i deprecate the possibility, but aren't there two polities emerging here, one the northeast, the west coast and the desert, the other the old Confederacy plus the northern plains and mountain states thrown in? It would be a terrible thing to happen, and I'm afraid even suggesting it as a possibility is mischievous. But.
The two polities are really the polity of Cities (cities anywhere-- Dallas, Nashville and Atlanta belong to it too) and the Polity of the Countryside. In between are the suburbs, which are economically and by infrastructure tied to the Cities, but often have attitudes more in line with the Country.
Yeah people that say the red states & blue states should go their separate ways don’t understand it’s not red states vs blue states but rural areas generally red & urban areas blue. Bear in mind that both Kevin McCarthy & Nancy Pelosi represent congressional districts in California. Arlington County Virginia went 80% for Biden & Buchanan County in SW Va went 80% for Trump. Virginia has a Republican Governor, 2 Democratic Senators, a slim Republican majority in the House of Delegates, a one seat Democratic majority in the State senate, and 6 Democrats & 5 Republicans in the House of Representatives. So are we blue or red? It depends entirely on where you live but as a state I guess we’re purple.
Minnesota can be added to that list, since its state law now aligns with California's SB107 regarding loss of parental rights if you don't support your minor child's desire for gender affirming care. That includes surgery for minors without parental agreement.
Was 911 metaphysical? Maybe. I am certain metaphysical phenomenae occured in association with it. For example, there was an open Bible in one of the WTC towers that was fused to a steel girder. You can still read the page, where it is on display at the museum at the site today.
“Ye have heard that it hath been said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.’ ”
Also, when I went on my mission trip to NYC last year, I was walking around with a few of my fellow missionaries, doing the tourist thing. We eventually found ourselves in the area of Wall Street, not far from the WTC, our destination. As we moved through the area, I started getting this sensation of...peace. Inexplicable peace. I was not the only one who noticed it, either.
And when we got to the area where the sites of the former towers, now reflecting pools were, the character of the area totally changed. NYC normally is busy, bustling, noisy. People going too and fro, just city life turned up to 11. You got within a certain radius of the area, things just...dialed down. People were still about, but orderly, peacefully. It had a hush resembling a library. Or a church. They were polite, courteous, orderly. Gave each other space and deference.
The aura of peace was palpable.
I was safe and comfortable enough to lay down and take a nap on a concrete slab outside one of the museums at one point.
9/11 may be metaphysical. It certainly was a stroke of luck for certain people.
Larry Silverstein, for example, who took out an insurance plan that covered terrorism just months before the attacks. After the attacks, he took the insurance company to court, claiming he should be paid double because there were two attacks. He made $4.55 billion.
It was also lucky for the Bush administration that one of the planes hit the Pentagon in the budget analyst office where DoD staffers were working on the mystery of the 2.3 trillion dollars that Donald Rumsfeld had announced “missing” from the Pentagon's coffers in a press conference the day before, on September 10, 2001.
I particularly like this speech made by GW Bush where he says the terrorists set explosives in the towers:
Somebody always seems to benefit from the misfortune of others. John F. Kennedy is assassinated and the result is that Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon become president. John Wayne turned down the role of Dirty Harry and Clint Eastwood got the part. Buddy Holly took little-known Waylon Jennings' seat on a small plane. The plane crashes, kills Holly and two other singers, and Jennings become a big star in country music.
No. It was Al Qaida (Mohammed Atta and his unmerry men) that did the deed-- the evidence is overwhelming. That some people benefited from it is irrelevant. There is no event so dire that someone somewhere won't find profit in it.
On the morning of September 11, 2001, 19 men armed with boxcutters directed by a man on dialysis in a cave fortress halfway around the world using a satellite phone and a laptop directed the most sophisticated penetration of the most heavily-defended airspace in the world, overpowering the passengers and the military combat-trained pilots on 4 commercial aircraft before flying those planes wildly off course for over an hour without being molested by a single fighter interceptor.
These 19 hijackers, devout religious fundamentalists who liked to drink alcohol, snort cocaine, and live with pink-haired strippers, managed to knock down 3 buildings with 2 planes in New York, while in Washington a pilot who couldn't handle a single engine Cessna was able to fly a 757 in an 8,000 foot descending 270 degree corskscrew turn to come exactly level with the ground, hitting the Pentagon.
It is worth thinking about but many things that have happened in my 63 years are worth thinking about. For instance, for Americans of a certain age, Vietnam was a great tragedy. 9/11 happened because a Muslim fanatic understood that airplane security on American planes was very lax at the time so he had younger fanatics armed with box cutters commandeer the planes and wreck them into selected targets. Three thousand innocent people died on 9/11 resulting in many more thousands of Americans, Iraqis and Afghanis dying over the next two decades due to the actions of a very foolish president who had a messiah complex.
Re: Could there be a purer manifestation of hubris?
Teddie Roosevelt's "I'll teach them to elect good men" is in the running. And as I mentioned on another piece yesterday, American imperialism is of long standing, dating back into the early 19th century with Manifest Destiny and the war of 1812 (where our goal was to conquer Canada)
Jonathan Cahn's book The Harbinger is all about how 911 was a warning from God to America. From the book's blurb, "Before its end as a nation, there appeared in ancient Israel nine specific warnings and omens of national destruction – These same nine Harbingers are now manifesting in America". Unfortunately, it looks like we haven't heeded the warning.
God does use disaster, both natural and man-made, to try to get the attention of people and reorient them. God put free will into play, for it is an essential component of a moral universe. However, it is a fallen one as well. So rather than just be a place where bad things happen, OR just heal every wound or stop every bad thing and guy, He allows those things to happen for His purposes, which are, above all, to draw attention to Him, to bring souls into His fold. That situation is on a clock and will not last forever. But that He moves among that, mostly quietly, but sometimes spectacularly.
Re: God does use disaster, both natural and man-made, to try to get the attention of people and reorient them.
There are certainly lessons we can learn from such things and we should turn to God for those purposes. But I do not believe God promotes sin as a means to further his will.
Sure He does. I never said He promotes "sin". I said He uses misfortune, including the evil of men, as well as the infernal forces, for His purposes. Examples? Christ's crucifixion. Others? Persecution of Christians. And I can keep on going.
I never said that, either. I said God uses circumstances and is not paralyzed by the actions of Evil. But He does allow it. And that is why He does. There will come a time He will call a halt to all that. But in the meantime, that is how He uses it.
re: California - I was waiting to come up because frankly I'm just stunned. The idea that schools cannot tell parents when a child has transitioned to a new name/identity - if a school can lie about that, what else will they lie about? What if a student is found to be having same-sex relations with a teacher, and notifying the parents would effectively "out" the child? Shall the school keep that a secret as well?
If children have the right to gender expression no matter what the age - certainly they must have the right to sexual expression, right? So how can society impose an arbitrary age limit on sexual activity with children without violating the supposed civil rights OF the children?
The age of consent in Hungary is 14. And 12 was the age at which girls in the Middle Ages could be legally wedded-- and bedded. Look up "Margaret Beaufort" for an example (though I suppose she got the last laugh by sticking her son-- born when she was barely 13-- on the throne eventually)
No. I grew up with an age of consent of 16, with some legal protections against authority figures using their position to seduce of-age minors . And I do think Hungary's 14 is way too young.
Please do note that the pnly people resisting sensible age of consent laws are certain sectarian religious types who seem think girls should be married off as soon as they pass through puberty.
I think the problem is that Europe has much looser age of consent laws, and this fact will be used in favor of lowering our own once the minors themselves are pushing for it. There will be no lowering of the age if adults are lobbying for that, obviously, but that will not be how it plays out here ... it will be minors lobbying for it, and they will point to places like France (15) and Germany (14) as examples of places with lower ages of consent where there are specific provisions that prohibit sex between adults and people under their authority (parents, teachers, etc) or where there is mental coercion, bribery and the like. That will be the push here. I think many Americans will be shocked at the European laws on this, because they are shocking from an American perspective, and we generally see age of consent as being something that is universal on a human level, but it is not, and that fact will be used by the children themselves when they are demanding the laws be changed, unfortunately.
In the US, there's been a big push to eliminate "child marriage", without nuance. Seriously, there's a huge difference between, say, 17-year-olds getting married, and a 34-year-old wanting to marry a 13-year-old. In their minds, it's all the same though.
Thank you. When this talk of consent comes up marriage tends to get left out of the discussion (mostly because the people arguing over consent don't care about it).
