Reflections of a Father on the Grave of His Child

It has been a year since my wife and I lost our first child in miscarriage. Miscarriage is a strange event. One is often left wondering if there is something he could have done differently, some signs he missed, some action, in particular, he should have let well enough alone.

The universal human Fall has brought so much suffering, and the knowledge that a certain guilt lies upon us for even these losses brings us to our knees at the cross in sorrowful love, in pain and in thanksgiving.

And yet the burden is not less heavy. The imagined moments, the forecast memories that by all accounts we should have had the opportunity of making -- these flit like shadows toward a deepening twilight. A small boy runs through autumn leaves in an amber sweater. He shouts and cries, falls, rises giggling. The wind blows, a falling sheet of leaves, and he is gone.

My child is gone. His microscopic corpse is buried in a field beneath Christ crucified at a Benedictine abbey. There lies a stone far larger than the tiny casket handmade by monks.

All things are rent with bursting purpose, ruthless purpose tearing us apart. Purpose that seeks each of us out and cuts to the marrow, savagely bruising, scarring all barriers of emotion and flesh. My child honored with expense, with veneration, his life welcomed, shared, memorialized, his little body given a bed on which to wait, a place within the earth, a home. My own body always seeming less viable, less real, a shell I inhabit because I, unlike he, have been blessed with the curse of living.

I have been given the chance to waste the purpose with which my life is infused.

I have been honored with the dignity of accepting or rejecting the meaning of my child's death, his treasured remains, before the onslaught of the world.

I may choose.

I may become a German father, sitting in the deadening silence beside the tomb of my son while the dust of burned Jews bedecks the brick walls and gray rooftops of Auschwitz, of Dachau.

I have determined that I will not be this man. I will sound the horror of a thousand tiny humans dismembered and shipped to a landfill, folded into a mass grave of filth and disease, a pit of blood and poison -- children, beloved children of some kinder parent. The mangled bodies of unoffending innocents. Of this evil I will never cease to speak. I will wail and call from the rooftops into a lonely night of cold neglect until the sharpness of the air tears my throat and the sound of choking blood drowns out my words.

It is true that I am full of dire messages.

It is true that I never cease to think, to plan, to pray for the sudden and final end to this culture of hell, this draining of the very lifeblood of essential humanity. And in all of this my focus centers on abortion, the beloved of Moloch.

Never the less so because of my son. Never the less so because the life and joy that seems stolen from me, never to return, is the same life and joy that sinister faces shrouded in white rip from the wombs of miserable women, crushing their last hope in the murder of their children.

This offense, this desecration of the tomb of my son, I will no longer suffer.

I will inspire fear in every abortionist's heart of gris, heart of merde. For when we fail to form the front of our battle with the great determination of a banner uplifted for the right, we, too, desecrate the tombs of our unborn children, of our children so greatly loved, eagerly expected, lost. We surrender the purpose of their lives into obscurity! We debase their humanity.

When we fail to make the sacrifices discerned by our well-developed intellects as just, we submit to the malaise we decry in our modernist-progressivist contemporaries. We are not here to wait for the Second Coming. We are here, pricked, to slouch toward Bethlehem and be born.  

Charles is my strong warrior, my tiny intercessor. I will not refuse him the dignity accorded to others merely because of their age. Many will accomplish less in a lifetime than he.

But in all of this, I appeal to you, dear friends. If you cannot find in yourself the passionate intensity which, for vision, is necessary, pray for the intercession of my Charles, my great heart, Carolus Magnus.

And speak to me. I am his ill-suited successor. I am the old one who lingers on in the shadows of this earth as night falls, and, who, with the wisdom of death, welcomes with joy the glory of his destruction.

I will, if nothing else, like a gadfly prick you until, unnumbered as the simbelmynë, we defend the tomb of the unborn.



 

To God the Father

Eve After Falling Into Sin, Johann Koler, 1883

Love, again you have found me in the call of birds, the sound of wind thrumming in my ears.

I know that all the world was meant to be green in this way, that lushness was to overwhelm and sedate us into the dreamlike torpor of Adam.

Fill us with a potency. Make us leap from out ourselves towards you, nearer by death-and-life-giving.

Here in the barren land we wait for lushness, for fervent murmur of running waters, for the full welling of slow rivers.

Break us for our yolk.

Keep us till we sleep our fathers' sleep and give out the new full self.

Peaceful, Law-Abiding Outlaws

I have recently enjoyed two long email exchanges: one with an administrator at Abolish Human Abortion and another with a representative of Right to Life of M-----. The former was the result of an inquiry about starting a Houston chapter of the organization (toe-dipping, before I knew their biases), the latter a result of an attempt on my part to logically validate or invalidate certain methodologies and tactics.

It is difficult not to have respect for an organization like Abolish Human Abortion, whose leaders at least declare a no-compromise approach to the fight against organized genocide. They call themselves "abolitionists", and vigorously proclaim an "anti-abortion" message.

Likewise, one would be hard-pressed to discredit the legal work of the various Right to Life state organizations. In fact, I would go so far as to say that anyone who claims to be pro-life and yet discredits the important legal work of National Right to Life or its subsidiary chapters would be dishonest in his/her approach to this holocaust.

"Our way or the highway"

However, as my discussion with AHA developed, rather than being questioned about my pro-life -- or anti-abortion, in this case -- convictions and activities, I found myself pushed into an arduous and elaborate defense of my Catholic faith. It turns out that AHA will not accept anyone into its ranks who does not submit to its unique interpretation of the Gospel sola scriptura, and so its proposed message of 'no quarter and no compromise' is diluted by a strange compulsion to press its ideological Christianity on allies and fellow Christians. Rarely is it more evident that a corporation (a group of persons) may have religious convictions than in this instance, and rarely are those religious convictions more inappropriately applied.

Regardless, it would seem to me irresponsible to totally reject AHA's role in the fight against abortion. Displaying the truth by holding signs and offering alternatives is always necessary, as is constant prayer. But the effectiveness of one's mission to stop abortion, to "stop the unjust aggressor", might be questioned if he/she is constantly criticizing loyal and indispensable brothers-at-arms. But we need people to stand up and fight the good fight, to tell the world that they can no longer stop their ears and avert their eyes from over 40 years of mindless slaughter, and so we can support AHA as a valid moral voice insofar as it is doing just that.

The Myth of Time

My conversation with the very polite representative at Right to Life of M----- began with a question I had posed about RLM's position on civil disobedience. The policy of RLM states that they make no judgement about others who may participate in acts of nonviolent civil disobedience, and it also affirms that the mission of RLM is to pursue constitutional amendment. My goal was to clarify the implications of the phrase "make no judgement". While it is logical and reasonable to focus on the singular mission of one's organization, I wanted to be sure that RLM understood and endorsed the necessity of other forms of action, specifically the "nonviolent direct action" of Martin Luther King's conception.

In other words, I wanted to be sure there was no latent disapproval of nonviolent direct action within the organization. I wanted to be sure that RLM stands for life and allies itself with all of those who do so in a morally licit manner.

