*
I have been predicting (in blog comments) for the past two years that Obama would not run for a second term as President - that he would prepare an exit. I won't bore you with my reasoning, but I was as sure of this as I have been of anything in current politics. And I made a bet with myself that if I got this wrong, then I would shut-up about politics forever, since it would then be clear either that I knew nothing about the subject, or that it was impossible to know anything about the subject, or both. There is still time, but it certainly looks like my pol pundit days are numbered.
*
Tuesday, 20 December 2011
Monday, 19 December 2011
"Differences in how we make sense of things" - A Jim Kalb comment
*
[This comment from Jim Kalb
Liberals justify by reference to what they see as reason—fairness and avoidance of harm. But their vision of those things is religious. It relates to some ideal world rather than the practicalities of this one.
You can see that in the attitude toward HBD. Natural differences that matter among groups of human beings are metaphysically impossible for them. Belief in them is dirty and somewhat uncanny. The EU is another example. It’s not a policy, it’s a metaphysical necessity.
That being so, I don’t think their ideals are really fairness and avoidance of harm. If you take something limited and relative and dependent on facts and circumstances and turn it into a divinized absolute it’s not going to be the same thing any more. Ares and Aphrodite, taken literally as active divine presences, are not the same as war and sexual attraction simply as such.
You’re right that Republicans are a team. Their nationalism, for example, is a matter of rooting for Team America
It seems to me that left-wing morality has to do with compliance with an infinitely demanding system of abstract concepts. That’s a purity concern. Among true believers, PC is purity purified. That’s one reason why—as you note—liberals often work very hard to prove their worthiness.
Why do you say liberalism needs the support of overwhelming numbers to triumph? Certainly not prior support. The overwhelming numbers of people can find something to like in almost any political view from Nazism to traditional monarchy to PC liberalism. The point is that they’re not the active factor. That’s why there have been so many different political regimes, each of which has seemed inevitable and overwhelmingly real while it has lasted.
I’d tend to explain why we get one regime rather than another less by differences in psychology, in the sense of desire and motivation, than differences in how we make sense of things—that is, in basic explanatory concepts. Such things are not just for intellectuals any more than grammar is just for grammarians.
So on that view indoctrination would tend to work if it plausibly applies how people generally make sense of things in a particular setting. That’s an obvious reason why PC indoctrination works better than say Calvinist indoctrination among North American middle class whites in the year 2011. If you want Christian indoctrination that works you have to go to the most basic issues and deal with them seriously.
*
Statistical assumptions are not scientific assumptions
*
It is worth noting that frequentist statistics are built on the assumption of no difference between groups (that two groups are assumed to be random samples from a single population).
From this assumption, which has nothing whatsoever to do with reality (and is essentially an historical accident derived from the work ofRonald Fisher
*
From this assumption, which has nothing whatsoever to do with reality (and is essentially an historical accident derived from the work of
*
Yet, in the case of human groups separated by scores of generations, and when looking at traits (such as 'g' - general intelligence and personality) which
1. substantially affect reproductive success, and
2. are substantially heritable - then this assumption of sameness is irrational.
*
*
In other words, it would make more sense, scientifically (as opposed to statistically) to expect to find important differences in cognitive abilities and dispositions (including their magnitude and distribution) between separated human populations.
*
*
Indeed, that was pretty much always the case in the past - people expected that 'strange' people would be different from themselves - often exaggerating the degree of difference to an absurd extent in travellers tales.
*
*
We have gone crazily far in the opposite direction and not only expect, but statistically assume that there are zero differences in the mean and standard deviation of traits, and that apparent differences are due to sampling biases - except when this probability is very (albeit arbitrarily) low.
*
*
In practice, as we observe, there is never conclusive evidence to reject the 'null hypothesis' that all human populations everywhere are actually one population varying randomly and apparent differences are due to biased sampling - the null hypothesis can always be saved by ever more attention on real or imagined sampling errors - when people really want to save it.
*
*
And failing to reject the null hypothesis is falsely assumed to be 'proving' no difference - yet it is nothing of the sort. It is merely the default assumption of statistics, which is an arbitrary - indeed non-scientific, assumption.
*
*
(Bayesian statistics claims to overcome this problem of frequentist statistics, but I think it leads to other problems and disagreements. In fact, common sense/ built-in human reason is enough to overcome the problem to the extent that it needs ot be overcome. .i.e The common sense that if things seem to be different, it is reasonable to proceed on the assumption they are different, until proven otherwise. This assumption of difference should not automatically be inverted, as it is with Leftism/ political correctness.)
*
How much nurturing does faith require? Does society matter?
*
There is an extreme position that all people in all societies have an equal chance of salvation, that the quantity of devoutness is fixed, that there are always about the same number of Saints at whatever time or place in the world.
Such a view is wrong: it denies free will of individuals on the one hand, and it denies that humans are 'in it together' on the other hand.
(It denies co-inherence - mutual in-dwelling.)
*
Christianity places free will and the choice of the individual at the centre of salvation, yet the individual is not isolated but a part of Man, and men are united with each other, and with God by and via Christ.
Our personal choices therefore affects everybody; other people's personal choices affect us.
Good deeds do Good; but evil deeds do evil.
Not merely materially, which is obvious, but transcendentally - in a supernatural way.
*
When a mass of people in a society are devoutly Christian, this aids the others in salvation; but when a mass of people in a society are consumed by pride and are willing servants of evil - this harms the chance of salvation of others.
When many people in a society have made bad choices, have chosen pride rather than the Lordship of Christ, this is not merely a matter of numerous isolated choices, but an accumulating burden of sin.
This burden is not only felt at the level of a society of interacting humans, although it is felt very directly there, but everywhere in the world, and indeed everywhere in the universe.
*
Some societies are therefore better than others, some societies are worse than others - human choice makes a difference and not just to the person making the choice.
In some societies salvation therefore is 'easier', more probable, can reach a higher level of sanctity due to the help of others - however, the flip-side is that in other societies salvation is harder due to the effectiveness and ubiquity of temptations (to selfishness, to pride, caused by the choices of other humans) and because the individual would-be-Christian gets little help from others but instead gets misleading advice, deceptions and distractions.
The Biblical prophecies imply that the burden of sin is accumulative through human history, because the consequences of bad choices cannot be cleansed from this world (at least, not without destroying human choice); and that at some point therefore the world will be brought to an end - probably when the probability of any individual choosing salvation has dwindled to zero or close to zero.
*
In a sense, none of this is any of our business - certainly it is not necessary knowledge, either way we must make the best choices we can in the situation in which we find ourselves.