"There will be no lowering of the age if adults are lobbying for that, obviously, but that will not be how it plays out here"
I think it'll play out differently here, all under the umbrella of LGBTQWERTY.
What's going to happen is that queer sexuality - and sex itself - will be deemed so vital to a young person's identity and character that the "civil rights" of the children require a reduction in the age of consent, or its abolition altogether - the parents will have to "exercise judgement," as those who insist we mustn't ban books with explicit gay themes now say in response to questions as to why "Gender Queer" ought to be available in the school library.
I think very much this push will come from LGBTQUERTY organizations "standing up" for queer youth. I saw a statistic at one point on the percentage of gay men who realized they were gay because of or after a tryst with an older/legal-age gay man - in other words, their sexual orientation was nourished by, their "identity" cemented by, the fact they'd had sex with an older man who could perhaps "show them the ropes."
If sex between teens/kids and older people is integral to discovering and "affirming" a person's sexual identity - how can there be an age of consent?
Why does the conversation always leap to "older people with kids"? Most teens have sex with other teens (when they do at all), usually with 2-3 years of their own age. For that reason some jurisdictions have "Romeo and Juliet laws" which either allow or go easy on young people close in age who do a roll in the hay.
It's a total myth that there are just these hordes of adults lusting to bed teens. At time I think it says more about those who posit the idea then about reality.
"If a school can lie about that, what else will they lie about?"
You're right, and this is the question that I think will turn the tide on this, as long as dissenters ask it, and ask it, and ask it, and keep asking the hell out of it, and show where this logic leads.
I mean, hell, if a kid decides to join a religious club, are we going to keep that from parents too? It's kind of fun to imagine all of my progressive neighbors aghast to find out that the school was preventing them from knowing that their kid attended meetings of the Mormon Student Club. If a girl from a devout Muslim family arrives at school every morning in a headscarf but changes in the girls' room into a hoochiemama outfit for the rest of the day, can—must? should?—teachers keep that from parents?
I don't even like the term "outing" for anyone other than the gay and lesbian kids, because sexual preference is a feeling (and an activity) that generally doesn't affect others. But when the teachers, the school administrators, and all of the kids know that Joseph is being Josephine at school and are all required (by policy and by law) to play along with pseudo-Josephine's damage, it's nuts that *only* the parents don't know.
24% of California voters are Republicans, and 23% are independents (most of whom would be Republicans but don't want the GOP stink on them). Where the hell are they on this?
I was so hoping you would repost your experience with the torn flag, and was happy to wake up to the retelling this morning. I was thinking about your story yesterday, and I do think 9/11 has metaphysical meaning. In some sense, the world many of us above a certain age knew, loved and were raised to inherit died on 9/11; and a new America has emerged over the past 22 years, one that may have all the familiar sites and sounds, yet is drastically not the America prior to 9/11.
Was 9/11 a metaphysical event or not? I want a third option on that. Being Christian means that superstition has no place in one’s worldview. Superstition is wholly a pagan concept. At the same time, to ignore the metaphysical and describe it as superstition is also not Christian. The pagan view is that there are events which are driven by forces that cannot be understood, while the secular view is that all things which happen originate from a physical explanation, even if the causes are not yet understood.
The Christian worldview is that what we see as anomalous behaviors have an explanation that is known but not fully understood in cause or meaning. Nevertheless, there is a framework that reconciles the physical and metaphysical. This is true at least for Christians who hold to an orthodox Christian worldview. Too many Christians point to rational events, like a child dying of cancer, as part of “God’s plan,” which is a superstition. Others refuse to even consider a supernatural cause for something or even accept the existence of evil in any literal sense.
Without laying out that framework, it becomes impossible take something like 9/11 and give it any substantive meaning like Rod has done above. On top of that, the things which do happen are often a lesson, whatever their origin. God can turn all things to good, even the wicked things, but it is not always in our definition of good. We want to see good as things which are pleasing to the senses, bringing comfort, or providing a reconciliation with our expectations. Often, what is seen is good is simply satisfying the basic needs on Maslow’s hierarchy. We do not take an event such as 9/11 and see how God blessed it by revealing truths about us as both a warning and a reminder of the covenant that binds all Christians.
The warning was that God permitted evil to act in this way. The reminder of the covenant was both to see this warning and to see the small miracles that happened within that warning. The point of God’s interactions within this world is never to resolve the everyday consequences of original sin, but to provide the framework for Christians to be saved before the final hour of either their deaths or the return of Christ. Taking 9/11 within that context provides perfect reconciliation of either a superstitious or secular interpretation.
With regard to 9/11 itself, the warning was clearly to turn away from our excess and hubris and to return to the Christian values and nature of America. It is not saying that America is a Christian nation, for a nation is an earthly thing, but that a nation can be Christian in how it acts. It’s also not to say that America has ever at all been perfectly Christian, but that at least a Christian viewpoint has informed much of the character of American life.
I think that the rejection of Christianity happened after World War Two, when America found itself occupying what was essentially a deserted imperial stage and realizing that it had the economic power to conquer all around it. Materialism became the greatest virtue of a nation that had taken the first chastisement of the Great Depression and ignored it. Hedonism, both overt in popular culture, and hidden in the form of “swinging,” the embrace of Randian-style economic greatness as a virtue unto itself, sexual “liberation,” and so on, showed that we took the blessing of victory over evil and squandered it. On top of that, American life mocked the world and any sense of decency. Being able to eat to excess at all hours of the day while people make mud pies to fill empty bellies, to provide a better existence for our pets than many people would ever see, to consume and pollute a world shared by all, to engage in the worship of money and technology…and most of all to not just tolerate sins like pornography, abortion, gambling, and gluttony, but to promote them as being positive…I think you could make a good case for the values that many modern American hold as being wholly satanic in even a loose interpretation.
In that sense, 9/11 was a call to redirect ourselves to a Godly behavior, not any sort of call to defend American virtue, because that virtue no longer exists. In other words, everyone pretty much missed the point of the whole thing. The attackers had their own reasons - the significance of 9/11 as a historical date is lost on most people. In a meta sense, it also marked a civilizational reversal of an era of security for Christendom, because Christendom no longer exists.
The deepest meaning of all is perhaps that it is a sign of the end times. COVID showed that we are not secure, in spite of our belief in technology. Likewise, to see that much of the world rejected what we had to offer meant that we can no longer see our position as the most powerful and wealthy nation on the face of the earth as being any sort of shield against bad things happening. I tend to have a quiet unease about so many things these days, both big and small, and I am sure I am not alone in that. If you take that deeper meaning, then 9/11 was a wake up call and sign to find out way back to God before it is too late. Instead, we got further chastisement in the form of two disastrous wars.
I am wondering what the next chastisement is going to be. Maybe a simple implosion of our currency as the world standard. That would certainly do it. Whatever form it comes in, we Christians need to reject any superstitious or secular interpretation and discern if it is a sign from God, then act accordingly.
"The point of God’s interactions within this world is never to resolve the everyday consequences of original sin, but to provide the framework for Christians to be saved before the final hour of either their deaths or the return of Christ. Taking 9/11 within that context provides perfect reconciliation of either a superstitious or secular interpretation." Excellent, and I heartily agree with everything you have said. I would like to read more. Wish you had your own Substack.
it felt metaphysical. after the attack cities were very quiet. it felt as though a violent, brief cataclysm / conflict of spiritual proportion had just occurred. and that that cataclysm has re-ordered the world. or perhaps more accurately, the spiritual balance of power in the world (or both). since that day Christianity, and western civilization - have moved into a swift decline. where are we headed? well, if the west continues on this path - perhaps to the fall of the west as we know it and a new world where the west (and the rights it protects) will be subordinate to a digital/theocracy alien to historic western values. It feels as if Christianity has fallen and that fall is embodied in the events of 911. And the descent is continuing and the future is terrifyingly bleak (hence the cultural despondence in the west post 911). That despondence may be an unspoken reality we all live with contained in the unconscious/primordial brain. I feel it is there after 911. In a modern world, Christianity is now not as much a place as a constellation of believers across the earth, some (and increasingly more and more) practicing their faith in secrecy.
Yep. The quiet I mentioned in NYC was also present in Denton and Dallas the day of. Its character was different. Not peace. Apprehension. Like what it feels like in the eye of a hurricane, or that stillness before a tornado arrives.
In Canada that week the mood was one of grief. And it was moving to see so many American flags flying, and the "God bless America" signs in front of churches in the small Ontario towns. How many of us would be able to lay hand on a Canadian flag had some great atrocity been suffered north of the border?