My contact at RLM was very legalistic in his language when providing details about the official policy, but, ultimately, he gave the following explanation (emphasis mine):

"RLM does not condemn non-violent civil disobedience, but we will not engage in it, approve it, or support it in any way. [...] It's impossible to run an effective organization that can not stay singularly focused on their mission. Unity is worthy, but our mission is not to unite or divide the prolife movement, it's a human life amendment to the U.S. Constitution."

and

"What is worth condemning is abortion. But we say our four decades of wisdom means that we will not support methods outside of the law. No one strategy is equally valid to another, some are better than others. You are free to disagree, but we believe abortion will end significantly quicker by working through the system, as opposed to civil disobedience."

I will preface the following by saying that my contact at RLM was, by this time, very familiar with my desire for a complete and accurate understanding of the mission, values, and opinions of RLM. He began the above paragraph with this statement: "I see that you are someone with great concern for precision."

A House United

We must fervently agree with RLM when they say that "It's impossible to run an effective organization that cannot stay singularly focused on their mission." We must fervently agree. We must say that to lead a flock of cats would be exceedingly difficult, and that in order to succeed, an organization must remain committed to its purpose, pursuing every means by which that purpose may be accomplished. For RLM, and for National Right to Life, this purpose is the criminalization of abortion through legal means.

We must not seek to direct these organizations away from their paths, so long as those multitudinous tributaries and hunting trails meet in the great roadway of Justice.

We must also fervently agree with RLM when they say that "unity is worthy" and that it is only through unity, through a "singular focus" on the common "mission" that we may obtain the necessary goal of equal rights for the unborn, for it is impossible to run an effective organization that cannot stay singularly focused on its purpose.

Thus, neither can we run an effective pro-life movement if all of its moving parts, all of its constituent organizations, are not wholeheartedly in mutual support.

We must be precise, and we must be careful when we define our mission, our purpose. We must say not that our mission is "a human life amendment to the U.S. Constitution", for while this would be a great milestone in the quest for justice, in 40 years it has not been attained, and time, a neutral reality, does not heal wounds. Thus, we may justly pursue legal intervention as one of the many means by which we call upon the world to render justice unto its most fragile wards, but we may not claim that this method is supreme -- even implicitly, even by "making no judgement" -- posing as if we have some authority to expend as many lives as necessary so long as our indirect means of legal action remain intact.

It is reasonable, in this sense, to approve of legal action and legal goals insofar as the manner in which this is done does not conflict with the overarching mission of saving lives and restoring dignity. It is reasonable to approve of legal action if the manner in which this is done does not conflict with the eternal law.

We must remember that we are not the lawbreakers. We must remember that there exist many barbaric inconsistencies within the current 'legal' system, such as the illegality of murdering individuals who have been born and the converse legality of murdering those who have not, such as the double-homicide count if a pregnant woman has been killed and the converse legal protection of late-term abortionists, such as the illegality of racism and the converse taxpayer support of racist eugenics organizations that kill an overwhelming majority of minority children.

We must remember that we live in a barbaric society where true order has forsaken the legal system. We must remember that any action we commence within that system, while possibly beneficial, creates a false dialogue in which good and evil are set upon a plane, in which the champions of right and the carrion birds of wrong are given equal say. But we must use all means that are morally licit, and so we uphold and we praise the work of organizations like the National Right to Life.

However, we cannot condone any suggestion implied by any organization that MLK's "nonviolent direct action" is, at its worst, immoral or, at best, unnecessary. Just as the human laws of the land are now tools of barbarism, so now those things which are considered barbaric by the barbaric law are the very righteous tools by which barbarism will be overthrown and a tranquil order take its place.

Some may say that the situation today is different from that of the Civil Rights Movement in that those who seek to protect the unborn are not the victims of abuse, and have less license to rise up in civil disobedience. There are many people today, who, in consonance with the Zeitgeist of tolerance, wish to seem like reasonable persons. They ask, "Why can't we all just calm down and have a rational conversation?"

And I answer that there is a certain point at which rational conversation becomes futile, and that point is reached when one party to the conversation is no longer speaking rationally. Killing human beings for profit, pleasure, or convenience is not a rational activity. Moreover, it is irrational to have a conversation about persecution without the voice of the persecuted being heard. It is irrational to remain calm about countless vicious atrocities that are committed day after day within the boundaries of the law.

Furthermore, I answer that we have more of a right to defend the unborn with the sacrifice of our very persons and property because we have more duty to do so. No, we are not fighting for our own rights in an unjust society as many American blacks did in the 1960s (and valiant and praiseworthy was their struggle). Rather, in an even more radical gesture, forsaking our present remaining ease and comfort, forsaking all the rights that we enjoy, we answer the ancient call of love by willingly placing ourselves in harm's way for the sake of these little ones who have no voice and no strength to defend themselves. Just as God raises the battle standard when we let it fall, so we rise to fight for the unborn children. We rise in their stead.

Duty does not disappear when strength is lacking. Either the oppressed can stand or they cannot, and when they cannot, we stand or we fall for them. We need not refer to any other than Jesus Christ, the greatest revolutionary of all, God Himself, who sacrificed his very flesh for the lives and redemption of others, saying, "Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:13).

I will conclude by saying that, as yet, no reasonable person has proven the ineffectiveness of "nonviolent direct action", but rather a great many reasonable persons, 50 years ago, proved its great effectiveness in pushing negotiations to a positive tension so that certain just demands be answered or the entire social framework devolve into chaos. Their righteous demands were answered, but entropy must continually be countered with order.

Let no one discountenance nonviolent direct action. Or if someone should, let this individual then answer why the Islamic State should not be stopped with decisive action. Let this person then explain why Boko Haram should be addressed with passive, non-confrontational measures. Let him explain why, when the soldiers of the Allies encountered the concentration camps, they should not have invaded and destroyed them, but rather should have held as many 'rational' conversations with the Nazis as possible while the wrongs continued. Let him decry Jeanne d'Arc or Christ purifying the temple.

And when this reasonable person has answered these several challenges of thousands more, let him say again why we should not offer ourselves in peaceful demonstrations as holocausts for a graver wrong, a more horrific indignity, a vast and bloody genocide. Let him, surely a reasonable person, explain why every able man should not take part.

Finally, let no reasonable person denigrate any of the necessary means by which abortion must be fought. Let no reasonable person, in a weak moment of pride, preach sole validity for his method alone and the rejection of all others (or worse, pass no judgement at all) -- not Operation Rescue in the 1980s, not legal organizations nor evangelical groups now. We all need each other.

We are brothers.

We are brothers.

We are brothers.

We few, we happy few, we band of brothers. Let us all together wear our various scars.

La Pequeña Burguesía

The poor can afford to be honest.

Like the dead, they've no pretensions to preserve. Robbed of all, they are safe.