But - to deny the differences in Christian devoutness in different times and places and types of society is false: it is to damage one's discernment of Good from evil and may be a denial of the co-inherence of each with all.
*
There is an extreme position that all people in all societies have an equal chance of salvation, that the quantity of devoutness is fixed, that there are always about the same number of Saints at whatever time or place in the world.
Such a view is wrong: it denies free will of individuals on the one hand, and it denies that humans are 'in it together' on the other hand.
(It denies co-inherence - mutual in-dwelling.)
*
Christianity places free will and the choice of the individual at the centre of salvation, yet the individual is not isolated but a part of Man, and men are united with each other, and with God by and via Christ.
Our personal choices therefore affects everybody; other people's personal choices affect us.
Good deeds do Good; but evil deeds do evil.
Not merely materially, which is obvious, but transcendentally - in a supernatural way.
*
When a mass of people in a society are devoutly Christian, this aids the others in salvation; but when a mass of people in a society are consumed by pride and are willing servants of evil - this harms the chance of salvation of others.
When many people in a society have made bad choices, have chosen pride rather than the Lordship of Christ, this is not merely a matter of numerous isolated choices, but an accumulating burden of sin.
This burden is not only felt at the level of a society of interacting humans, although it is felt very directly there, but everywhere in the world, and indeed everywhere in the universe.
*
Some societies are therefore better than others, some societies are worse than others - human choice makes a difference and not just to the person making the choice.
In some societies salvation therefore is 'easier', more probable, can reach a higher level of sanctity due to the help of others - however, the flip-side is that in other societies salvation is harder due to the effectiveness and ubiquity of temptations (to selfishness, to pride, caused by the choices of other humans) and because the individual would-be-Christian gets little help from others but instead gets misleading advice, deceptions and distractions.
The Biblical prophecies imply that the burden of sin is accumulative through human history, because the consequences of bad choices cannot be cleansed from this world (at least, not without destroying human choice); and that at some point therefore the world will be brought to an end - probably when the probability of any individual choosing salvation has dwindled to zero or close to zero.
*
In a sense, none of this is any of our business - certainly it is not necessary knowledge, either way we must make the best choices we can in the situation in which we find ourselves.
But - to deny the differences in Christian devoutness in different times and places and types of society is false: it is to damage one's discernment of Good from evil and may be a denial of the co-inherence of each with all.
*
Sunday, 18 December 2011
Living as a Reactionary Christian - a handbook of strategies and tactics
*
It strikes me that a useful 'book' might be written on this topic - bits of analyses and lists of suggestions.
Comments?
Suggestions?
*
It strikes me that a useful 'book' might be written on this topic - bits of analyses and lists of suggestions.
Comments?
Suggestions?
*
Deathly Hallows Part II movie - What is the moral? - Part II
*
I re-watched the movie Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part II last week - which confirmed my early view
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2011/07/moral-message-of-harry-potter-at.html
(i.e. Flawed, but more importantly contains perhaps the most moving sequence of scenes I have ever seen in any movie - viz from the death of Snape up to include Harry's own death and the King's Cross limbo scene.)
*
The HP franchise movie's most serious weakness is their deletion of the deepest, and Christian, moral or message from the books.
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2011/07/soul-in-harry-potter-and-deathly.html
This leaves the movies somewhat incoherent, and lacking in profundity.
*
But watching this time I noticed some attempt to replace the Christian core with a modern secular moral.
This moral is a version of the idea that - while there is no real immortality - and nothing truly survives death, the dead continue to 'live' in the minds' or hearts, of those who loved them.
(Yes, I know that this is nothing more than a play on words, but it is what passes for high minded and inspiring spirituality nowadays.)
*
There seem to be two key moments when this morality is given quite explicitly, and where the text of the novel has been changed.
In the chapter The Forest Again, Harry finds the resurrection stone inside the golden snitch left him by Dumbledore, and recalls from the dead ghostly - but real - images of his parents, Lupin and Sirius, who will accompany him through the forest repelling the dementors.
Harry asks Sirius, "won't they be able to see you?" and in the book Sirius replies no - "we are part of you, invisible to anyone else".
But in the movie, Sirius is given the line: "No, we're here you see" - and on the word 'here' he points a finger at Harry's heart.
*
In the book, Neville runs forward and tries to attack Voldemort and Nagini, and because he is a 'pure blooded' wizard is is asked to join the Death Eaters.
In the book, Neville replies "I'll join you when hell freezes over... Dumbledore's Army!"
In the movie Neville is given a set-piece speech (which made me cringe) in which he delivers what I felt was intended to be the moral:
"Yeah, we lost Harry tonight (pause) But he's still with us - in here!" Pointing to his own heart on the word 'here'.
*
My interpretation of these added and visually/ verbally linked scenes in the movie, is that they were an attempt to provide a secular and non-denominational equivalent for the excised Christian morality - and they were about as effective and convincing as such attempts always are - which is to say, hardly at all...
*
I re-watched the movie Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part II last week - which confirmed my early view
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2011/07/moral-message-of-harry-potter-at.html
(i.e. Flawed, but more importantly contains perhaps the most moving sequence of scenes I have ever seen in any movie - viz from the death of Snape up to include Harry's own death and the King's Cross limbo scene.)
*
The HP franchise movie's most serious weakness is their deletion of the deepest, and Christian, moral or message from the books.
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2011/07/soul-in-harry-potter-and-deathly.html
This leaves the movies somewhat incoherent, and lacking in profundity.
*
But watching this time I noticed some attempt to replace the Christian core with a modern secular moral.
This moral is a version of the idea that - while there is no real immortality - and nothing truly survives death, the dead continue to 'live' in the minds' or hearts, of those who loved them.
(Yes, I know that this is nothing more than a play on words, but it is what passes for high minded and inspiring spirituality nowadays.)
*
There seem to be two key moments when this morality is given quite explicitly, and where the text of the novel has been changed.
In the chapter The Forest Again, Harry finds the resurrection stone inside the golden snitch left him by Dumbledore, and recalls from the dead ghostly - but real - images of his parents, Lupin and Sirius, who will accompany him through the forest repelling the dementors.
Harry asks Sirius, "won't they be able to see you?" and in the book Sirius replies no - "we are part of you, invisible to anyone else".
But in the movie, Sirius is given the line: "No, we're here you see" - and on the word 'here' he points a finger at Harry's heart.
*
In the book, Neville runs forward and tries to attack Voldemort and Nagini, and because he is a 'pure blooded' wizard is is asked to join the Death Eaters.