I spent 9/11/2008 in Moscow - the one in Russia, not Idaho. At that point, the last 9/11 I had spent in the US was 9/11/2001. I went to a moleben at St. Catherine's (the OCA representation church) and it was a big deal, with lots of news reporters and the US Ambassador being in attendance. One of the bells outside the church is dedicated to the victims of 9/11. In my hotel room, I turned on the television, and watched things, like coverage of the towers coming down, for the first time since they had happened. (https://breathofhallelujah.com/2022/09/11/9-11-01-21/ for some pictures and stuff.) You can chalk up ulterior motives or what have you, but in some ways, it seemed like the Russians were doing more to "never forget" than the Americans.
Whatever happened that day certainly wasn't just a thing for the US. In some way, I think that the "Rich Men of Richmond" phenomenon captures a little bit of that feeling - that for a moment, the "common folk" of the world see each other as brethren, the way we ought to be in Christ.
I think that 9/11 could have been a transforming experience, and for a few days, it was - an America united. And then we got the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, the Patriot Act, and two wars in which America was told that the best thing we could do to defeat the terrorists was to go shopping.
Had Bush had stopped with the eviction of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban from Afghanistan, things might have turned out favorably. But hubris and ignorance got the better of Bush and he overextended American military power.
We had the whole world behind the hunting of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.
Iraq was, as many of my students who were there, the 710 War (read it upside down and it makes sense). And all of them were very, very, very bitter.
Not to mention (and I am in no way defending Saddam Hussein) that #2 on Osama bin Laden's hit list, after the US, was Saddam Hussein. So we gave our #1 enemy HIS worst enemy... for what?
General Wesley Clarke said that in 2001 there was a plan to invade 7 countries in 5 years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off with Iran.
Could be. Most countries' military have long-range plans to invade and/or defend against multiple countries. Of course, the real draw in the Middle East is the oil and the access to it through the Persian Gulf.
There's also the mind-game part of it. If someone like General Clarke says something like that, it also may be bluster to get someone, somewhere to cooperate with something.
and really, do you think any sane person would say (or sit in a room with someone saying): let's stage a massive fake terrorist attack, destroy downtown NYC, and murder thousands of people, to invade...Somalia, Sudan and Libya? Really?
Why not just plant a false flag somewhere in Mesopotamia, have CNN and the NYT sell it (like they sell every war) and go from there?
What kind of difference would it have made to you, Jon, if Kuwait became a part of Iraq? It might have lit a fire under us to become energy independent. The first Gulf War was the original sin. It was undertaken for bogus reasons. It was immoral. The old man is as guilty as his idiot boy.
The First Gulf War was an international effort and Bush 41 was admirable in not pursuing it to attempt regime-change in Iraq. As I have said about Russia on Ukraine, aggressive wars for territory need to be resisted as the crimes that they are. A free-for-all world of great powers doing as they please is a world on course for those terrible bright milliseconds that will leave billions of corpses by the time the skies clear again.
Agreed. Desert Storm was strategically smart and showed restraint, as well as drawing a line in the sand. And we got a good airbase in one of the few ME countries that really does not mind us being there. Then Dubya and his collection of morons and maniacs stepped in.
Hubris, ignorance, and--cowardice on the part of the opposition. Who besides Ted Kennedy saw what was really happening and said so. I mean elected official. Patrick J. Buchanan did.
My husband wrote to the new head of Homeland Security (who was from our city) and said he was a young father with young kids but he would do anything, ANYTHING, they came up with for people like him to do -- he suggested volunteer watchmen at major landmarks. We got nothing at all but the president saying we should shop and stay at hotels, and the unconstitutional "Patriot" Act.
In the second section of Rod's essay, he complains mightily about California's descent into tranny totalitarianism and quite specifically laments that the churches aren't doing enough to resist it.
Then in the third section he goes on to excoriate Christians who are resisting it. Because they're icky. And the way they go about it is icky. He won't go sit down with Wilson, less his presence offer Wilson and his accolytes some sort of endorsement.
However, at the end he goes so far as to admit that he has "a strong feeling that there are many people within the broader Christian community in Wilson’s church who are not Christians-and-mad-as-hell-about-it. I hope they prevail, somehow."
So we should want them to prevail against the Progressive cultural zeitgeist but not be icky in how they do it.
Rod wants people, especially Christians, to resist tranny totalitarian madness, to pick one issue. What forms of resistance to this are acceptable and not icky?
Pray against it privately. Sure. Not icky and something I'm sure Wilson and Isker would agree and probably do so in their daily prayers.
Pray against it publicly in front of facilities where the procedures are done, like the pro- lifers do. Sure, but you'll start running into the same resistance that they did from the legislators and the courts as you do it. In fact, the laws are already in place to blunt the effectiveness of those demonstrations because of the abortion wars so they'll immediately be turned on the anti- tranny prayer warriors.
Write letters to the editor, vote moar harder, use the courts (somehow), sign a petition. In other words, keep trying to make change using the tools of a broken system run by people who hate you. These people have the upper hand, politically speaking, on the Left Coast, the Northeast, and large swaths of the Upper Midwest and the backing of a Medical Industrial Complex that stands to make billions of dollars performing unnecessary medical procedures on healthy boys and girls with the added bonus of creating patients for life who have to pay for hormones and other medications to maintain the charade.
But at least you're not being icky.
If a man is serious about these procedures as being evil, then he shouldn't be afraid of getting icky to stop them. Particularly when so far the only method of of being icky currently on offer is Isker's rhetoric.
No, I think we must fight, while we can. We might win! But we need to be careful how we fight, that we don't turn into what we hate. And we also need to prepare to lose -- meaning, prepare for the possibility that for whatever reason, God has allowed us to be carried into exile, so to speak, and that we have to prepare to keep the life of faith going under these conditions.
While I understand that the left has won because of its 'long march through the institutions', I don't know how they were able to capture so many minds with what I consider to be foolishness. No matter what we do, they capture more minds every day. You have said many times that you thought that the gender battle would be the one that would cause us to finally rise and put a stop to the nuttiness. Well, some small battles may have been won by the masses yet the elites march on, undeterred.
I think the only way to win is to change minds (or, more specifically, that minds will change due to external forces because I don't see our efforts as being successful) and I don't think that will happen as long as we maintain some level of comfort. The question is how long will we be able to maintain? We are steadily degrading both economically and culturally, sort of bumbling and stumbling our way to ruin. Are we on the brink of a tipping point?
You know what's comin' next, doncha? Yeah, ya do.
We need it all. We need it now. We need it fast. Ruin must be so complete that all recognize the ruin and all realize the cause. Only then MIGHT we regain our senses.
Yeah I’ve wondered myself. When people say we have to resort to violence to oppose transing kids, what are they proposing? Killing the kids or their parents that allow it? Killing the doctors? Shooting up the California legislature? Bombing a hospital? I await someone explaining how that’s gonna work. To be just, force of arms has to be in self defense or defense of innocent people one is in a position to help with violence. Or a war declared by lawful authority. I just don’t think killing doctors and teachers & trans enablers is going to get anywhere except to get the perpetrators killed. Passive nonviolent resistance means you often go to jail but it has worked (Ghandi, MLK, a bunch of men in Argentina who surrounded a church to keep a bunch of wackos from desecrating it).
One of my favorite quotes: “The only kinds of fights worth fighting are those you’re going to lose, because somebody has to fight them and lose and lose and lose until someday, somebody who believes as you do wins.”
― I.F. Stone
I think back when the Bruderhof had its "Daily Dig" that this was paired with some sort of commemoration of Sophie Scholl. On the day before her trial and execution, she had a dream, "On a beautiful sunny day, I brought a child in a long white dress to be baptized. The way to the church was up a steep mountain, but I carried the child safely and firmly. Unexpectedly, there opened up before me a crevasse on the glacier. I had just time enough to lay the child safely on the other side before I plunged into the abyss." She interpreted the dream this way, according to her cellmate: “The child in the white dress is our idea. The idea will prevail in spite of all obstacles. We were permitted to be pioneers, but we must die early for the sake of that idea.”
I think that there are a number of parallels between the story of the White Rose and the story of the priest Eleazar and the mother with the seven sons which come up in 2 Maccabees (canonically and 4 Maccabees (semi-canonically). I got chills when I came across 4 Maccabees 1:11 - "All people, even their torturers, marvelled at their courage and endurance, and they became the cause of the downfall of tyranny over their nation. By their endurance they conquered the tyrant, and thus their native land was purified through them." It also drove home the point that often tyrants are put down more effectively through martyrs than armies.