They wander the streets: "Are you hungry?" "Yes." "I have a banana and some pretzels." "That sounds great." "Here you go." "God bless you. Have a great weekend." The best interchange we have all year, the most human.

The wealthy are frightened of reality, and shore up every scrap of philanthropy against their ruin. Their philanthropy masks their egotism, and provides a platform for their soap-boxing. Wealth provides a help for every kind of depravity. When one is wealthy and comfortable, why should he question his own motives?

It is far easier to make exorbitant claims when no one can effectively remonstrate. Safe in our death-defying capsules of Self. Unassailable idiocracy.

The poor can afford to be honest. They can accept truth regardless of its source. They can think a nun the greatest soul alive. They can praise a priest.

The poor suffer the universal victimization of human sin. They are its representatives, its constant proof, and they need no other label to be recognized. They live the utterly real.

But the prison of the rich is ivory. It's gate the gate of sawn ivory.

Teach me, you who are rich, how one rejects wisdom. If a man were to give his life for yours, how would you rationalize his stupidity for doing so, and simultaneously assert your own righteousness?

The rich may become great because the burden of proof always rests upon them. Martin Luther King was rich for a black man, but his case was poor and thus proveable.

Today, the imposters of his cause do not prove their case, but instead use the golden fist.

Mi pequeña burguesía, tu vida es una mentira. El reloj del universo para ti no espera. Despierten.

'The Tranquilizing Drug of Gradualism'

Revised and redacted from MLK's "Letter from Birmingham Jail"

I must make two honest confessions to you, my sisters and brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the pro-life moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the pro-life movement's great stumbling block in this stride toward the protection of life is not the NARAL activist or the Planned Parenthood lobbyist, but the pro-life moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another person's very right to life itself; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who would seem to be constantly telling the endangered unborn child -- as he goes to the execution chamber -- to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn't this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn't this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock? Isn't this like condemning Jesus because his unique God-consciousness and never-ceasing devotion to God's will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion? We must come to see that, as the federal courts have consistently affirmed, it is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber. 

I had also hoped that the pro-life moderate would reject the myth concerning time in relation to the struggle for the lives of the unborn. I have just received a letter from a pro-life brother in Texas. He writes: "All Christians know that the unborn will receive equal rights eventually, but is it possible that you are in too great a religious hurry? It has taken Christianity almost two thousand years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth." Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception of time, from the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co-workers with God, and without this hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation.

Public Service Announcement: Moral Requirement

Part 1

Part 2

See the Operation Rescue documentary here.

Abstract:

A small group of young black men is surrounded by a large group of young white men who have indicated that they wish to do significant harm to the former. 

The small group of black men are fortunate in that they are well-fed, strongly-built, and accustomed to frequent persecution. These attributes would be a great consolation to these young men if their opponents were not also well-endowed and of greater number.

On the fringes of the conflict stands a small group of not unable white men who happen to be of the anti-racism persuasion. However, they linger in the corners and flit between shadows as the victims valiantly defend their dignity and valiantly fall, one by one. 

One would undoubtedly say that the anti-racism group had committed a moral failure by neglecting to provide assistance to their brothers in need. Nevertheless, their crime is not unforgivable, the encounter likely being non-lethal and the targeted group having some means of self-defense.

Let us now not break step, but turn directly to the picture of pro-life activism in the current decade. Of what does it consist that worthily addresses the daily perpetration of countless irreparable evils?

Imagine a large group of pregnant women sitting in the waiting room of an abortion mill. They have already been addressed, one by one, by a solitary man who has indicated that he wishes to murder their children. They are sitting here awaiting the hour of bloodshed.

The children, whose death is imminent, are unfortunate in that they are weak, small, and accustomed only to the soft beat of their mothers' hearts, the peaceful bower of the womb. These conditions are of no consolation in the face of sharp instruments created to inflict the greatest harm possible upon their tender and fragile bodies. 

Watching by the gate of the mill, quite near and totally aware of the violent upheaval of nature about to occur, stand a group of able-bodied adults who claim to oppose abortion, who enjoy declaring their fervor. They stand by as the frightened unborn dart from side to side of their sacred havens now violated and profaned, treated as a chamber of execution in the most heinous rape unimaginable. 

Their persons are torn to pieces as they die in newfound pain uncomprehended.

One could not say otherwise but that the "anti-abortion" group had been ought else but complicit in their inaction, in their political correctness of moral abdication. Can their crime be forgiven? The encounter they witnessed could not have been other than lethal, and they but spoke and prayed while blood gushed forth from innocence.

Satire and Evil (and Good), Pt. 2

Note: At one point in this video, I mention amendments to the satire posted earlier. Not all of those amendments -- if any -- will go into effect. To injure the rhetorical effect of the satire by rendering it facile would be to diminish the necessary seriousness of approach to this difficult issue.

Satire and Evil (and Good), Pt. 1

A Royal Abortion

The Unspared Heir

Flakstad, Norway
THE SWIFTIAN POST

Courtesy of mydaily.co.uk

Lately, much news has been circulating regarding the new Royal Baby and his (her?) blushing parents. Indeed, as the laws were changed in 2013, the sex of the child doesn't matter: boy or girl, Will and Kate have provided the essential "spare heir".

Or they would have if Kate hadn't made a shocking announcement yesterday afternoon. Kate says she will not be having the Royal baby. Kate Middleton, the Duchess of Cambridge, next Queen of England, will instead be having a "royal abortion", as some have termed it.

Sources say that the Duchess has a consultation next week with a clinic in New York. Kate says that "the abortion legacy in America is one of its largest accomplishments; Planned Parenthood enjoys a name of near-greater import than its host country. Time to add a pound of royalty to the pile!"

When questioned as to why, after so much excitement in the media -- and indeed in the hearts of people worldwide -- the Prince and the Duchess have decided to eradicate the newest princeling, Kate replied, "Well, it was mostly my decision. Sometimes I have to hold baby George when his nanny is preparing lunch. It just takes so much energy out of you. Every time I see him, I know that I'll never shake that responsibility, and it's exhausting."

When pressed, the Duchess said pointedly that "It's a women's issue, really. I feel it's my responsibility to show people that the right to abortion rests for no one, regardless of lineage. Even a royal baby can be aborted."

Courtesy of huffingtonpost.com

Prince William, though remaining vaguely supportive of Kate's decision, has expressed some concerns. "There is the problem of the 'spare heir', it's true. G** forbid that something happen to little George, it's possible that the royal line will be broken because of this miss-, well, soon-to-be missing link." The Prince seemed somewhat nervous and confused.

Kate's response to Will's apparent indecision was firm confirmation that this was her choice: "If I don't want to birth another heir at this point, then I don't have to. ... How does it go? 'My body, my choice'? Will will just have to wait." However, the Duchess did suggest that another royal birth is highly unlikely anytime in the near future.

The Duchess then volunteered the following information: "After the, you know, procedure, we're going to have an abortion shower, where we plan to ... well, there's a secret ... but we plan to show everyone just how beautiful abortion is! I guess you could say there's going to be a reveal."