In the book, Neville replies "I'll join you when hell freezes over... Dumbledore's Army!"
In the movie Neville is given a set-piece speech (which made me cringe) in which he delivers what I felt was intended to be the moral:
"Yeah, we lost Harry tonight (pause) But he's still with us - in here!" Pointing to his own heart on the word 'here'.
*
My interpretation of these added and visually/ verbally linked scenes in the movie, is that they were an attempt to provide a secular and non-denominational equivalent for the excised Christian morality - and they were about as effective and convincing as such attempts always are - which is to say, hardly at all...
*
Saturday, 17 December 2011
The deficit of discernment
*
A big problem in the modern spiritual life is the deficit of discernment - our inability to know Truth from Falsehood - to see-through deception.
This deficit is perfectly understandable, considering the weak and shallow nature of modern Christianity; yet it is devastating in this particular time and place, where evil walks in a multitude of disguises, and puts forth a kaleidoscope of temptations.
The spiritual life has mostly been eroded by softness, blurring, laxness - yet the alternative of strict 'ultra-correctness' (the unyielding observation of forms) is often not a solution, since it can too easily be impersonated, and too easily transforms from love to pride.
Perhaps the lack of discernment, and the consequent inability to hold the true middle way, is the single most important spiritual problem of all in the end times when lies come salted with truths, and purposive evil wears the cloak of virtue?
Perhaps if only we could recognise the path, then we would be able to tread it?
Perhaps it is discernment for which we should pray, even above all other gifts of Grace?
*
A big problem in the modern spiritual life is the deficit of discernment - our inability to know Truth from Falsehood - to see-through deception.
This deficit is perfectly understandable, considering the weak and shallow nature of modern Christianity; yet it is devastating in this particular time and place, where evil walks in a multitude of disguises, and puts forth a kaleidoscope of temptations.
The spiritual life has mostly been eroded by softness, blurring, laxness - yet the alternative of strict 'ultra-correctness' (the unyielding observation of forms) is often not a solution, since it can too easily be impersonated, and too easily transforms from love to pride.
Perhaps the lack of discernment, and the consequent inability to hold the true middle way, is the single most important spiritual problem of all in the end times when lies come salted with truths, and purposive evil wears the cloak of virtue?
Perhaps if only we could recognise the path, then we would be able to tread it?
Perhaps it is discernment for which we should pray, even above all other gifts of Grace?
*
Friday, 16 December 2011
Charles Williams and co-inherence - a residue of magic?
*
One of Charles Williams most important contributions as a theologian seems to have been to clarify, explain and emphasize the idea of co-inherence - and its related ideas of exchange and substitution.
The concept is that we are members one of another, and with Christ, and therefore can substitute for one another, for example in the exchange of suffering.
As when I agree to take on your anxieties, and your anxieties might be taken on by me - or by a third party; so that we 'bear one anothers' burdens'.
This also links to the taunt of Christ on the Cross - He saved others himself he cannot save" - this is assumed to be a general observation about mankind - to be saved we must save others, and be saved by others.
This makes the main plot of Descent into Hell, and features in the mature theology of He Came Down From Heaven and Descent of the Dove.
But Williams pushed this idea too far, in my opinion.
In Descent into Hell, especially, he detached it from Christian life, and made it a kind of technology - almost a magical therapeutic practice for the alleviation of anxiety and pain.
Williams biographer - Alice Mary Hadfield, says she had a long running disagreement with Williams on precisely this point - the extent to which exchange and substitution could be practiced apart from Christianity: she said it couldn't - he said it could.
This strikes me as a residue of C.W's fascination with ritual magic as a young man, and his decade long involvement with A.E Waite and the 'Golden Dawn' movement.
Perhaps it was things like this which made CS Lewis say in a letter to his brother, tongue in cheek, that for all his sanctity (which Lewis acknowledged and appreciated more than almost anybody) there was something 'combustible' about Williams - the sense that in another era he would have been burned for heresy, and (in a sense...) deserve it!
*
One of Charles Williams most important contributions as a theologian seems to have been to clarify, explain and emphasize the idea of co-inherence - and its related ideas of exchange and substitution.
The concept is that we are members one of another, and with Christ, and therefore can substitute for one another, for example in the exchange of suffering.
As when I agree to take on your anxieties, and your anxieties might be taken on by me - or by a third party; so that we 'bear one anothers' burdens'.
This also links to the taunt of Christ on the Cross - He saved others himself he cannot save" - this is assumed to be a general observation about mankind - to be saved we must save others, and be saved by others.
This makes the main plot of Descent into Hell, and features in the mature theology of He Came Down From Heaven and Descent of the Dove.
But Williams pushed this idea too far, in my opinion.
In Descent into Hell, especially, he detached it from Christian life, and made it a kind of technology - almost a magical therapeutic practice for the alleviation of anxiety and pain.
Williams biographer - Alice Mary Hadfield, says she had a long running disagreement with Williams on precisely this point - the extent to which exchange and substitution could be practiced apart from Christianity: she said it couldn't - he said it could.
This strikes me as a residue of C.W's fascination with ritual magic as a young man, and his decade long involvement with A.E Waite and the 'Golden Dawn' movement.
Perhaps it was things like this which made CS Lewis say in a letter to his brother, tongue in cheek, that for all his sanctity (which Lewis acknowledged and appreciated more than almost anybody) there was something 'combustible' about Williams - the sense that in another era he would have been burned for heresy, and (in a sense...) deserve it!
*
How could humans cope with immortality?
*
Life would be bearable only if cyclical, like Tolkien's primordial unfallen Wood Elves.
Each day the same, no planning, no history, not going anywhere - waking to a day of hunting, eating, singing, love of nature - then sleep.
No ageing nor sickness, no necessity of death - everything governed by instinct and custom.
No sense of the years passing, no accumulation of sorrows and regrets; no big projects, no purpose - just more and more of the same until the (unanticipated) end.
*
A life ultimately non-attached.
No meaning, no purpose - instead absorption.
A non-reflective life, an unaware life.
A life strikingly similar to non-Christian Heaven.
*
Something missing?
Something big missing?
The human bit?
Yes, that's how it seems to me too.
*
To imagine a kind of timeless human perfection is therefore to reveal that to be merely human is fundamentally unsatisfactory, it is intrinsically wretched.
To be human is to be wretchedly incomplete, to be an animal is not to be human; to be truly human entails becoming a god - which (if to be a god is not to be merely an immortal human) requires God.
To be an immortal god is wretched unless in communion with God.
*
Thus human destiny - like it or not, choose it or not.
*
Life would be bearable only if cyclical, like Tolkien's primordial unfallen Wood Elves.