You are really wrong here. There is a spirit of fanaticism and malice in Isker's book. You are taken in by the fallacy of believing that you cannot oppose evil if you aren't malicious and fanatical. I have sat face to face with Christian men and women who faced evil worse than anything Isker or I are likely to see, and they didn't oppose it with ferocious hatred in their hearts. Isker's rhetoric will not destroy anything, other than Isker.
I can tell you this. Take Benjamin J. Corey. I question he is even saved or actually knows the Lord, given that he seems to give left wing shibboleths far more credence than Scripture. That he may be one of those when the time comes who says, "Lord Lord," and Jesus says, "I knew you not." However, if he gave me an invite to dine and talk, I would probably take him up on it.
I'll ask you the same question I asked JonF311 below: Are you arguing the use of physical force and the use of directed (not broad) violence is always evil? A necessary evil, perhaps, but always still evil.
I would argue that force and violence are tools that can be employed, like all tools, to both righteous and malicious ends.
I completely agree. God consistently has used fighters and called those who believe in Him, believe in good, to fight evil and defend those who cannot defend themselves. The Apostles were armed and Jesus had no problem with that, just with their improper use. And told followers, "Buy a sword, sell your cloak if you have to." And when he returns, he makes it abundantly clear he will be there to establish a peaceful world. But first, he and God will be doing a LOT of violence.
Sometimes, you do have to fight. The actions of evil and its activities require it.
Let us be clear, violence is a last resort, and never to be something sought after for those who follow Jesus. Jesus made it VERY clear that love and peace, HIS peace, should be what we reach for. But also knew what those motivated by evil hearts and minds would do and knew we should prepare for that.
Christianity is not a pacifist faith. No, we are no warmongers seeking a fight. But we need to be ready to fight, should the fight become necessary.
That's what the Black nationalists and others advocating the use of force said in opposition to MLK's nonviolence in what looked to many to be a very righteous cause against determined, entrenched, violent opponents. Hard to argue against them, from within the framework you're offering.
No. Because the Black nationalists wanted a fight. Further, viewed those they opposed with hatred and, given chance, did not want to balance things, as it seems to be consistently the case with Left wing grievance mongers. If they had had their way and had the power, they would have flipped things, going from oppressed to oppressors. And, there was absolutely nothing of the Holy Spirit in their hearts, either to provide discernment or restraint.
MLK's nonviolent approach helped him to be viewed as a decent, peaceful person with good intentions. His assassination therefore caused outrage and moved more people toward supporting his cause, which helped start implementation of racial equality policies. At a minimum, more people starting thinking perhaps more should be done in that area.
On the other hand, people using violent measures, such as Black nationalists, alienated people and were counter productive, since more people could say to themselves "well, maybe the blacks are bad and undeserving of better treatment?"
The same situation can/will happen if Christians use violent tactics. So, we should use strong but non-violent tactics to show our commitment while staying true to our Christian views. Peaceful public protests for example (apparently blocking traffic is now considered a peaceful form of protest!).
If we use violence, we'll be lumped in with Far Right extremists and other unsavory radical groups. Keep in mind the vast majority of news media is not on the side of Christians. So, any acts of violence (or anything close) will be amplified by the media to show how terrible and dangerous Christians are.
All depends. Because things could get far worse than they ever did in the 60s. It could, at some point, literally become fight or die. Take Nazi Germany. Are you going to get into that boxcar and peacefully go to the camp? Or you going to fight? If things get that bad, you've worse things to worry about than bad pr.
Well, I hesitate to go up against the great Dukeboy01, but remember that what Isker did was write a book. What's the purpose of writing a book, specifically that kind of book? To convince people. NOBODY is convinced by a screed like that (no, I haven't read beyond the excerpts and I don't need to). As far as I can tell Isker is trying to firk up the troops into a lather. I believe it's called preaching to the choir. Nobody like me is going to change his mind based on this kind of vaporing. But it will get him airplay. And it got him mentioned here, which, I suspect, is a pretty well-read site by those who DON'T comment.
Long long ago John Henry Newman cautioned against "violent ultra parties" which damage the cause they fight for. Not quite so long ago T.S. Eliot said Christians needed to cultivate a new discipline of suffering. If that's where we're at, that's where we're at.
That's really true -- and that's 100 percent how Douglas Wilson operates. Wilson is truly an intelligent man. But his shtick is performative. He reminds me of one of my kinfolks who thinks every problem in the world can be handled by giving the malefactor a good cussin'. It changes nothing in the world, but it makes Cud'n Earl feel like he's accomplished something. When I read Wilson's stuff, I feel that I've just read an exceptional performance by someone who doesn't really care about persuading others, only about demonstrating his virtuosity in trashing an opponent. It's like he doesn't want converted hearts, only high-fives from his bros (and they're all bros).
I was that kind of writer when I started out. Then I became a Christian, and grew out of it, mostly. I am always tempted to malice and cleverness in my writing, so I know what that's like. Not being high-and-mighty here.
You know who is the master of tart, focused, direct writing that also can persuade like no other? Mr. Patrick J. Buchanan. I well remember reading in the New York Post one of his syndicated columns, this one about the desecration of the Sacrament at St. Patrick's (one of Big Buggery's more charming exploits). I sat down to read that column thinking I was some kind of liberal (a "wishy washy Social Democrat" as a friend of mine, who is one, likes to say). I got up from reading it knowing I was no such thing.
Sorry. It appeared in the New York Post. I don't think they're archived that far back.
I will say this much. If Buchanan wasn't a master polemicist there wouldn't have been half the hoo-hah over his courageous and completely correct line on the 1991 war.
He was the major sponsor of the football field at Gonzaga High School, his old high school. It is called Buchanan Field. I wonder when the name will be ordered down by the Archbishop. By the way, Buchanan used to attend the Latin Mass at St. Mary's in Chinatown. I don't know where he goes now. The Latin Mass was suppressed by Archbishop Gregory recently.
I am arguing the Wrath is a major sin- traditionally one of the Seven Deadly Sins
Also I accept my Church's teaching the we may indulge in violence in self-defense but it remains a necessary evil and hence a sin for which we must be cleansed.
i deprecate the possibility, but aren't there two polities emerging here, one the northeast, the west coast and the desert, the other the old Confederacy plus the northern plains and mountain states thrown in? It would be a terrible thing to happen, and I'm afraid even suggesting it as a possibility is mischievous. But.
The two polities are really the polity of Cities (cities anywhere-- Dallas, Nashville and Atlanta belong to it too) and the Polity of the Countryside. In between are the suburbs, which are economically and by infrastructure tied to the Cities, but often have attitudes more in line with the Country.
Yep
Yeah people that say the red states & blue states should go their separate ways don’t understand it’s not red states vs blue states but rural areas generally red & urban areas blue. Bear in mind that both Kevin McCarthy & Nancy Pelosi represent congressional districts in California. Arlington County Virginia went 80% for Biden & Buchanan County in SW Va went 80% for Trump. Virginia has a Republican Governor, 2 Democratic Senators, a slim Republican majority in the House of Delegates, a one seat Democratic majority in the State senate, and 6 Democrats & 5 Republicans in the House of Representatives. So are we blue or red? It depends entirely on where you live but as a state I guess we’re purple.
Yes, this describes the situation exactly.
Minnesota can be added to that list, since its state law now aligns with California's SB107 regarding loss of parental rights if you don't support your minor child's desire for gender affirming care. That includes surgery for minors without parental agreement.
Was 911 metaphysical? Maybe. I am certain metaphysical phenomenae occured in association with it. For example, there was an open Bible in one of the WTC towers that was fused to a steel girder. You can still read the page, where it is on display at the museum at the site today.
“Ye have heard that it hath been said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.’ ”
Also, when I went on my mission trip to NYC last year, I was walking around with a few of my fellow missionaries, doing the tourist thing. We eventually found ourselves in the area of Wall Street, not far from the WTC, our destination. As we moved through the area, I started getting this sensation of...peace. Inexplicable peace. I was not the only one who noticed it, either.
And when we got to the area where the sites of the former towers, now reflecting pools were, the character of the area totally changed. NYC normally is busy, bustling, noisy. People going too and fro, just city life turned up to 11. You got within a certain radius of the area, things just...dialed down. People were still about, but orderly, peacefully. It had a hush resembling a library. Or a church. They were polite, courteous, orderly. Gave each other space and deference.