After the brief press meeting at their summer cottage in Norway, Kate hurried off to a "Loopy Luau" party on the couples' private cruiser, leaving a dazed Will dreamy-eyed on the patio. The extended royal family is concerned over what seems to have been an extended breach of character over the last few weeks.

Some of Kate's college friends have remarked on social media that "this is the Kate we remember", but insist on the maturity and propriety of her decision to abort the royal child. One twitter user, 86girlpower86, declared that "no one has the right to chain you down, not even Prince charming or his little princeling."

While news media adjust to the transition from "Royal Baby" to "unplanned pregnancy", some fear what may come of these events in the weeks to come, which will certainly be a fragile period in Britain's political history. Stay tuned for more news of the "royal abortion reveal."



DISCLAIMER: This article is completely and utterly fabricated. The persons and places mentioned are real, but the corresponding events, actions, and utterances have been generated specifically for satirical purposes, and are not intended as a factual record. 

Where is the Horse and the Rider

or 'Why you see few art-related posts on my page'

"Where is the horse and the rider?

Where is the horn that was blowing?

They have passed like rain on the mountains,

Like wind in the meadow

The days have come down in the West

Behind the hills into shadow..."

Where is the love of beauty? Where is breathtaking art and poignant song, and where are those who will seek them, praise them, cherish them, and show us how to see?

Like the brief, ephemeral art of our generation, they have been abruptly hidden from sight. Rinsed as from the slate -- no tablet of wax bearing the imprint of centuries' wisdom. Rather, the clean slate of a frontier school that started clean one day and started clean again the next.

Just as we are minimalists in ownership, we are minimalists in understanding or in seeking, in knowing and in wishing to know. And so we receive what we desire, we reap what we sow, which is so close now to nothingness. Where is the love of beauty, the devout appraisal of art? It is as it is in our hearts. Do we expect the tiny race of the people of culture to shower us with the Gospel while we wonder whether we are Princess Belle in her green dress or blue, or which Buzzfeed quiz will show us our best virtues?

Can you hear the overwhelming silence of the artists? I can hear the sea ceasing to sing, ceasing to whelm us over with the peace that she has given the imagination and the further peace that the imagination has given her. Did we think the artists would not starve? But they have all starved -- starved from a destruction of beauty in the world, a destruction of real living, of the seemingly invincible subject. The world has died, and art imitates life as life imitates art. Have you seen the imitation of death? I know that I have.

"The everlasting violence of that double passion with which God hates and loves the world" has come upon the artists in their silence. And as much as they have loved her, adorned and graced her with their innumerable lavishments, they wish nothing now but for her destruction, her punishment, her fall from pride into desolation and suffering and noisome darkness and fear. Repentance.

The fuel of the artist is life -- life that breeds more life -- life teeming and bursting at the seams -- life burgeoning unstoppably and never ceasing to unfold into new and eternal glories. Is it any wonder that the artists are silent, or that the lesser imitate death until it takes them.

Here is the demand of beauty: life. What prodigies have we killed, or allowed to die? No more.

The death of society is at hand. Were we more bitter towards the slaughter of our friends, we would have burned the fortresses of darkness and salted the earth, leaving the festering fields of evil forever barren.

We wish to intervene against the Islamic State in the Middle East. This is a just impulse. But, in our haste to tender retribution, do we forget the thousands slaughtered daily at home. Are the lives of countless children less worthy than the preservation of political potency in names: in "Yezidi", in "Christian", in "Shi'ite". Do we wish to save lives? Is that our intent? Or do we wish to save particular lives for particular reasons? Are the unborn not our brothers and sisters, and do they not live next door. Do they not die next door.

Can you justify your willingness to stop the IS against your unwillingness to stop the Abortionist State? Is it easier to fight a tyrant thousands of miles away?

The lauds of the poet fall silent. The artist in anger and desperation hurls his brush. Is there beauty in the world.

Can you justify not -- at the very least -- standing in prayer before the clinic, adjuring those who would be murderers to abandon their course? Rationalize, I beg you. Rationalize. Rationalize a way to avoid preventing murder when power is in your hands. I have dispensed with the arguments. I have had them all. I have heard them all. There is not one left with integrity. The truth cries out like a stone. It will not move.

The poet falls silent. The artist's heart roils and burns, and a black anger rises.

If you would have the soldiers stopped who terrorize in the name of Islam, but you will not place yourself in danger for your brother who perishes at the hands of the mercenary next door, the only judgement left to you is that of coward and liar.

Go out into the world. Go out. You have been sent out to bring the good news. The good news begins with the gospel of life. You must protect life, from conception to natural death. If you have not done this basic duty, this basic act for the ongoing creation of society, if you watch society crumble -- you too will fall with it.

Go out into the streets and pray, and beg God for mercy. I too will go with you. Come alive, and reject the systematic destruction of the human person. Overthrow the deathly edifice. This is our duty. It is undeniable. It is irrefutable. It is the supreme test of faith in our time -- the supreme evil, that which requires the most devout action in opposition.

If you wish to have good things, you must give, and you must first give life.

Where is the horse and the rider?

The beauty of the warrior lies in that which he defends.

Radicalize the Pro-Life Movement

Some of you who knew me during my college years may recount what seems to be a fierce dichotomy in my character. On the one hand, I have a profound, indeed religious appreciation for art, while on the other, I may become violently passionate with righteous furor when abortion is mentioned.

You might recall the days I spent in front of the new cafeteria, constantly accosting our fellow students: "Will you join us in peaceful protest at a Charlotte abortion clinic?" How many refusals. Stranger yet, how many assented and did not follow through? 100 signatures. Less than 20 protesters.

Others of you who read my blog may one day see a contemplative review of a film by Kieslowski. On another day, a declamation on our guilt as a society.

My heart is tender for beauty. It is of steel for violence.

Or some of my male peers may remember a controversial Facebook challenge to which they did not respond, the challenge that said we are black as hell if we do nothing to stop this horror.

Here we are amidst the horror.

In 8 years of being someway involved in the Pro-Life Movement, I have often asked the question: "Why do we allow this to continue when we have the power to stop it?" It is a simple question -- thus the significance of its persistence, the problem of its remaining unanswered.

I remember when we founded the pro-life apostolate, Crusaders for Life, at my parish church. One of the first events we organized was a training by the archdiocesan sidewalk counseling ministry. We were told of these mythological creatures (including priests) of the past who chained themselves to clinic doors, who -- unfortunately, we were told -- gave the movement a reputation of radicalism. We should never attempt any sort of rescue, for fear of reinstating this reputation.

Thus, for the last near-decade, I have stood, I have prayed, I have conversed kindly and calmly with the Watchers at the Gate.

But as I see the same structure that taught non-intervention (that is, an avoidance of physical protection for the unborn, an avoidance of peaceful civil disobedience) clothed in fine linen suits at their brunches with legislators, I wonder again: "Why do we allow this to continue when we have the power to stop it?" The man power. 300,000 strong at the so-called March for Life.

