where they are actively trying to edit our history right before our eyes- well, the republic is dead, and these displays of the flag as if she is alive seem offensive to me.

But I am concerned. Mostly due to the great annoyance, but possible need, of figuring out which corporation is doing what and then deciding whether or not it is necessary to stop doing business with them.

When I think of social justice warriors, I know with some certainty that they aren't particularly rich, that they certainly can't outspend the South, and that it makes no sense in terms of long term corporate success, to accede to their demands. In fact there are likely a variety of brands that would benefit from being associated with reactionary or aristocratic ideals. No, these are, no doubt, the actions of selfish people who are taking advantage of the political atmosphere to enrich themselves at their corporation's expense. At the very least, they seek to insulate themselves from competition by covering themselves in the cheap SJW version of sanctity, which I imagine smells like patchouli and American Spirit.

Thanks to my little hobby of working out, I have had occasion to notice hard working young people on youtube who are willing to record themselves doing fitness type things, and go on various social media outlets in a scantily clad manner. I have noticed very little in the way of contrary opinion- indeed these guys adopt a diet that I think is much harder than others- largely because the game is to develop a social media presence so that companies that want to sell to people will contract with you. The 'if it fits your macros' diet is, I think, a side effect of their need to be able to shill for sponsors. I do not think they are out right lying, but that they are young natural athletes naturally capable of handling more carbohydrates, and incentives do influence people's thinking.

Again, if we are talking healthy corporations looking to develop a market share, a certain level of difference leads to better sales. The big banks are suffering from this in a different way- they'll ask customers to refer a friend to them; I always look at this and ask myself what difference can I point to between one or the other?