The aura of peace was palpable.
I was safe and comfortable enough to lay down and take a nap on a concrete slab outside one of the museums at one point.
9/11 may be metaphysical. It certainly was a stroke of luck for certain people.
Larry Silverstein, for example, who took out an insurance plan that covered terrorism just months before the attacks. After the attacks, he took the insurance company to court, claiming he should be paid double because there were two attacks. He made $4.55 billion.
It was also lucky for the Bush administration that one of the planes hit the Pentagon in the budget analyst office where DoD staffers were working on the mystery of the 2.3 trillion dollars that Donald Rumsfeld had announced “missing” from the Pentagon's coffers in a press conference the day before, on September 10, 2001.
I particularly like this speech made by GW Bush where he says the terrorists set explosives in the towers:
https://gab.com/polesowa/posts/111048356003408941/media/1?timeline=video
It's lucky the passports of the culprits were found in the rubble, otherwise we may not have known who had done it.
Somebody always seems to benefit from the misfortune of others. John F. Kennedy is assassinated and the result is that Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon become president. John Wayne turned down the role of Dirty Harry and Clint Eastwood got the part. Buddy Holly took little-known Waylon Jennings' seat on a small plane. The plane crashes, kills Holly and two other singers, and Jennings become a big star in country music.
But Cui bono? is a useful question to ask, is it not?
It's a question that good detectives and investigative journalists ask.
Right. We do not know for sure who shot King William II in the back while hunting in the New Forest. But Henry I became king as a result.
Do you think 9/11 is not worth thinking about?
No. It was Al Qaida (Mohammed Atta and his unmerry men) that did the deed-- the evidence is overwhelming. That some people benefited from it is irrelevant. There is no event so dire that someone somewhere won't find profit in it.
I know, Jon, it's a fascinating story.
On the morning of September 11, 2001, 19 men armed with boxcutters directed by a man on dialysis in a cave fortress halfway around the world using a satellite phone and a laptop directed the most sophisticated penetration of the most heavily-defended airspace in the world, overpowering the passengers and the military combat-trained pilots on 4 commercial aircraft before flying those planes wildly off course for over an hour without being molested by a single fighter interceptor.
These 19 hijackers, devout religious fundamentalists who liked to drink alcohol, snort cocaine, and live with pink-haired strippers, managed to knock down 3 buildings with 2 planes in New York, while in Washington a pilot who couldn't handle a single engine Cessna was able to fly a 757 in an 8,000 foot descending 270 degree corskscrew turn to come exactly level with the ground, hitting the Pentagon.
It is worth thinking about but many things that have happened in my 63 years are worth thinking about. For instance, for Americans of a certain age, Vietnam was a great tragedy. 9/11 happened because a Muslim fanatic understood that airplane security on American planes was very lax at the time so he had younger fanatics armed with box cutters commandeer the planes and wreck them into selected targets. Three thousand innocent people died on 9/11 resulting in many more thousands of Americans, Iraqis and Afghanis dying over the next two decades due to the actions of a very foolish president who had a messiah complex.
The thousands of deaths were indeed tragic.
i think 9/11 conspiracy theories are garbage trash that fall to pieces under the slighest interrogation.
Re: Could there be a purer manifestation of hubris?
Teddie Roosevelt's "I'll teach them to elect good men" is in the running. And as I mentioned on another piece yesterday, American imperialism is of long standing, dating back into the early 19th century with Manifest Destiny and the war of 1812 (where our goal was to conquer Canada)
It was Woodrow Wilson, not Roosevelt, who wanted to teach foreigners (in particular, Latin Americans) to elect good men: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1983/07/31/teaching-latin-america-to-elect-good-men/e8bed301-5802-49b8-be54-85d4e1dd12a3/
Ok- but TR was quite the imperialist too. See: Panama; Philippines.
Jonathan Cahn's book The Harbinger is all about how 911 was a warning from God to America. From the book's blurb, "Before its end as a nation, there appeared in ancient Israel nine specific warnings and omens of national destruction – These same nine Harbingers are now manifesting in America". Unfortunately, it looks like we haven't heeded the warning.
Re: Jonathan Cahn's book The Harbinger is all about how 911 was a warning from God to America.
Bad theology. God is never the author or even the accomplice of human-wrought evil.
God does use disaster, both natural and man-made, to try to get the attention of people and reorient them. God put free will into play, for it is an essential component of a moral universe. However, it is a fallen one as well. So rather than just be a place where bad things happen, OR just heal every wound or stop every bad thing and guy, He allows those things to happen for His purposes, which are, above all, to draw attention to Him, to bring souls into His fold. That situation is on a clock and will not last forever. But that He moves among that, mostly quietly, but sometimes spectacularly.
Re: God does use disaster, both natural and man-made, to try to get the attention of people and reorient them.
There are certainly lessons we can learn from such things and we should turn to God for those purposes. But I do not believe God promotes sin as a means to further his will.
Sure He does. I never said He promotes "sin". I said He uses misfortune, including the evil of men, as well as the infernal forces, for His purposes. Examples? Christ's crucifixion. Others? Persecution of Christians. And I can keep on going.
Yes, all things must ultimately rebound to God's purposes, but we must not conclude from that it doesn't matter what we do.
I never said that, either. I said God uses circumstances and is not paralyzed by the actions of Evil. But He does allow it. And that is why He does. There will come a time He will call a halt to all that. But in the meantime, that is how He uses it.
re: California - I was waiting to come up because frankly I'm just stunned. The idea that schools cannot tell parents when a child has transitioned to a new name/identity - if a school can lie about that, what else will they lie about? What if a student is found to be having same-sex relations with a teacher, and notifying the parents would effectively "out" the child? Shall the school keep that a secret as well?
Lowering the age of consent -- say, 12 -- is next on the agenda.
If children have the right to gender expression no matter what the age - certainly they must have the right to sexual expression, right? So how can society impose an arbitrary age limit on sexual activity with children without violating the supposed civil rights OF the children?
The age of consent in Hungary is 14. And 12 was the age at which girls in the Middle Ages could be legally wedded-- and bedded. Look up "Margaret Beaufort" for an example (though I suppose she got the last laugh by sticking her son-- born when she was barely 13-- on the throne eventually)
Not sure what your point is? That if we changed the age of consent here in the U.S. to 14 or 12 it would be no big deal?
No. I grew up with an age of consent of 16, with some legal protections against authority figures using their position to seduce of-age minors . And I do think Hungary's 14 is way too young.
Please do note that the pnly people resisting sensible age of consent laws are certain sectarian religious types who seem think girls should be married off as soon as they pass through puberty.
I think the problem is that Europe has much looser age of consent laws, and this fact will be used in favor of lowering our own once the minors themselves are pushing for it. There will be no lowering of the age if adults are lobbying for that, obviously, but that will not be how it plays out here ... it will be minors lobbying for it, and they will point to places like France (15) and Germany (14) as examples of places with lower ages of consent where there are specific provisions that prohibit sex between adults and people under their authority (parents, teachers, etc) or where there is mental coercion, bribery and the like. That will be the push here. I think many Americans will be shocked at the European laws on this, because they are shocking from an American perspective, and we generally see age of consent as being something that is universal on a human level, but it is not, and that fact will be used by the children themselves when they are demanding the laws be changed, unfortunately.
In the US, there's been a big push to eliminate "child marriage", without nuance. Seriously, there's a huge difference between, say, 17-year-olds getting married, and a 34-year-old wanting to marry a 13-year-old. In their minds, it's all the same though.
Thank you. When this talk of consent comes up marriage tends to get left out of the discussion (mostly because the people arguing over consent don't care about it).
"There will be no lowering of the age if adults are lobbying for that, obviously, but that will not be how it plays out here"
I think it'll play out differently here, all under the umbrella of LGBTQWERTY.
What's going to happen is that queer sexuality - and sex itself - will be deemed so vital to a young person's identity and character that the "civil rights" of the children require a reduction in the age of consent, or its abolition altogether - the parents will have to "exercise judgement," as those who insist we mustn't ban books with explicit gay themes now say in response to questions as to why "Gender Queer" ought to be available in the school library.
I think very much this push will come from LGBTQUERTY organizations "standing up" for queer youth. I saw a statistic at one point on the percentage of gay men who realized they were gay because of or after a tryst with an older/legal-age gay man - in other words, their sexual orientation was nourished by, their "identity" cemented by, the fact they'd had sex with an older man who could perhaps "show them the ropes."