Each day the same, no planning, no history, not going anywhere - waking to a day of hunting, eating, singing, love of nature - then sleep.
No ageing nor sickness, no necessity of death - everything governed by instinct and custom.
No sense of the years passing, no accumulation of sorrows and regrets; no big projects, no purpose - just more and more of the same until the (unanticipated) end.
*
A life ultimately non-attached.
No meaning, no purpose - instead absorption.
A non-reflective life, an unaware life.
A life strikingly similar to non-Christian Heaven.
*
Something missing?
Something big missing?
The human bit?
Yes, that's how it seems to me too.
*
To imagine a kind of timeless human perfection is therefore to reveal that to be merely human is fundamentally unsatisfactory, it is intrinsically wretched.
To be human is to be wretchedly incomplete, to be an animal is not to be human; to be truly human entails becoming a god - which (if to be a god is not to be merely an immortal human) requires God.
To be an immortal god is wretched unless in communion with God.
*
Thus human destiny - like it or not, choose it or not.
*
Thursday, 15 December 2011
What has the internet ever done for us?
*
One word: distraction.
*
The internet was supposed to be revolutionary: the internet was supposed to deliver (among many other benefits):
Economic growth - a massive boost to economic efficiency.
Reduced travelling - as information was exchanged online - so massive reduction in road, rail and air usage, home working replacing offices and factories etc.
A better informed population, less subject to propaganda and manipulation by the mass media; free self-education replacing physical attendance at schools and colleges, a quantum leap in science and scholarship.
*
All these and more the internet has failed to deliver. It hasn't even delivered a plateau.
IF there were any such effects, they have been swallowed-up by much larger trends in the opposite direction.
Okay, there are lots of conveniences - but it really is stunning how anything so big, so pervasive, so time-consuming could yield up so very, very little.
*
The internet: all means, no end - all process, no product.
*
So the net effect of the internet, overall and on-average, has been:
More of the same stuff.
*
One word: distraction.
*
The internet was supposed to be revolutionary: the internet was supposed to deliver (among many other benefits):
Economic growth - a massive boost to economic efficiency.
Reduced travelling - as information was exchanged online - so massive reduction in road, rail and air usage, home working replacing offices and factories etc.
A better informed population, less subject to propaganda and manipulation by the mass media; free self-education replacing physical attendance at schools and colleges, a quantum leap in science and scholarship.
*
All these and more the internet has failed to deliver. It hasn't even delivered a plateau.
IF there were any such effects, they have been swallowed-up by much larger trends in the opposite direction.
Okay, there are lots of conveniences - but it really is stunning how anything so big, so pervasive, so time-consuming could yield up so very, very little.
*
The internet: all means, no end - all process, no product.
*
So the net effect of the internet, overall and on-average, has been:
More of the same stuff.
*
Wednesday, 14 December 2011
The Orthosphere it is? Do Ortho bloggers and other Ortho people agree?
*
From reviewing the most recent discussion about what 'Christian reactionary' bloggers might call themselves,
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2011/12/kalbosphere-idea.html
my sense is that Orthosphere (coined by Kristor) seems (to my subjective judgement) have emerged as the 'winner'.
Plus the suggestion from Imnobody that it could be shortened to 'Ortho' as an adjective - as in
"ortho blogs, ortho people, ortho thought, ortho books. It is a new name, which is useful when you construct a new identity."
*
I didn't like the word Orthosphere at first - but just a few days have familiarised it, and it now seems quite natural.
I therefore propose that we go with Orthosphere.
*
From reviewing the most recent discussion about what 'Christian reactionary' bloggers might call themselves,
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2011/12/kalbosphere-idea.html
my sense is that Orthosphere (coined by Kristor) seems (to my subjective judgement) have emerged as the 'winner'.
Plus the suggestion from Imnobody that it could be shortened to 'Ortho' as an adjective - as in
"ortho blogs, ortho people, ortho thought, ortho books. It is a new name, which is useful when you construct a new identity."
*
I didn't like the word Orthosphere at first - but just a few days have familiarised it, and it now seems quite natural.
I therefore propose that we go with Orthosphere.
*
Why Pascal's wager failed for me
*
The Pensees by Blaise Pascal seem to me much the best book about Christianity I have read; although it is hard to believe that I only encountered them in August 2010, so they have not had a chance to withstand the test of time for me.
I first heard of Pascal's Pensees some decades ago in reference to the 'wager' concerning the reality or existence of God; and knowing only this was enough to put me off reading the rest.
*
Because the 'wager' does not work under modern conditions, for people like me - modern society pre-immunizes us against any such arguments.
Perhaps mostly due to the fact that modern man is trained to believe that the concept of the soul is meaningless and there is permanent extinction of consciousness at death - therefore Pascal's wager works in the opposite direction from intended.
The 'safe' option of belief for moderns is therefore selfish, short-termist hedonism - on the basis that moderns only 'know' whether they are happy now and everything else is conjecture.
So Pascal's wager seems to suggest that it is 'foolish' to do anything other than optimize the current, here and now, state of well-being.
*
And because the wager does not work (stands no chance of working), or works in reverse; the fact that the wager is nowadays always linked with Pascal's Pensees serves to neutralize the whole book.
Which is useful for the powers of darkness if, as it seems to me, Pascal's Pensees is the single most important book of the truth of Christianity for modern people.
*
The Pensees by Blaise Pascal seem to me much the best book about Christianity I have read; although it is hard to believe that I only encountered them in August 2010, so they have not had a chance to withstand the test of time for me.
I first heard of Pascal's Pensees some decades ago in reference to the 'wager' concerning the reality or existence of God; and knowing only this was enough to put me off reading the rest.
*
Because the 'wager' does not work under modern conditions, for people like me - modern society pre-immunizes us against any such arguments.
Perhaps mostly due to the fact that modern man is trained to believe that the concept of the soul is meaningless and there is permanent extinction of consciousness at death - therefore Pascal's wager works in the opposite direction from intended.
The 'safe' option of belief for moderns is therefore selfish, short-termist hedonism - on the basis that moderns only 'know' whether they are happy now and everything else is conjecture.
So Pascal's wager seems to suggest that it is 'foolish' to do anything other than optimize the current, here and now, state of well-being.
*
And because the wager does not work (stands no chance of working), or works in reverse; the fact that the wager is nowadays always linked with Pascal's Pensees serves to neutralize the whole book.
Which is useful for the powers of darkness if, as it seems to me, Pascal's Pensees is the single most important book of the truth of Christianity for modern people.