Even we in the pro-life movement have been a force for the dehumanization of the unborn. How? In refusing to acknowledge the gravity of murder -- the murder of even that first legally slaughtered child. What are we afraid of? asks Stephanie Gray in a LifeSite opinion piece. I would ask the same of her. Why do we stop at "speaking up"? Would you merely "speak up" to a Nazi official who wouldn't listen, especially if you could raise a free army of 300,000 to blast the gas chambers standing within the reach of your arm, to liberate those emaciated figures you observe as they stumble towards the ovens?

Is your reaction sufficient? Is this an adequate response to the evil you see at hand? If you fail at your appeal, will you turn your back as the murders continue, ready to chat it up another day? Did American soldiers ask the Nazi governors to stop the killings, or did they move in and stop them?

Well, America is worse off than Nazi Germany. We have achieved new heights in the field of human extermination. We cannot see it, and so even those who deem themselves "pro-life" allow themselves to relax for a day -- go shopping, play video games, have a beer with friends, scroll for hours on Facebook, vacation, have me-time. We have killed far more, and we protect our consciences from effect by expressing indignation at the Nazis and the Republicans [sic].

This piece seems too detached for my liking, and I am sick of being deprived of action. I am sick of the entire structure, but this does not excuse me from first concentrating on the evil which is first in the world: abortion. And I must do at all times what I can.

LISTEN! Open your ears! You have been at war, and you have let the enemy into your beds. The child of your mating is already aborted. Look at the impotence, 300,000 strong!

Remember the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. What was it for?

Remember the beheading of John the Baptist. What was it for?

Remember the Crucifixion of Christ. What was it for?

What is the definition of modern sacrifice? A weekend stroll round the telephone pole with a sign in your hands and a diaper in your pants? It is long past the time to act. The night has darkened on our souls. We have been 40 years a slave to the fear of humiliation, the fear of degradation, the fear of reprise, the fear of harm to our persons. We have let fear drive us to the rationalization that the very system that allows tyranny to reign and bloodshed to flourish would pander to our delicacies.

And fear, as is its wont, has affected our reason so severely that we value our own safety and livelihoods before the very lives of others.

But fear not, for "Actions done under stress of fear, unless of course it be so intense as to have dethroned reason, are accounted the legitimate progeny of the human will, or are, as the theologians say, simply voluntary, and therefore imputable." If we omit, then we commit. It is time to rise, lift up our mats, and walk.

There is no need for us to walk alone. We are all brothers. Let us spread the word, the word which is difficult, and which, because of this, seems all the more to be true. Speak, my friends, and act, and count not the cost upon yourselves. As Dr. King said, "the first question that the Levite asked was, ‘If I stop to help this man, what will happen to me?’ But then the Good Samaritan came by. And he reversed the question: ‘If I do not stop to help this man, what will happen to him?’"A noble cause calls good men to act.

As always, I stand with Pope Francis on non-violence: "it is licit to stop the unjust aggressor. I underline the verb: stop. I do not say bomb, make war, I say stop by some means. With what means can they be stopped? These have to be evaluated. To stop the unjust aggressor is licit."

  

America and ISIS: Blood on our Hands

Cardinal O'Mally shaking the hand of SS John Kerry

It is legal to murder Christians in the Islamic State, the friendly new caliphate that has recently arisen on the Middle-Eastern frontier. Over 5,500 civilians thus far have been killed. This is surely a great number, surely indicative of a business-like offensive on the part of the Islamic State. These fellows know what they want, and they are willing to fight for it. 

In fact, their progress towards the goal that is nothing short of ummah is not so impressive as the remarkable progress of Planned Parenthood and its affiliates, who have easily and gainfully slaughtered tens of millions of innocent boys and girls not because they were Christian, but because they were (are) human.

What? Yes, because they are human. This is an intellectual breakdown of cosmic proportions.

We have a larger crisis on our hands. This is not to say that the murder of Christians in Iraq and Syria is a negligible event, but we must approach massive genocidal crises with a sense of proportion: in a few days time, the number of murdered children in America will surpass the number of murders perpetrated by members of ISIS. How long have we been preoccupied with ISIS? A few months.

HuffPo gives this number for one month of ISIS terrorism:

"1,922: The number of people killed in Iraq in June, according to government figures, making it the deadliest month since May 2007. Official figures report 1,393 civilians, 380 soldiers and 149 policemen among the dead. Another 2,610 people were wounded, the majority of them civilians."
Whereas abortion statistics in America go thusly: 100,516 every month.

Compare the following paragraph to the first paragraph of this post.

It is legal in America to destroy the life inside of a mother's womb merely to protect personal convenience: i.e. it is legal to murder a person because he/she is a person. Over 56 million murders have been committed by medical professionals against other humans since 1973. This is surely a number beyond the wildest nightmares of most, a number utterly staggering, a number beyond the reach of imagination. Stalin's regime is responsible for c. 20 million deaths, Hitler's for c. 42 million. Americans are responsible for the murder of over 56 million persons.

We sit here scrolling while our own countrymen are hard at work, churning in the voiceless victims, churning out bloody corpses, meanwhile condemning ISIS or some other terrorist group.

I don't know what else to say. It has come to this. It has come to a blindness, a hypocrisy too unwieldy to address. We must stand to defend our own! How can we pull the speck from our brothers' eyes with an M16 if we aren't willing to pull the telephone pole out of ours with a few arrests and some non-violent physical interventions? An easy price for 56 million lives!

We are not as yet morally equal to ISIS. We do not yet have their resolve. If we are to be true to anything, we must end this complacent political shmoozing with the enemies of humanity and protect our brothers and sisters who die as I write.

There are some who say that it is not well to always have abortion or other vital issues in mind. That sentiment is a bit too Aryan for me, and just as effective.

As a movement, we do need leadership. We need leadership that exhibits not excellent taste in business attire or the ability to finagle daytime TV hours for interviews, but the heartfelt determination to end abortion, to "stop", as Pope Francis says: "it is licit to stop the unjust aggressor. I underline the verb: stop. I do not say bomb, make war, I say stop by some means. With what means can they be stopped? These have to be evaluated. To stop the unjust aggressor is licit."

We have the numbers, and we have the truth: it is far easier to prove that innocent children be saved from slaughter than it is to prove the same for Christians in the Middle-East (and this truth is universally accepted).

Without a leadership that is intent on stopping murder from occurring, we are lost in a senseless legal battle with the same forces that will force an unwilling man to bake a cake for a gay couple's wedding.

Such inanity does not merit dialogue, but the use of nonviolent physical resistance. If we do not do more than make a show with our chanting and free concerts at the March for Life, there will be blood on our hands. There is already blood on our hands.