If sex between teens/kids and older people is integral to discovering and "affirming" a person's sexual identity - how can there be an age of consent?
Why does the conversation always leap to "older people with kids"? Most teens have sex with other teens (when they do at all), usually with 2-3 years of their own age. For that reason some jurisdictions have "Romeo and Juliet laws" which either allow or go easy on young people close in age who do a roll in the hay.
It's a total myth that there are just these hordes of adults lusting to bed teens. At time I think it says more about those who posit the idea then about reality.
I agree, I think that's where this is heading: the mainstreaming of the sexual use of children, based on "children's rights."
"If a school can lie about that, what else will they lie about?"
You're right, and this is the question that I think will turn the tide on this, as long as dissenters ask it, and ask it, and ask it, and keep asking the hell out of it, and show where this logic leads.
I mean, hell, if a kid decides to join a religious club, are we going to keep that from parents too? It's kind of fun to imagine all of my progressive neighbors aghast to find out that the school was preventing them from knowing that their kid attended meetings of the Mormon Student Club. If a girl from a devout Muslim family arrives at school every morning in a headscarf but changes in the girls' room into a hoochiemama outfit for the rest of the day, can—must? should?—teachers keep that from parents?
I don't even like the term "outing" for anyone other than the gay and lesbian kids, because sexual preference is a feeling (and an activity) that generally doesn't affect others. But when the teachers, the school administrators, and all of the kids know that Joseph is being Josephine at school and are all required (by policy and by law) to play along with pseudo-Josephine's damage, it's nuts that *only* the parents don't know.
24% of California voters are Republicans, and 23% are independents (most of whom would be Republicans but don't want the GOP stink on them). Where the hell are they on this?
I was so hoping you would repost your experience with the torn flag, and was happy to wake up to the retelling this morning. I was thinking about your story yesterday, and I do think 9/11 has metaphysical meaning. In some sense, the world many of us above a certain age knew, loved and were raised to inherit died on 9/11; and a new America has emerged over the past 22 years, one that may have all the familiar sites and sounds, yet is drastically not the America prior to 9/11.
Was 9/11 a metaphysical event or not? I want a third option on that. Being Christian means that superstition has no place in one’s worldview. Superstition is wholly a pagan concept. At the same time, to ignore the metaphysical and describe it as superstition is also not Christian. The pagan view is that there are events which are driven by forces that cannot be understood, while the secular view is that all things which happen originate from a physical explanation, even if the causes are not yet understood.
The Christian worldview is that what we see as anomalous behaviors have an explanation that is known but not fully understood in cause or meaning. Nevertheless, there is a framework that reconciles the physical and metaphysical. This is true at least for Christians who hold to an orthodox Christian worldview. Too many Christians point to rational events, like a child dying of cancer, as part of “God’s plan,” which is a superstition. Others refuse to even consider a supernatural cause for something or even accept the existence of evil in any literal sense.
Without laying out that framework, it becomes impossible take something like 9/11 and give it any substantive meaning like Rod has done above. On top of that, the things which do happen are often a lesson, whatever their origin. God can turn all things to good, even the wicked things, but it is not always in our definition of good. We want to see good as things which are pleasing to the senses, bringing comfort, or providing a reconciliation with our expectations. Often, what is seen is good is simply satisfying the basic needs on Maslow’s hierarchy. We do not take an event such as 9/11 and see how God blessed it by revealing truths about us as both a warning and a reminder of the covenant that binds all Christians.
The warning was that God permitted evil to act in this way. The reminder of the covenant was both to see this warning and to see the small miracles that happened within that warning. The point of God’s interactions within this world is never to resolve the everyday consequences of original sin, but to provide the framework for Christians to be saved before the final hour of either their deaths or the return of Christ. Taking 9/11 within that context provides perfect reconciliation of either a superstitious or secular interpretation.
With regard to 9/11 itself, the warning was clearly to turn away from our excess and hubris and to return to the Christian values and nature of America. It is not saying that America is a Christian nation, for a nation is an earthly thing, but that a nation can be Christian in how it acts. It’s also not to say that America has ever at all been perfectly Christian, but that at least a Christian viewpoint has informed much of the character of American life.
I think that the rejection of Christianity happened after World War Two, when America found itself occupying what was essentially a deserted imperial stage and realizing that it had the economic power to conquer all around it. Materialism became the greatest virtue of a nation that had taken the first chastisement of the Great Depression and ignored it. Hedonism, both overt in popular culture, and hidden in the form of “swinging,” the embrace of Randian-style economic greatness as a virtue unto itself, sexual “liberation,” and so on, showed that we took the blessing of victory over evil and squandered it. On top of that, American life mocked the world and any sense of decency. Being able to eat to excess at all hours of the day while people make mud pies to fill empty bellies, to provide a better existence for our pets than many people would ever see, to consume and pollute a world shared by all, to engage in the worship of money and technology…and most of all to not just tolerate sins like pornography, abortion, gambling, and gluttony, but to promote them as being positive…I think you could make a good case for the values that many modern American hold as being wholly satanic in even a loose interpretation.
In that sense, 9/11 was a call to redirect ourselves to a Godly behavior, not any sort of call to defend American virtue, because that virtue no longer exists. In other words, everyone pretty much missed the point of the whole thing. The attackers had their own reasons - the significance of 9/11 as a historical date is lost on most people. In a meta sense, it also marked a civilizational reversal of an era of security for Christendom, because Christendom no longer exists.
The deepest meaning of all is perhaps that it is a sign of the end times. COVID showed that we are not secure, in spite of our belief in technology. Likewise, to see that much of the world rejected what we had to offer meant that we can no longer see our position as the most powerful and wealthy nation on the face of the earth as being any sort of shield against bad things happening. I tend to have a quiet unease about so many things these days, both big and small, and I am sure I am not alone in that. If you take that deeper meaning, then 9/11 was a wake up call and sign to find out way back to God before it is too late. Instead, we got further chastisement in the form of two disastrous wars.
I am wondering what the next chastisement is going to be. Maybe a simple implosion of our currency as the world standard. That would certainly do it. Whatever form it comes in, we Christians need to reject any superstitious or secular interpretation and discern if it is a sign from God, then act accordingly.
Re: The warning was that God permitted evil to act in this way.
God never prevents us from sinning. He has given us free will and while there will be judgment for all that we do, he will not stop us from doing it.
"The point of God’s interactions within this world is never to resolve the everyday consequences of original sin, but to provide the framework for Christians to be saved before the final hour of either their deaths or the return of Christ. Taking 9/11 within that context provides perfect reconciliation of either a superstitious or secular interpretation." Excellent, and I heartily agree with everything you have said. I would like to read more. Wish you had your own Substack.
it felt metaphysical. after the attack cities were very quiet. it felt as though a violent, brief cataclysm / conflict of spiritual proportion had just occurred. and that that cataclysm has re-ordered the world. or perhaps more accurately, the spiritual balance of power in the world (or both). since that day Christianity, and western civilization - have moved into a swift decline. where are we headed? well, if the west continues on this path - perhaps to the fall of the west as we know it and a new world where the west (and the rights it protects) will be subordinate to a digital/theocracy alien to historic western values. It feels as if Christianity has fallen and that fall is embodied in the events of 911. And the descent is continuing and the future is terrifyingly bleak (hence the cultural despondence in the west post 911). That despondence may be an unspoken reality we all live with contained in the unconscious/primordial brain. I feel it is there after 911. In a modern world, Christianity is now not as much a place as a constellation of believers across the earth, some (and increasingly more and more) practicing their faith in secrecy.
Yep. The quiet I mentioned in NYC was also present in Denton and Dallas the day of. Its character was different. Not peace. Apprehension. Like what it feels like in the eye of a hurricane, or that stillness before a tornado arrives.
In Canada that week the mood was one of grief. And it was moving to see so many American flags flying, and the "God bless America" signs in front of churches in the small Ontario towns. How many of us would be able to lay hand on a Canadian flag had some great atrocity been suffered north of the border?
I spent 9/11/2008 in Moscow - the one in Russia, not Idaho. At that point, the last 9/11 I had spent in the US was 9/11/2001. I went to a moleben at St. Catherine's (the OCA representation church) and it was a big deal, with lots of news reporters and the US Ambassador being in attendance. One of the bells outside the church is dedicated to the victims of 9/11. In my hotel room, I turned on the television, and watched things, like coverage of the towers coming down, for the first time since they had happened. (https://breathofhallelujah.com/2022/09/11/9-11-01-21/ for some pictures and stuff.) You can chalk up ulterior motives or what have you, but in some ways, it seemed like the Russians were doing more to "never forget" than the Americans.