*
Tuesday, 13 December 2011
Q: Why do Christians pay *so* much attention to Lust?
*
A: Because it has been the preferred weapon of modernity, over the past half century.
In opposing Lust, Christians have been dueling the enemy, using a weapon chosen by the enemy.
*
Lust is not a major sin in Christianity, not like Pride; but Lust is a major virtue for modernity - and a stalking horse for the other sins.
The gratification of Lust is used to justify more freedom of lifestyle, and this is used to reinforce Pride - which achieves the rest.
*
Leftism began by promising the mass of people food and shelter.
When food and shelter had been provided to everybody, albeit by capitalism not Leftism, Leftism shifted to promising the mass of people gratification of their sexual desires.
(Of course the primacy of Lust goes back a couple of hundred years among the classes who already had enough food and shelter.)
*
Leftism has emptied human life of all meaning and purpose and left humans isolated and atomized - yet all propaganda is directed against the one and only true solution to this self-created problem.
So distraction has become the primary mode of human existence, and this is where Lust comes in.
*
The distracting power of Lust, and its utter un-realism, has been built-up by modernity to a level where the reality of its psychological operations is so vast and encompassing that it is unbelievable when stated clearly.
Or not so much unbelievable, as humiliating.
(Are we really such pathetic creatures as to be led by the nose with ludicrously fabricated fantasies of Lust? Yes we are. Look around.)
*
Lust powers the modern world.
In our world as it has become, without Lust nobody would get up in the morning, nobody would talk to others, nobody would work, nobody would buy stuff, nobody would have anything to look-forward-to - people would have nothing to do, no reason for doing anything and - much worse - nothing to think about.
Of course Lust is very seldom actually gratified; yet the merest remote possibility of gratification is the most effective of all distractions.
*
Christianity has responded to this tsunami of Lust by trying to hold the line on specific points-of-Law - but with the exponential growth of mass media, mainstream Christianity has been like a pebble rolled by the tide.
Only those devout groups who cut themselves off from the mass media, who are actively hostile to modernity, have resisted.
*
So, the primacy of Lust is a consequence of the decadence that ensued from prosperity; since when it has become foundational to modernity as the primary motivator, Lust is that which lies behind most of the carrots offered by contemporary culture.
And mainstream Christians have been utterly unable to resist Lust because they are addicted to modernity.
Only those religious groups who have explicitly rejected modernity have resisted the primary distraction of Lust; and these are precisely the only organized groups which are now thriving, growing.
*
The West has been crazed by Lust, because Lust is all that it has.
*
A: Because it has been the preferred weapon of modernity, over the past half century.
In opposing Lust, Christians have been dueling the enemy, using a weapon chosen by the enemy.
*
Lust is not a major sin in Christianity, not like Pride; but Lust is a major virtue for modernity - and a stalking horse for the other sins.
The gratification of Lust is used to justify more freedom of lifestyle, and this is used to reinforce Pride - which achieves the rest.
*
Leftism began by promising the mass of people food and shelter.
When food and shelter had been provided to everybody, albeit by capitalism not Leftism, Leftism shifted to promising the mass of people gratification of their sexual desires.
(Of course the primacy of Lust goes back a couple of hundred years among the classes who already had enough food and shelter.)
*
Leftism has emptied human life of all meaning and purpose and left humans isolated and atomized - yet all propaganda is directed against the one and only true solution to this self-created problem.
So distraction has become the primary mode of human existence, and this is where Lust comes in.
*
The distracting power of Lust, and its utter un-realism, has been built-up by modernity to a level where the reality of its psychological operations is so vast and encompassing that it is unbelievable when stated clearly.
Or not so much unbelievable, as humiliating.
(Are we really such pathetic creatures as to be led by the nose with ludicrously fabricated fantasies of Lust? Yes we are. Look around.)
*
Lust powers the modern world.
In our world as it has become, without Lust nobody would get up in the morning, nobody would talk to others, nobody would work, nobody would buy stuff, nobody would have anything to look-forward-to - people would have nothing to do, no reason for doing anything and - much worse - nothing to think about.
Of course Lust is very seldom actually gratified; yet the merest remote possibility of gratification is the most effective of all distractions.
*
Christianity has responded to this tsunami of Lust by trying to hold the line on specific points-of-Law - but with the exponential growth of mass media, mainstream Christianity has been like a pebble rolled by the tide.
Only those devout groups who cut themselves off from the mass media, who are actively hostile to modernity, have resisted.
*
So, the primacy of Lust is a consequence of the decadence that ensued from prosperity; since when it has become foundational to modernity as the primary motivator, Lust is that which lies behind most of the carrots offered by contemporary culture.
And mainstream Christians have been utterly unable to resist Lust because they are addicted to modernity.
Only those religious groups who have explicitly rejected modernity have resisted the primary distraction of Lust; and these are precisely the only organized groups which are now thriving, growing.
*
The West has been crazed by Lust, because Lust is all that it has.
*
Monday, 12 December 2011
The Kalbosphere idea
*
My idea for naming the Christian reactionary blogosphere after Jim Kalb...
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2011/12/should-christian-reactionary-blogs-be.html
...provoked an interesting but inconclusive and fissile discussion.
Many of the suggestions for names either took the 'Christianity' for granted or ignored it and focused on the political dimension.
But for me this would be unforgivable - Christianity must come first, and must be the foundation of any socio-political views; and the Christianity cannot be assumed, especially not in the 'reactionary' blogosphere which is dominated by atheists (libertarians, nationalists etc).
So, my conclusion is that we should call ourselves...
CHRISTIAN REACTIONARIES!
unless anyone has anything better to suggest?
I have added a highly-selective 'blogroll' on this basis (noting that Daniel is a Christian seeker rather than a convert, as far as I know); and intend to re-label my blog accordingly (I mean as a 'Christian Reactionary' blog) - unless prevented by strong arguments over the next few days...
*
One alternative which I would certainly consider is REACTIONARY CHRISTIAN - on the basis that linguistically this has Christian as primary and reactionary as the modifier.
But, on the other hand, when Christian comes first in the order of words, it will be the first thing which people notice and focus upon.
So, I do not have a strong preference between the two - but CR does seem more easy to say and more memorable than RC.
*
My idea for naming the Christian reactionary blogosphere after Jim Kalb...
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2011/12/should-christian-reactionary-blogs-be.html
...provoked an interesting but inconclusive and fissile discussion.
Many of the suggestions for names either took the 'Christianity' for granted or ignored it and focused on the political dimension.