Fear and Freedom

Healing the Hurts of the Earth, and Resisting the Orcs

Lúthien Tinúviel, Allan Lee

I recently signed a petition that constitutes a sort of "please cease and desist" request from two private individuals to their local Planning Department. The story need not be told here, but, in summary, the local government very clearly overstepped its bounds and intruded upon the peace of honest citizens as they made an act of good faith by attempting to confirm the legality of their living situation.

We have been seeing this sort of intimidation very often recently, and it has become more and more apparent that government positions are increasingly attractive to power-minded individuals, those who would "lord it over" their fellow man: "Dominion and service, egoism and altruism, possession and gift, self-interest and gratuitousness: these profoundly contrasting approaches confront each other in every age and place" (Homily, Benedict XVI, St. Peter's Basilica, 18 Feb. 2012).

Not all would agree with the theological account of "the beginning", but many in this day and age agree that a certain stewardship of the earth, a relationship with nature that is mutually beneficial, is laudable, and may, in its various forms, be the one appropriate vocation of man.

It just so happens that the persons at the center of the story mentioned above were seeking to grow vegetables, raise chickens and goats, and otherwise live a very "green" lifestyle from a converted, off-grid school bus. They were seeking to perform a deeply human function, following deeply human desires. They were doing no different from the first people of this country, English immigrants in America, the frontier families, and indeed many peoples in various countries, cultures, and economies throughout the world today. It seems odd that their quiet, unobtrusive, and humble lifestyle should cause any stir whatsoever.

It should cause no stir unless it be an inspiration to live in like manner.

That county officials sought to extend the tentacle of arbitrary conformation is a clear sign that America is no longer free, and that the government has made itself an enemy of humankind and of nature, enforcing -- and thereby merely postponing the certain demise of -- a flailing social and economic doctrine.

Why should we expect fear and intimidation when we seek to do the simplest of things, when we choose to do that for which we were made? Why should we balk at the idea of freedom?

Before even it has become illegal to practice one's religion in this country (an impending doom, no doubt), it is illegal to own private property. You are certainly allowed to hand over your life's saving for a deed, title, and other proofs of nominal ownership, but you are not permitted to do as you will with the earth that you cultivate. Instead, the agents of cookie-cutter suburbia come knocking at your door, demanding some blathering nonsense.

The environs are foggy, but the choice is clear.

The current state of affairs, the current tone of local government (and certainly state and national government) effectively precludes any chance of overcoming absurd legal boundaries on an individual basis. What can one man do? He can do something. A foundational principle of the American nation was that a man can't tramp all over you merely because he has the bigger stick. We no longer live in that nation. We live in a state of passive-aggressive cold war with our governing bodies.

And we must put up a rampart of defense against what is clearly an infringement upon our rights as human persons, which include the right to produce food for our own sustenance and shelter against the elements, without restrictions based on our means or some pitiable norm of "success". It is not a moral wrong to be poor. It is a moral right to care in the best way one may for oneself and one's family.

It is time for persons and families of like mind and similar pursuits to band together and live as they see fit, and to reject all unreasonable molestation as well as the consequences of that rejection. We must no longer allow ourselves to be punished for the basic activities required of existence. We must no longer allow arbitrary policies to define our very nature.

We are human beings born in a place, and this is no crime. We have every right to preserve our existence in this place without interference, especially if we obtain property and cultivate it to our liking. It is time to take a stand, and to reject unjust discrimination by a nihilistic society pressured by a police state. It is time for "the adornment of Arda and the healing of its hurts" (Tolkien, quoted in Patrick Curry's "Iron Crown, Iron Cage ..."). It is time to raise happy families to join in the work that has been set out before us. It is time to reject the jealousy of Cain, and justly preserve the pursuit of innocence.

Surviving Ideology

A cursory critique of the more public Slavoj Zizek

Marc Chagall

"The unexamined life is not worth living." -- Socrates via Plato (or Plato via Socrates) (or both)

In February, Slavoj Zizek wrote an article loosely attached to the unified protests in Bosnia-Herzogovina. Zizek paints a portrait in which "we see the demonstrators waving three flags side by side: Bosnian, Serb, Croat, expressing the will to ignore ethnic differences. ... What the Bosnian outburst confirms is that one cannot genuinely overcome ethnic passions by imposing a liberal agenda: what brought the protesters together is a radical demand for justice."

Zizek expresses the similarity of this moment with "the enemy soldiers fraternising across the trenches in the first world war", an "authentic emancipatory event".

Unfortunately, the auspices of this event are those of oppression. The "radical demand for justice" is very basic, very fundamental. These ethnic groups together sought "jobs, a decent life, an end to corruption", objects so universally valued that there are few upon the earth who would deny their significance. While such an event is certainly inspiring and reaffirmative of these essential desires of the human heart that bind us all together, regardless of our differences, it is yet not such a landmark as it may seem. 

Indeed, "the people of Bosnia have finally understood who their true enemy is: not other ethnic groups, but their own leaders who pretend to protect them from others", but it is only when their most inalienable rights are threatened that such unity is apparently possible. As above, they face a common enemy to life and livelihood itself.

Zizek sees this as a beautiful alternative to the rise of fascism brought about by the "left's failure". But the situation in Bosnia-Herzogovina is merely a regression, the return to a point at which the examined life is not possible because humanity is deprived of certain requirements for society. Immediately antecedent to this crisis, Bosnia was "a country which, in the last decades, has become synonymous with ferocious ethnic cleansing".

It is difficult to say that such a unification of these ethnic groups is a step forward towards a true democracy, but it is possible that we who sit outside the conflict may observe the role of justice and change our ways. There is a simple lesson to learn: what draws the people together is justice. 

A word too often manipulated throughout history, but which still rings of a perfection beyond human attainability. If one were to approach every matter from the perspective of the man who seeks justice -- to give every person his/her due -- he would be difficult to ignore in argument or debate. This is the hope that Zizek's portrait reveals:

• The conflict between liberal permissiveness and fundamentalism is ultimately a false conflict – a vicious cycle of the two poles generating and presupposing each other. What Max Horkheimer said about fascism and capitalism back in the 1930s (that those who do not want to talk critically about capitalism should also keep quiet about fascism) should be applied to today's fundamentalism: those who do not want to talk critically about liberal democracy should also keep quiet about religious fundamentalism.

Justice is the gathering point, the place in which all clamor must cease. Justice recalls our duty to examine what we hold in common, in respect of which we must pursue a social resolution that renders men live, whole, and happy. It is much easier to listen to someone who is willing to discuss all points, and, measuring all holistically, come to a conclusion that suits all because it nods in every direction without bowing in any.

But with Zizek, too, we must give what is due. We must disagree that he understands what this justice is. We must disagree that "a new Dark Age is looming, with ethnic and religious passions exploding and Enlightenment values receding. These passions were lurking in the background all the time, but what is new is the outright shamelessness of their display."

For to highlight the "shamelessness" of even Islamist reactionaries while neglecting to note the desperately extreme moral depravity of the West is to fail to recognize that the looming "Dark Age" is one instigated by Enlightenment values, and met with the disgusted and frightened herd of ludditism. 