Whatever happened that day certainly wasn't just a thing for the US. In some way, I think that the "Rich Men of Richmond" phenomenon captures a little bit of that feeling - that for a moment, the "common folk" of the world see each other as brethren, the way we ought to be in Christ.
I think that 9/11 could have been a transforming experience, and for a few days, it was - an America united. And then we got the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, the Patriot Act, and two wars in which America was told that the best thing we could do to defeat the terrorists was to go shopping.
Had Bush had stopped with the eviction of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban from Afghanistan, things might have turned out favorably. But hubris and ignorance got the better of Bush and he overextended American military power.
We had the whole world behind the hunting of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.
Iraq was, as many of my students who were there, the 710 War (read it upside down and it makes sense). And all of them were very, very, very bitter.
Not to mention (and I am in no way defending Saddam Hussein) that #2 on Osama bin Laden's hit list, after the US, was Saddam Hussein. So we gave our #1 enemy HIS worst enemy... for what?
General Wesley Clarke said that in 2001 there was a plan to invade 7 countries in 5 years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off with Iran.
Could be. Most countries' military have long-range plans to invade and/or defend against multiple countries. Of course, the real draw in the Middle East is the oil and the access to it through the Persian Gulf.
In 1917, America had battle plans that had been written up to invade Saskatchewan. Why? Who knows.
There's also the mind-game part of it. If someone like General Clarke says something like that, it also may be bluster to get someone, somewhere to cooperate with something.
Then why didn't it happen?
Why murder all those people and abandon the plan?
and really, do you think any sane person would say (or sit in a room with someone saying): let's stage a massive fake terrorist attack, destroy downtown NYC, and murder thousands of people, to invade...Somalia, Sudan and Libya? Really?
Why not just plant a false flag somewhere in Mesopotamia, have CNN and the NYT sell it (like they sell every war) and go from there?
The Bush administration came into office desiring to "finish" with Iraq what Poppy Bush, very sensibly, had not.
What kind of difference would it have made to you, Jon, if Kuwait became a part of Iraq? It might have lit a fire under us to become energy independent. The first Gulf War was the original sin. It was undertaken for bogus reasons. It was immoral. The old man is as guilty as his idiot boy.
The First Gulf War was an international effort and Bush 41 was admirable in not pursuing it to attempt regime-change in Iraq. As I have said about Russia on Ukraine, aggressive wars for territory need to be resisted as the crimes that they are. A free-for-all world of great powers doing as they please is a world on course for those terrible bright milliseconds that will leave billions of corpses by the time the skies clear again.
Agreed. Desert Storm was strategically smart and showed restraint, as well as drawing a line in the sand. And we got a good airbase in one of the few ME countries that really does not mind us being there. Then Dubya and his collection of morons and maniacs stepped in.
Hubris, ignorance, and--cowardice on the part of the opposition. Who besides Ted Kennedy saw what was really happening and said so. I mean elected official. Patrick J. Buchanan did.
Robert Byrd?
OK.
Ron Paul & Dennis Kucinich. Yeah I know they were sort of cranks, one R one D. But they were right about Iraq.
I like them both.
My husband wrote to the new head of Homeland Security (who was from our city) and said he was a young father with young kids but he would do anything, ANYTHING, they came up with for people like him to do -- he suggested volunteer watchmen at major landmarks. We got nothing at all but the president saying we should shop and stay at hotels, and the unconstitutional "Patriot" Act.
Exactly. The tragedy should have led to more cooperation - instead, it was turned into Consumerism on steroids and the "Patriot" Act for "freedom".
In the second section of Rod's essay, he complains mightily about California's descent into tranny totalitarianism and quite specifically laments that the churches aren't doing enough to resist it.
Then in the third section he goes on to excoriate Christians who are resisting it. Because they're icky. And the way they go about it is icky. He won't go sit down with Wilson, less his presence offer Wilson and his accolytes some sort of endorsement.
However, at the end he goes so far as to admit that he has "a strong feeling that there are many people within the broader Christian community in Wilson’s church who are not Christians-and-mad-as-hell-about-it. I hope they prevail, somehow."
So we should want them to prevail against the Progressive cultural zeitgeist but not be icky in how they do it.
Rod wants people, especially Christians, to resist tranny totalitarian madness, to pick one issue. What forms of resistance to this are acceptable and not icky?
Pray against it privately. Sure. Not icky and something I'm sure Wilson and Isker would agree and probably do so in their daily prayers.
Pray against it publicly in front of facilities where the procedures are done, like the pro- lifers do. Sure, but you'll start running into the same resistance that they did from the legislators and the courts as you do it. In fact, the laws are already in place to blunt the effectiveness of those demonstrations because of the abortion wars so they'll immediately be turned on the anti- tranny prayer warriors.
Write letters to the editor, vote moar harder, use the courts (somehow), sign a petition. In other words, keep trying to make change using the tools of a broken system run by people who hate you. These people have the upper hand, politically speaking, on the Left Coast, the Northeast, and large swaths of the Upper Midwest and the backing of a Medical Industrial Complex that stands to make billions of dollars performing unnecessary medical procedures on healthy boys and girls with the added bonus of creating patients for life who have to pay for hormones and other medications to maintain the charade.
But at least you're not being icky.
If a man is serious about these procedures as being evil, then he shouldn't be afraid of getting icky to stop them. Particularly when so far the only method of of being icky currently on offer is Isker's rhetoric.
Yeah, there's a bit of "I have no wish to be associated with...those" going on.
Rod thinks we've already lost and there's no point fighting.
No, I think we must fight, while we can. We might win! But we need to be careful how we fight, that we don't turn into what we hate. And we also need to prepare to lose -- meaning, prepare for the possibility that for whatever reason, God has allowed us to be carried into exile, so to speak, and that we have to prepare to keep the life of faith going under these conditions.
"...we must fight, while we can. We might win!"
While I understand that the left has won because of its 'long march through the institutions', I don't know how they were able to capture so many minds with what I consider to be foolishness. No matter what we do, they capture more minds every day. You have said many times that you thought that the gender battle would be the one that would cause us to finally rise and put a stop to the nuttiness. Well, some small battles may have been won by the masses yet the elites march on, undeterred.
I think the only way to win is to change minds (or, more specifically, that minds will change due to external forces because I don't see our efforts as being successful) and I don't think that will happen as long as we maintain some level of comfort. The question is how long will we be able to maintain? We are steadily degrading both economically and culturally, sort of bumbling and stumbling our way to ruin. Are we on the brink of a tipping point?
You know what's comin' next, doncha? Yeah, ya do.
We need it all. We need it now. We need it fast. Ruin must be so complete that all recognize the ruin and all realize the cause. Only then MIGHT we regain our senses.
Is there another way? If so, what?
Yeah I’ve wondered myself. When people say we have to resort to violence to oppose transing kids, what are they proposing? Killing the kids or their parents that allow it? Killing the doctors? Shooting up the California legislature? Bombing a hospital? I await someone explaining how that’s gonna work. To be just, force of arms has to be in self defense or defense of innocent people one is in a position to help with violence. Or a war declared by lawful authority. I just don’t think killing doctors and teachers & trans enablers is going to get anywhere except to get the perpetrators killed. Passive nonviolent resistance means you often go to jail but it has worked (Ghandi, MLK, a bunch of men in Argentina who surrounded a church to keep a bunch of wackos from desecrating it).
One of my favorite quotes: “The only kinds of fights worth fighting are those you’re going to lose, because somebody has to fight them and lose and lose and lose until someday, somebody who believes as you do wins.”
― I.F. Stone
I think back when the Bruderhof had its "Daily Dig" that this was paired with some sort of commemoration of Sophie Scholl. On the day before her trial and execution, she had a dream, "On a beautiful sunny day, I brought a child in a long white dress to be baptized. The way to the church was up a steep mountain, but I carried the child safely and firmly. Unexpectedly, there opened up before me a crevasse on the glacier. I had just time enough to lay the child safely on the other side before I plunged into the abyss." She interpreted the dream this way, according to her cellmate: “The child in the white dress is our idea. The idea will prevail in spite of all obstacles. We were permitted to be pioneers, but we must die early for the sake of that idea.”