But for me this would be unforgivable - Christianity must come first, and must be the foundation of any socio-political views; and the Christianity cannot be assumed, especially not in the 'reactionary' blogosphere which is dominated by atheists (libertarians, nationalists etc).
So, my conclusion is that we should call ourselves...
CHRISTIAN REACTIONARIES!
unless anyone has anything better to suggest?
I have added a highly-selective 'blogroll' on this basis (noting that Daniel is a Christian seeker rather than a convert, as far as I know); and intend to re-label my blog accordingly (I mean as a 'Christian Reactionary' blog) - unless prevented by strong arguments over the next few days...
*
One alternative which I would certainly consider is REACTIONARY CHRISTIAN - on the basis that linguistically this has Christian as primary and reactionary as the modifier.
But, on the other hand, when Christian comes first in the order of words, it will be the first thing which people notice and focus upon.
So, I do not have a strong preference between the two - but CR does seem more easy to say and more memorable than RC.
*
Sunday, 11 December 2011
A Charles Williams bleg...
*
http://notionclubpapers.blogspot.com/2011/12/charles-williams-companions-of-co.html
*
http://notionclubpapers.blogspot.com/2011/12/charles-williams-companions-of-co.html
*
What is it to live without sin? What is active evil?
*
I feel that the modern understanding of what it is to live without sin is mistaken.
This mistake means that the very worst sinners feel clean and pure, and react incredulously to any notion that they are faithful and diligent servants of evil such as have seldom been seen before on this earth.
*
A man who lived without sin is not to be defined in terms of a man who objects all true and correct moral laws.
Rather, the man without sin is he who lives at all times in complete communion with God.
*
The correct understanding is only indirectly-related to the modern understanding of sin.
According to the modern understanding of sin, as breaking moral rules, the worst sinner is the one who breaks the most rules, or who breaks the most serious rules.
Therefore, for moderns virtue is measured in terms of behavior - that is in terms of objective, observable behaviour and how it corresponds to the laws of morality.
*
But the proper understanding of sin is mystical: to be sin-less is when the human soul is in continuous communication with God.
And by contrast, sin is not directly about behavior but about the soul being turned-away-from God, thereby by choice being cut-off from God - wholly concerned with the self.
*
Thus the meaning of Pride as the key sin - pride being the choice to prefer one's own will to God's will.
*
The modern secular Leftist elites do not perceive their own state of near-complete enthrallment to sin because they perceive themselves to be obedient to all the important laws of morality (especially after these moral laws have been revised and up-dated by people like themselves).
Modern secular Leftists do not recognize that their sin lies in the Pride of having turned away from God and trusting to themselves alone.
Indeed, modern secular Leftists perceive spiritually advanced Christians (including Christ, the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Saints) as sinful - insofar as they broken the rules of modern morality enshrined in political correctness.
*
This is a kind of ultimate in Pride: to set oneself in judgement over The Saints, the Mother of God and indeed God Himself.
Yet some of these people believe themselves to be Christians - and morally more 'advanced' than the Christians of the past!
*
We are (nearly) all sinners, humanity is wretched and (almost always) turned away from God and deep in Pride; yet sin is compounded, becomes active evil, when propagated deliberately, when propagandized, when subsidized, when enforced.
It is in this sense that the modern intellectual elites: politicians, bureaucrats and officials; lawyers; managers; journalists; teachers... are among the most evil people ever to have lived.
They not merely do evil impulsively, they not merely fail to discern evil, but strategically plan the triumph of evil - which they disguise from themselves and others by framing the world to exclude evil.
(By replacing evil with misery, they can do anything at all - so long as it can be rationalized as tending eventually, many steps down the line, to reduce the sum 'total' of misery.)
These modern creatures who rule the West (nothing like them has been seen before, except as isolated individuals or minute cults) are cut-off from God; they are nihilists (deniers of reality) and they zealously spread their disease.
*
They are so far gone that they find the idea of sin, of evil to be incomprehensible.
The reality of their own near-demonic state of sin is therefore literally incredible to them.
They lack the concepts to understand what they have become: because they have willfully-destroyed these concepts, and are now diligent agents of the destruction of these concepts in others.
*
It sounds bad: it is.
It sounds hopeless: it isn't.
I am describing my former self: repentance is possible no matter how far gone a person may be, it is never too late+.
*
+Strictly, never too late in this world; for so long as the choice can be framed and presented, it is never too late. Consider the 'Good' thief in Luke 23:
*
I feel that the modern understanding of what it is to live without sin is mistaken.
This mistake means that the very worst sinners feel clean and pure, and react incredulously to any notion that they are faithful and diligent servants of evil such as have seldom been seen before on this earth.
*
A man who lived without sin is not to be defined in terms of a man who objects all true and correct moral laws.
Rather, the man without sin is he who lives at all times in complete communion with God.
*
The correct understanding is only indirectly-related to the modern understanding of sin.
According to the modern understanding of sin, as breaking moral rules, the worst sinner is the one who breaks the most rules, or who breaks the most serious rules.
Therefore, for moderns virtue is measured in terms of behavior - that is in terms of objective, observable behaviour and how it corresponds to the laws of morality.
*
But the proper understanding of sin is mystical: to be sin-less is when the human soul is in continuous communication with God.
And by contrast, sin is not directly about behavior but about the soul being turned-away-from God, thereby by choice being cut-off from God - wholly concerned with the self.
*
Thus the meaning of Pride as the key sin - pride being the choice to prefer one's own will to God's will.
*
The modern secular Leftist elites do not perceive their own state of near-complete enthrallment to sin because they perceive themselves to be obedient to all the important laws of morality (especially after these moral laws have been revised and up-dated by people like themselves).
Modern secular Leftists do not recognize that their sin lies in the Pride of having turned away from God and trusting to themselves alone.
Indeed, modern secular Leftists perceive spiritually advanced Christians (including Christ, the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Saints) as sinful - insofar as they broken the rules of modern morality enshrined in political correctness.
*
This is a kind of ultimate in Pride: to set oneself in judgement over The Saints, the Mother of God and indeed God Himself.
Yet some of these people believe themselves to be Christians - and morally more 'advanced' than the Christians of the past!
*
We are (nearly) all sinners, humanity is wretched and (almost always) turned away from God and deep in Pride; yet sin is compounded, becomes active evil, when propagated deliberately, when propagandized, when subsidized, when enforced.
It is in this sense that the modern intellectual elites: politicians, bureaucrats and officials; lawyers; managers; journalists; teachers... are among the most evil people ever to have lived.
They not merely do evil impulsively, they not merely fail to discern evil, but strategically plan the triumph of evil - which they disguise from themselves and others by framing the world to exclude evil.