In fact, those pillars of Western Civilization which now recede are the learned Greeks and the Christians who bore them up out of decadence, the great philosophical, theological, and literary traditions that still cling with fingers faithful to the barren earth.

"Lurking in the background" of Zizek's global imagination is that same undiscerning tolerance that left the garden untended while the golden serpent danced and writhed, that subtlest beast of all the field, and left man in the dark for saying he could know God's mind and act in his stead.

As the aforementioned "simplistic liberal universalism long ago lost its innocence", so Zizek's statement in his article of May 6 that "only a transnational entity can manage" to "teach the superpowers, old and new, some manners" proffers a worldview that will only inevitably lose its innocence, hastening a wasteland of the dispossessed and disemboweled.

If the current panoply of armed superpowers assaults human dignity by playing puppet -- in Zizek's quotation of Popper, "hypothesizing" -- with smaller national and cultural entities, then how heavily will a global power (made up of who else but a narrowing cadre of superpower regimes) crush the lighted prism of the world.

Over the Rainbow

Rainbows are gatherings often held in areas remote from the general hubbub, tucked away in the woods and fields where nature still enjoys its proper place upon the earth. People hike for miles to find the Rainbow settlement -- a city of tents. These voluntary gatherings may remain in a single place for many months.

One website, www.welcomehome.org, describes the "Rainbow Family" as follows:

• Some say we're the largest non-organization of non-members in the world. We have no leaders, and no organization. To be honest, the Rainbow Family means different things to different people. I think it's safe to say we're into intentional community building, non-violence, and alternative lifestyles. We also believe that Peace and Love are a great thing, and there isn't enough of that in this world. Many of our traditions are based on Native American traditions, and we have a strong orientation to take care of the the Earth. We gather in the National Forests yearly to pray for peace on this planet.

Rainbows are indeed nebulous. There are no formal laws, but the community often organizes itself according to unwritten values of "love, peace, non-violence, environmentalism, non-consumerism and non-commercialism, volunteerism, respect for others, consensus process, and Diversity" (http://www.rainbowtribe.net/).

The images you see above were taken from photographer Benoit Paille's Behance profile (https://www.behance.net/gallery/Rainbow-Gathering-%282010-2011%29/1193675). Observing the physical constitution, the open posture, the clear and healthy eyes, the soft light of these figures who stand at home amidst the wild calls to mind another race. A race foreign to us.

If you recall, in Aronofsky's Noah, how the simple life, the stewardship of the land above all else preoccupies the line of Seth -- then you cannot help notice the similarity here, even that of dress. Note the earthen tones, the grainy texture and spartan design. The pouches at the belt.

 

There is something impure in the Rainbow gatherings: look at the drug use, the pagan practices, the rejection altogether of beneficial technologies, etc. Yes. We say this. In our conservative towers we point over the heads of the lowly. And our towers crumble.

Is such a lifestyle not preferable in every way to the indescribable indignities of capitalism? Infused with the heights of the Western spirit, could we not become the ordo contemplativus of St. Bonaventure?

Such a radical return to the first and proper vocation of man may be required, and certainly even now is intensely needed amidst wholesale cultural degradation of the meaning and dignity of the human person. If, at the Rainbow gatherings, "we often say 'We are one.'", then perhaps this is a place we all should be (Paille).

Why do we have the desires we do? Why is it necessary to sacrifice the person for his betterment? Why suffer the deadening effects of the corporate desk job for health insurance, for a nice car? We are slaves to a system we ourselves have created, a system that literally values material gain over the fulfillment of truly human needs, truly human desires. We lay ourselves down as fertilizer for a machine, and when we are gone -- dead from laboring in its service -- it too will die. We have created a new meaning of ephemerality.

But rainbows will endure. And in these communities that bear their name, human beings come together in harmony, attempt to see each other, to see the person in each other: "We experience all these differences and confrontations, and experiment in matters of conflict management. We learn to talk, look, understand, to become more tolerant." (Paille).

Paille says that "All ideologies and beliefs coexist in harmony." and yet "decisions are not made through a majority vote, but truly through a common consensus. It can take days." What seems to be some sick offshoot of liberalism is rather a reconciliation of all beliefs into the most universal -- and this is seen as so important that "It can take days." The entire human family, from every conviction, is welcome. And every conviction may have its say until only one is agreed upon. Why do Church councils take so long?

We see in Rainbow gatherings a practical model for human life that seeks post-lapsarian remediation, that values the posture of the human community in reference to the spiritual world above all else, and that does not stoop to violence even in preventing it: "If someone becomes dangerous, violent, it can happen, people will make a sina shanti (a peace circle), where men will peacefully surround the individual by holding hands." (Paille).

I may yet see a Rainbow.

All photographic images are the property of Benoit Paille. Please check out his beautiful work:

http://benoitp.prosite.com/

https://www.behance.net/Benoitp

Noah: Neither/Nor

On March 29th, Matt Walsh wrote a wedgie-twisting diatribe on Aronofsky's Noah, describing the film as "the most insipid, absurd, unimaginative, clumsily contrived piece of anti-Christian filmmaking to come along since, well, probably just last week."

And Brett McCracken roundly praised it: "Most importantly I believe the film — which ends up being an epic somewhere between Tolkien’s The Two Towers and Shakespeare’s Hamlet — retains the theological themes of the Noah story, powerfully bringing to life a 'second Eden' tale that highlights both the justice and mercy of the Creator, a God of grace and second chances."

Neither/nor.

Darren Aronofsky's Noah is not a flimsy, foppish anti-biblical attack on bull-pig-pseudo-Christian America, nor is it a great flower of Western culture. It is a somewhat interesting exploration of the Noahic themes that yet struggles to portray a convincing interpersonal conflict.

But let us first clarify something very pertinent if we are to avoid Walshian troubles.

Noah's success as a work of art is the only relevant plane on which it may be evaluated. The rest is observation and commentary, valuable to a point, but not ... well ... all that relevant in judging a film ... at which point I inadvertently stumble into a quote by Kierkegaard: "Anyone who is something, and is something essentially, possesses 'eo ipso,' the claim to be recognized for exactly this special thing, and for nothing more or less." (The Crisis and a Crisis in the Life of an Actress)

For instance, if you found Noah offensive, this may be because you misunderstand the presuppositions of the movie theater. When one enters a playhouse or a movie theater, it is with the expectation that he is going to see a play or a movie, respectively. He is going to see a good story. On less frequent occasions, he may see a political, historical, or religious documentary.