I think that there are a number of parallels between the story of the White Rose and the story of the priest Eleazar and the mother with the seven sons which come up in 2 Maccabees (canonically and 4 Maccabees (semi-canonically). I got chills when I came across 4 Maccabees 1:11 - "All people, even their torturers, marvelled at their courage and endurance, and they became the cause of the downfall of tyranny over their nation. By their endurance they conquered the tyrant, and thus their native land was purified through them." It also drove home the point that often tyrants are put down more effectively through martyrs than armies.
Thank you Katja.
That's a beautiful post.
It is a beautiful post.
The Izzy Stone quote is partially lifted from something George Eliot(Mary Ann Evans) wrote in the 1800s. But it is a fine sentiment.
Wow. Thanks for that post.
You are really wrong here. There is a spirit of fanaticism and malice in Isker's book. You are taken in by the fallacy of believing that you cannot oppose evil if you aren't malicious and fanatical. I have sat face to face with Christian men and women who faced evil worse than anything Isker or I are likely to see, and they didn't oppose it with ferocious hatred in their hearts. Isker's rhetoric will not destroy anything, other than Isker.
I can tell you this. Take Benjamin J. Corey. I question he is even saved or actually knows the Lord, given that he seems to give left wing shibboleths far more credence than Scripture. That he may be one of those when the time comes who says, "Lord Lord," and Jesus says, "I knew you not." However, if he gave me an invite to dine and talk, I would probably take him up on it.
I'll ask you the same question I asked JonF311 below: Are you arguing the use of physical force and the use of directed (not broad) violence is always evil? A necessary evil, perhaps, but always still evil.
I would argue that force and violence are tools that can be employed, like all tools, to both righteous and malicious ends.
Whenever people argue that violence is evil, I think of this quote by George Orwell,
“We sleep soundly in our beds, because rough men stand ready in the night to do violence on those who would harm us"
But do not let necessary evils become so necessary that they cease to appear evil.
No, but we shouldn't pretend that we are not outsourcing our defence to 'rough men'.
On the contrary we should honour the rough men and be grateful that it's not us who have to sully our hands with potential violence.
We aren't no thin red 'eroes, nor we aren't no blackguards too,
But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you;
An' if sometimes our conduck isn't all your fancy paints,
Why, single men in barricks don't grow into plaster saints;
While it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, fall be'ind",
But it's "Please to walk in front, sir", when there's trouble in the wind,
There's trouble in the wind, my boys, there's trouble in the wind,
O it's "Please to walk in front, sir", when there's trouble in the wind.
Dear old Rudyard Kipling!
I haven't thought of that poem in a long time, thanks for the reminder.
I completely agree. God consistently has used fighters and called those who believe in Him, believe in good, to fight evil and defend those who cannot defend themselves. The Apostles were armed and Jesus had no problem with that, just with their improper use. And told followers, "Buy a sword, sell your cloak if you have to." And when he returns, he makes it abundantly clear he will be there to establish a peaceful world. But first, he and God will be doing a LOT of violence.
Sometimes, you do have to fight. The actions of evil and its activities require it.
That's also playground 101.
Let us be clear, violence is a last resort, and never to be something sought after for those who follow Jesus. Jesus made it VERY clear that love and peace, HIS peace, should be what we reach for. But also knew what those motivated by evil hearts and minds would do and knew we should prepare for that.
Christianity is not a pacifist faith. No, we are no warmongers seeking a fight. But we need to be ready to fight, should the fight become necessary.
That's what the Black nationalists and others advocating the use of force said in opposition to MLK's nonviolence in what looked to many to be a very righteous cause against determined, entrenched, violent opponents. Hard to argue against them, from within the framework you're offering.
No. Because the Black nationalists wanted a fight. Further, viewed those they opposed with hatred and, given chance, did not want to balance things, as it seems to be consistently the case with Left wing grievance mongers. If they had had their way and had the power, they would have flipped things, going from oppressed to oppressors. And, there was absolutely nothing of the Holy Spirit in their hearts, either to provide discernment or restraint.
Which is why MLK was right and they were wrong.
MLK's nonviolent approach helped him to be viewed as a decent, peaceful person with good intentions. His assassination therefore caused outrage and moved more people toward supporting his cause, which helped start implementation of racial equality policies. At a minimum, more people starting thinking perhaps more should be done in that area.
On the other hand, people using violent measures, such as Black nationalists, alienated people and were counter productive, since more people could say to themselves "well, maybe the blacks are bad and undeserving of better treatment?"
The same situation can/will happen if Christians use violent tactics. So, we should use strong but non-violent tactics to show our commitment while staying true to our Christian views. Peaceful public protests for example (apparently blocking traffic is now considered a peaceful form of protest!).
If we use violence, we'll be lumped in with Far Right extremists and other unsavory radical groups. Keep in mind the vast majority of news media is not on the side of Christians. So, any acts of violence (or anything close) will be amplified by the media to show how terrible and dangerous Christians are.
All depends. Because things could get far worse than they ever did in the 60s. It could, at some point, literally become fight or die. Take Nazi Germany. Are you going to get into that boxcar and peacefully go to the camp? Or you going to fight? If things get that bad, you've worse things to worry about than bad pr.
Well, I hesitate to go up against the great Dukeboy01, but remember that what Isker did was write a book. What's the purpose of writing a book, specifically that kind of book? To convince people. NOBODY is convinced by a screed like that (no, I haven't read beyond the excerpts and I don't need to). As far as I can tell Isker is trying to firk up the troops into a lather. I believe it's called preaching to the choir. Nobody like me is going to change his mind based on this kind of vaporing. But it will get him airplay. And it got him mentioned here, which, I suspect, is a pretty well-read site by those who DON'T comment.
Long long ago John Henry Newman cautioned against "violent ultra parties" which damage the cause they fight for. Not quite so long ago T.S. Eliot said Christians needed to cultivate a new discipline of suffering. If that's where we're at, that's where we're at.
That's really true -- and that's 100 percent how Douglas Wilson operates. Wilson is truly an intelligent man. But his shtick is performative. He reminds me of one of my kinfolks who thinks every problem in the world can be handled by giving the malefactor a good cussin'. It changes nothing in the world, but it makes Cud'n Earl feel like he's accomplished something. When I read Wilson's stuff, I feel that I've just read an exceptional performance by someone who doesn't really care about persuading others, only about demonstrating his virtuosity in trashing an opponent. It's like he doesn't want converted hearts, only high-fives from his bros (and they're all bros).
I was that kind of writer when I started out. Then I became a Christian, and grew out of it, mostly. I am always tempted to malice and cleverness in my writing, so I know what that's like. Not being high-and-mighty here.
You know who is the master of tart, focused, direct writing that also can persuade like no other? Mr. Patrick J. Buchanan. I well remember reading in the New York Post one of his syndicated columns, this one about the desecration of the Sacrament at St. Patrick's (one of Big Buggery's more charming exploits). I sat down to read that column thinking I was some kind of liberal (a "wishy washy Social Democrat" as a friend of mine, who is one, likes to say). I got up from reading it knowing I was no such thing.
Do you have a link to that column?
I’ll try to find it. I’m on my phone now.
Sorry. It appeared in the New York Post. I don't think they're archived that far back.
I will say this much. If Buchanan wasn't a master polemicist there wouldn't have been half the hoo-hah over his courageous and completely correct line on the 1991 war.
Not only is Buchanan a brilliant writer, he has a strong historical knowledge of most of the world.
G. K. Chesterton and C. S. Lewis were both pretty darned good at it, too.
I can’t stand this morph of GKC into a LARP figure. He was a major English writer, far, erm, weightier than a LibLab icon like Forster.
And Buchanan is a man of great personal charity, as is well known in Washington.
Another reason to hate him.
He was the major sponsor of the football field at Gonzaga High School, his old high school. It is called Buchanan Field. I wonder when the name will be ordered down by the Archbishop. By the way, Buchanan used to attend the Latin Mass at St. Mary's in Chinatown. I don't know where he goes now. The Latin Mass was suppressed by Archbishop Gregory recently.
If you turn to evil means to fight evil then evil has already won as you too have become a corrupt vassal of the Devil.
Are you arguing that physical force and the application of violence is always evil?
I am arguing the Wrath is a major sin- traditionally one of the Seven Deadly Sins
Also I accept my Church's teaching the we may indulge in violence in self-defense but it remains a necessary evil and hence a sin for which we must be cleansed.