(By replacing evil with misery, they can do anything at all - so long as it can be rationalized as tending eventually, many steps down the line, to reduce the sum 'total' of misery.)
These modern creatures who rule the West (nothing like them has been seen before, except as isolated individuals or minute cults) are cut-off from God; they are nihilists (deniers of reality) and they zealously spread their disease.
*
They are so far gone that they find the idea of sin, of evil to be incomprehensible.
The reality of their own near-demonic state of sin is therefore literally incredible to them.
They lack the concepts to understand what they have become: because they have willfully-destroyed these concepts, and are now diligent agents of the destruction of these concepts in others.
*
It sounds bad: it is.
It sounds hopeless: it isn't.
I am describing my former self: repentance is possible no matter how far gone a person may be, it is never too late+.
*
+Strictly, never too late in this world; for so long as the choice can be framed and presented, it is never too late. Consider the 'Good' thief in Luke 23:
39And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.
40But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?
41And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.
42And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
43And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.
*
Saturday, 10 December 2011
Hymnophobia
*
I don't like hymns - I much prefer a spoken Church service, using the traditional Anglican liturgy.
Obviously, I an wrong about this, in the sense that singing or chanting has always been a major part of Christian worship - in particular the psalms.
I acknowledge that far better Christians than myself have found music a valuable - even vital - element in worship.
And the Orthodox Church has the practise that only singing (not speaking) is permitted in services - although the 'singing' is often chanting a monotone (which I would regard as simply a means of vocally-projecting the words and of preventing vocal fatigue - monotone chant ought surely to be inflected just like ordinary speaking).
So, here I am being completely unreasonable...
*
But while chanting the liturgy and psalms are one thing, singing multiple hymns is quite another.
I really don't want to spend half an a hour of a Church service communally-droning half-a dozen or more multi-verse turgid hymns of vaguely praising sentiment - nor even short cheery hymns.
If I enjoy the music and my singing of it, then this is usually a non-Christian kind of enjoyment - an aesthetic enjoyment (or perhaps the enjoyment of group solidarity, like being in a football crowd).
Indeed, I used to enjoy hymns much more before I was a Christian than since I became a Christian - in fact the music was pretty much the only thing I used to enjoy about going to church; my enjoyment of hymns and the liturgy has been reciprocal, my spiritual life has grown with my hymnophobia!
*
I am backed-up in this hymnophobia by CS Lewis (who fought-against his hymnophobia, but found this difficult) and Charles Williams. Both, like me, preferred to attend the early, short, hymn-free communion or prayer services and evensong (which may be musical - but not usually hymn based) in the Church of England - rather than the main service of the day with its many hymns.
(Incidentally, these short Anglican services often also do not feature any 'sermon' or homily - which can be a valuable point in their favor in the case of politically correct priests.)
I wonder how many people are, like me, put off the whole idea of attending church by associating it with singing hymns and 'worship songs', and assuming that this is the proper focus of things?
*
Whether it is chanted or spoken sonorously, the formal Anglican liturgy (based on the Book of Common Prayer) and composed prayers are properly the focus in the services which I have personally found most valuable - the services are mostly stereotypical (the same every time) although elements change through the Church year.
These services contain the ancient wisdom and eternal perspective which we most need; whereas the improvised prayers, hymns and songs, and sermons are the place - too often - where worldliness has penetrated the Church, and taken over all-but completely.
When there is no ancient liturgy, when the words have been and continue to be changed and 're-translated' (i.e. brought into line with modern secular morality), when the forms and orders of activity are lost (I means elements like the creed, confession, Agnus Dei), when the prayers are topical and focused on utilitarian goals - then the Church is left wide-open to corruption, and has no fortifications for resistance.
And standing around and singing multiple hymns together is merely an off-putting distraction...
*
I don't like hymns - I much prefer a spoken Church service, using the traditional Anglican liturgy.
Obviously, I an wrong about this, in the sense that singing or chanting has always been a major part of Christian worship - in particular the psalms.
I acknowledge that far better Christians than myself have found music a valuable - even vital - element in worship.
And the Orthodox Church has the practise that only singing (not speaking) is permitted in services - although the 'singing' is often chanting a monotone (which I would regard as simply a means of vocally-projecting the words and of preventing vocal fatigue - monotone chant ought surely to be inflected just like ordinary speaking).
So, here I am being completely unreasonable...
*
But while chanting the liturgy and psalms are one thing, singing multiple hymns is quite another.
I really don't want to spend half an a hour of a Church service communally-droning half-a dozen or more multi-verse turgid hymns of vaguely praising sentiment - nor even short cheery hymns.
If I enjoy the music and my singing of it, then this is usually a non-Christian kind of enjoyment - an aesthetic enjoyment (or perhaps the enjoyment of group solidarity, like being in a football crowd).
Indeed, I used to enjoy hymns much more before I was a Christian than since I became a Christian - in fact the music was pretty much the only thing I used to enjoy about going to church; my enjoyment of hymns and the liturgy has been reciprocal, my spiritual life has grown with my hymnophobia!
*
I am backed-up in this hymnophobia by CS Lewis (who fought-against his hymnophobia, but found this difficult) and Charles Williams. Both, like me, preferred to attend the early, short, hymn-free communion or prayer services and evensong (which may be musical - but not usually hymn based) in the Church of England - rather than the main service of the day with its many hymns.
(Incidentally, these short Anglican services often also do not feature any 'sermon' or homily - which can be a valuable point in their favor in the case of politically correct priests.)
I wonder how many people are, like me, put off the whole idea of attending church by associating it with singing hymns and 'worship songs', and assuming that this is the proper focus of things?
*
Whether it is chanted or spoken sonorously, the formal Anglican liturgy (based on the Book of Common Prayer) and composed prayers are properly the focus in the services which I have personally found most valuable - the services are mostly stereotypical (the same every time) although elements change through the Church year.
These services contain the ancient wisdom and eternal perspective which we most need; whereas the improvised prayers, hymns and songs, and sermons are the place - too often - where worldliness has penetrated the Church, and taken over all-but completely.
When there is no ancient liturgy, when the words have been and continue to be changed and 're-translated' (i.e. brought into line with modern secular morality), when the forms and orders of activity are lost (I means elements like the creed, confession, Agnus Dei), when the prayers are topical and focused on utilitarian goals - then the Church is left wide-open to corruption, and has no fortifications for resistance.
And standing around and singing multiple hymns together is merely an off-putting distraction...