However, Noah is not advertised as a documentary. It is advertised as an epic story that postures a man named Noah as its central figure. In no fashion is the film represented as "the biblical tale" or "the literal, word-by-word retelling of the flood story with fancy moving pictures". The lack of boundaries from preexisting material allows the story to be what it is, and this is true of any film. At the same time, those boundaries allow a certain depth by implied allusion, but that's another story. ;)

As a fictional story in the form of a movie, Noah proffers some worthy considerations, some new perspectives that invigorate the perceived dustiness of the OT story. As Brett McCracken posed:

• What was the mindset of Noah (who, apart from Gen. 9:25-27, never actually speaks in the biblical narrative) during this crazy episode in his life? What did his family think? What were the interactions between Noah and the wicked population doomed for destruction? Did Noah have a relationship with his grandfather Methuselah (Anthony Hopkins)? The film explores all of this in the spirit of midrashic interpretation, and takes the story far beyond the source material. Some of it works and some of it doesn’t, but (as far as I can tell) none of it directly contradicts anything in the biblical account. 

Unfortunately, there is contradiction. And I say "unfortunately" not for any other reason than that the introduction of a wifeless Ham is indeed "unimaginative". Were the story of Noah wholly new to us, the conflict perhaps may have worked. But as this story is woven so deeply into the fabric of the Western imagination, we see Aronofsky's manipulation as irresponsible in light of the artistic tradition. It appears that the director could not sufficiently develop the themes offered from centuries of paintings, sculpture, stained glass, and oral tradition, and thus sought to embellish a tale of such a magnitude that it renders significant alteration laughable if not incredibly pretentious.

There are certain departures in the film that are very interesting, but they find their origin in a profuse mythological structure: the Nephilim/rock angels, the wicked men/industrialists, the dramatic visions of "death by water".

Another very interesting departure is Noah's psychosis regarding the destruction of humanity, including his own grandchildren. This too could have more effectively provided a profound insight were his psychosis not so sudden in onset and not so drawn-out as to bore the viewer. The complexities of such a psychomachia were also obscured by their external consequences: Emma Watson all freaked out, Noah's wife in a tearful rage, Shem getting violent.

Overall, the film has an unfinished feeling to it, some major mashwork in the plot that brings it to its knees. However, we are certain of what the film is -- a colorful but limping depiction of an ancient myth -- and what it is not -- a bible-school-friendly reenactment or a primordial Hamlet.

As for Russell Crowe's performance: fairly compelling. Fairly. He is proof that it is possible to be a well-skilled actor while completely lacking discrimination. It may be that this record will mar his oeuvre as it has his ethos.

Regardless, I think that the film is worth watching as long as you fast-forward a bit through the arduous annoyance of life on the ark during the flood.

A Challenge to the Pro-Life Establishment

Abortion and the Postmodern Imagination

"If the law purports to require actions that no-one should ever do, it cannot rightly be complied with; one's moral obligation is not to obey but to disobey....If the lawmakers (i) are motivated not by concern for the community's common good but by greed or vanity (private motivations that make them tyrants, whatever the content of their legislation), or (ii) act outside the authority granted to them, or (iii) while acting with a view to the common good apportion the necessary burdens unfairly, their laws are unjust and in the forum of reasonable conscience are not so much laws as acts of violence....Such laws lack moral authority, i.e. do not bind in conscience; one is neither morally obligated to conform nor morally obligated not to conform." 

"All who govern in the interests of themselves rather than of the common good are tyrants....Against the regime's efforts to enforce its decrees, one has the right of forcible resistance; as a private right this could extend as far as killing the tyrant as a foreseen side-effect of one's legitimate self-defence."

-- from the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas

Today, I go to work, wait anxiously for lunch time, sit outside and bask contemplatively in the play of sunlight through oak leaves, turn quickly into the building at the appointed time, let the last hours of rushing and typing and talking fly by, and go home to entertain myself with -- maybe -- a short read and certainly a show or two. Cigarette and wine after cycling and water. Aestheticizing. Bed.

Tomorrow, I will behave similarly, and perhaps call it "the holiness of the ordinary". 

In fact, many Americans will do likewise. They will be educated, self-educating, confident, secure, and moderately sane. They will be capable of thoroughly and admirably condemning the social ills around them, especially in the company of friends, of making sweet moan about the many seething injustices that exist almost by default in our rotten society. They will swear, philosophize, and prophesy. 

They will go out to eat on weekends, sleep in on Saturdays, mow the lawn, hate and love themselves -- with a little more love than hate -- and live quotidianly.

Aestheticizing on the non-despairing hope of helplessness as parousia slowly grows nearer.

The Metamorphosis of Narcissus, Salvador Dali

We only do what we like. We go off to die in wars when peace is hell. When peace is not quite hell, but a fine balance of leisure and self-deceit of salvation, we can endure.

And hence the ever-crumbling edifice of abortion yet lingers.

There was a story a few years ago about a woman who stood her ground as a large man armed with a hammer beat her door down. Her two children were with her in the house, and she was going to protect them. She told as much to the 911 dispatcher. When the man rushed through the door, she shot him full in the chest with a 12-gauge shotgun. 

We consider it right and just to kill a man who would harm an innocent. The woman in the story had no charges placed against her. 

We consider it admirable to defend a human life, admirable because it is a difficult duty. We would call a soldier a coward who hid as his wounded brethren were murdered. We call soldiers heroes who defend their country, placing themselves in the sight of death in order to kill.

In keeping with this consideration, we ourselves organize large marches on Washington, elaborate displays of passion with no follow-through. ...

The citizens of the capitol prepare their businesses for great profit, concerts are organized, politicians make seasonal speeches pantomiming deep commitment to the cause, friends meet and talk, tourism abounds, and everyone goes home fat and happy. Thanks for coming, pro-lifers. See you next year!

And the intellectuals aestheticizing on leisure in a sinking world, waiting for the sun to liven gray tendrils that pull forth dawn.

Our moral fantasy is our great masque of protestation. It is a device of self-preservation, an intellectual necessity if we are to maintain personal safety, and, furthermore, comfort, convenience. Our great masque: our legality, our passive inoffensiveness, our pattering-about on sidewalks. 300,000 strong could shake a country. 300,000 strong could certainly shake a capitol. ISIS is not nearly so strong. But we are poor stewards of our flesh, and allow the murders.

Indeed, we have such complex rationalizations which we describe as peace, patience, humility, hope. Unfortunately, these are in practice fear, sloth, helplessness, anxiety.

We permit the mutilation and murder of innocent human beings. Right now. This minute. And the next.

The plea through the courts has been accomplished. The plea has been rejected (Cf. 1973). This was, in truth, a declaration of war. Those who met that devil's declaration -- priests who chained themselves to the doors -- are now despised and ridiculed for tarnishing the reputation of the cause.

This should be a ready sign: that we put on a pretty face for murder. "Listen to us, postmodern society. We're legitimate!" we whine.

And the intellectuals just waiting and aestheticizing. Not helping the psychosis of the masses.

And any mention of physical resistance is met with the argument that it would be paradox. An unworkable contradiction.

An unworkable contradiction is declaring abortion to be the most heinous evil we now suffer and standing by while the perpetrator struts from his Bentley to the clinic door.


This is a posture against hope.


The revolution in policy will begin. And if it does not, then ISIS will have been our moral superior: they annihilate what they perceive to be evil.