*
Friday, 9 December 2011
A step back from the abyss - a topical news post
*
Regular readers know that I never blog on news items, which is why I feel compelled to mention that England today took one step back from the abyss that is the European Union.
Of course that leaves us just one step away from the abyss, but still, I'm pleasantly surprised... no, more than that, I am astonished.
The question is whether the Prime Minister has repented and this represents the first day of a new era; or whether it is today's step back which he will repent, and for which he will henceforth attempt to atone - in which case it will be business as usual, only more so.
*
Regular readers know that I never blog on news items, which is why I feel compelled to mention that England today took one step back from the abyss that is the European Union.
Of course that leaves us just one step away from the abyss, but still, I'm pleasantly surprised... no, more than that, I am astonished.
The question is whether the Prime Minister has repented and this represents the first day of a new era; or whether it is today's step back which he will repent, and for which he will henceforth attempt to atone - in which case it will be business as usual, only more so.
*
Mozart's small operatic ensembles - the heights?
*
Whatever I think in theory, when I am actually hearing some of the duets, trios and small ensembles from Mozart's greatest operas - these seem to me the height of musical achievement.
I am thinking of things like the parts of Act 1 with the three ladies and/or three boys in The Magic Flute, or Papageno and Pamina's duet; or Soave sia il vento from Cosi, or the Letter duet and Act 4 Finale from Figaro...
Of these, above all I perhaps love the little scene where Tamino and Papageno get their flute and bells.
I mean this section - albeit not this performance nor the recording quality:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYHZipQ-wwk
Presumably this says a lot about me! but the lightness, the little orchestral touches and transitions, the harmonization of voices, the simplicity and sentiment, humanity and glimpsed divinity... well, only Mozart could do this; and perhaps this kind of thing is for me a higher achievement than any other in music.
*
Whatever I think in theory, when I am actually hearing some of the duets, trios and small ensembles from Mozart's greatest operas - these seem to me the height of musical achievement.
I am thinking of things like the parts of Act 1 with the three ladies and/or three boys in The Magic Flute, or Papageno and Pamina's duet; or Soave sia il vento from Cosi, or the Letter duet and Act 4 Finale from Figaro...
Of these, above all I perhaps love the little scene where Tamino and Papageno get their flute and bells.
I mean this section - albeit not this performance nor the recording quality:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYHZipQ-wwk
Presumably this says a lot about me! but the lightness, the little orchestral touches and transitions, the harmonization of voices, the simplicity and sentiment, humanity and glimpsed divinity... well, only Mozart could do this; and perhaps this kind of thing is for me a higher achievement than any other in music.
*
Blind spots in the Arts
*
I am very sensitive and discriminating in relation to the literary arts (prose, poetry, drama), and also to music including singing; less sensitive to the visual arts - highly responsive to portraiture and architecture (and landscape); and hardly-at-all responsive to sculpture (Rodin is the one and only sculptor to move me); and I am almost-completely artistically insensitive to 'dance' such as ballet (I might enjoy the music and animal grace and beauty of the dancers - the not the artistry of 'dance' as such).
*
Some people have a *very* specialized artistic sensistivity: Charles Williams lived for poetry and literature but was completely indifferent to the visual arts and even to landscape; and was 'tone deaf' - in other words found music meaningless, could not sing in tune and was unaware that he could not sing in tune.
*
I am very sensitive and discriminating in relation to the literary arts (prose, poetry, drama), and also to music including singing; less sensitive to the visual arts - highly responsive to portraiture and architecture (and landscape); and hardly-at-all responsive to sculpture (Rodin is the one and only sculptor to move me); and I am almost-completely artistically insensitive to 'dance' such as ballet (I might enjoy the music and animal grace and beauty of the dancers - the not the artistry of 'dance' as such).
*
Some people have a *very* specialized artistic sensistivity: Charles Williams lived for poetry and literature but was completely indifferent to the visual arts and even to landscape; and was 'tone deaf' - in other words found music meaningless, could not sing in tune and was unaware that he could not sing in tune.
*
Thursday, 8 December 2011
Should Christian reactionary blogs be called the Kalbosphere?
*
I suggest that we Christian reactionary bloggers might call ourselves the Kalbosphere on the basis that James Kalb (currently at Turnabout) is our 'blogfather'.
JK founded View from the Right - currently run by Lawrence Auster and VFR budded-off the Thinking Housewife. There are some ace commenters here too, like Kristor and Alan Roebuck.
Other Christian reactionary blogs that I read regularly - and comment at - include Bonald at Throne and Altar, Proph at Collapse: The Blog, and Daniel at the new blog Out of Sleep (strictly, he is a Christian seeker at present).
We form something of a micro-network within the Kalbosphere, and there may be others?
e.g. Jim Kalb kindly blurbed my Thought Prison book, and it was reviewed on T&A and Collapse, and Daniel's comments helped in writing it.
I am not sure what Jim Kalb would have to say about this idea - and strictly speaking Bonald did not lineally derive from the Kalb-sphere of influence (I don't think).
So maybe they would object...
*
The 'Kalbosphere' name corresponds to the Secular Right paleo-conservative 'Steveosphere' which has grownup around Steve Sailer - such as Dennis Mangan, 'Ron Guhname' at Inductivist (actually he is Eastern Orthodox, not secular), Audacious Epigone, HalfSigma, OneSTDV, Razib at Gene Expression and so on.
*
I suggest that we Christian reactionary bloggers might call ourselves the Kalbosphere on the basis that James Kalb (currently at Turnabout) is our 'blogfather'.
JK founded View from the Right - currently run by Lawrence Auster and VFR budded-off the Thinking Housewife. There are some ace commenters here too, like Kristor and Alan Roebuck.
Other Christian reactionary blogs that I read regularly - and comment at - include Bonald at Throne and Altar, Proph at Collapse: The Blog, and Daniel at the new blog Out of Sleep (strictly, he is a Christian seeker at present).
We form something of a micro-network within the Kalbosphere, and there may be others?
e.g. Jim Kalb kindly blurbed my Thought Prison book, and it was reviewed on T&A and Collapse, and Daniel's comments helped in writing it.
I am not sure what Jim Kalb would have to say about this idea - and strictly speaking Bonald did not lineally derive from the Kalb-sphere of influence (I don't think).
So maybe they would object...
*
The 'Kalbosphere' name corresponds to the Secular Right paleo-conservative 'Steveosphere' which has grownup around Steve Sailer - such as Dennis Mangan, 'Ron Guhname' at Inductivist (actually he is Eastern Orthodox, not secular), Audacious Epigone, HalfSigma, OneSTDV, Razib at Gene Expression and so on.
*
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)