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.
Note: I have deleted the second and third parts of this post, as, while relevant to American society in general, they were not appropriate within the context of this blog, whose primary mission is to highlight the artistic forces at work in the Transfiguration of culture.
I am not appalled or disgusted by homosexuality with any particularly strong sentiment. There are many other faults that I find more disturbing, and these include sexual faults, sins, such as rape, molestation, sexual obsession.
Homosexuality, in fact, has a very logical place in our current society. It is the most intuitive sin for our times. It fits in the setting like an atheist mega-church.
Among all the other enticing and frustrating vices, to me it most closely resembles gluttony. We see that this Quail Pot Pie (for instance, you know) happens to have the most pleasurable appearance and rich fragrance we could ever imagine, and so we take two scrumptious bites ... and cannot resist devouring its entirety, after which we feel overfull, immobile, and regretful.
In my own experiences with homosexual attraction, I have found that quite the same case unfolds after a particularly indulgent mental fantasy. A close friendship may provide the perfect circumstance for imperfection, and when friendly affection becomes erotic attraction, one has not quite reached the boundary.
Yes, I believe that eros can exist between two males without sin. Eros can occur when a sort of mild mating of minds occurs, when two young men -- or perhaps women -- recognize in each other, as Anne (with an "e") would say, "kindred spirits". They come so close as to observe in each other that beauty that God hid deep in the heart, only waiting to flower before loving eyes.
Boys playing soldiers -- Francisco Goya, 1779
Yet this eros can lead too far if left unpruned ... just as it can in any relationship between man and woman. In either situation, eros may lead to a lust to have for one's own gratification. Conversely, it may lead, in either situation, to a greater love, a profounder care.
But whereas the fulfillment of love between males lies in the exchange of that saccharine fume for brotherly gaiety and the camaradarie of arms, a unique love unto itself, the fulfillment of love between man and woman bursts into a more complex passion of familial trinitarianism.
But this mystery is lost upon us. We are, after all, the most singularly selfish nation on the face of the planet.
The Austin Institute recently released a video about the "Economics of Sex." In a few fundamental ways, it hits the nail on the head. In other ways, it is deeply flawed.
The head-hitting of Austin's hammer lies in its estimation that American men can bide their time when it comes to marriage. They are in no hurry, having the upper hand in such a sparse arena. They may experiment, demand probationary periods of sexual trial. In such an arena, why would a man find interest in a woman at all (besides the merely carnal sense-probing)?
The women who wish to marry but concede to modern values when it comes to courtship are precisely the sort of sell-outs that no one likes (I am not defending the men ... just making a rhetorical point). They are the sort that are just following lower instincts in an unconscious sort of way -- somehow secure a mate, give birth, raise the next generation.
On the other hand are the Miltonic Eve-like loners, who want to assert their man-womanness because it was the latest and greatest forbidden fruit of the last century (getting old, no?). Do they have respect for the flabby gamers who somehow wear masculine genitalia? About as much as they have for the homemaker who stays up later, gets up earlier, and works harder than they do.
Nevertheless, the pant suit is more impressive than the gamer's thumb. Why would a busy, clean-cut businesswoman look twice at the mediocre-but-approximately-marriageable oaf?
The point is that the sexes are no longer interested in each other. They have had quite a quarrel that has faded to an icy indifference over the course of two fateful centuries, and it is harder and harder to go back. No, it is impossible. And no one can see the way forward.
Why would Mr. Matt Walsh point out the self-victimization of the gay rights agenda? Because it fits right in with homosexuality itself. Homosexuality is a manifestation of the inward turning of the genders, the upraising of the "we" of males or the "we" of females that will one day be a silent chorus of solitary "Is".
Man looks inward and praises his strength, his flaxen hair, his handsome angularity, his quick and sharp wit that translates into powerful and protective romance. What luscious libido! What godliness! What need has he for the women who have brushed him off for love of the capacities only he will ever retain? They can keep their shoulder pads and pixie cuts. And the girly girls that are left ... well, we'll be best friends, because we've both been hurt and will always be hurt if the world remains unchanged.
The camaraderie of failing men has become a flamboyant and resentful self-love. Of course it has. What else could it have become? How else to protect a wounded dignity?
There are, of course, many more reasons for the phenomena of homosexuality, but I have proffered some cultural causes that I find relevant. I look forward to your comments.
There is something very hopeful about the life of a man who sins with enthusiasm. Unlike many people we encounter today, the enthusiastic sinner does not settle for being content. Rather he is always finding something else to do, seeking another zing to thrill him, until his heart is stuffed with whatever he desires.
Herein lies the difference between a headstrong, confident sinner and a typical post-modern man suffering from contentedness (we’ll call him Mr. Smith): the said sinner recognizes he needs more, whereas Mr. Smith believes he has found peace and happiness in being content with his mock-paradise he set up in his gated community. Ask Mr. Smith if he’s happy and at peace, and he will undoubtedly say “yes” without giving it much thought. Take his earthly paradise away, however, and you won’t get a yes out of Mr. Smith any more. Unfortunately, there are too many Mr. Smiths in our world. We would be better off with more headstrong sinners.
Let me explain.
I think the problem with Mr. Smith is his understanding of what it means to be content. Understandably, people strive for contentedness because they get it confused with happiness and peace. In reality, contentedness is more akin to lukewarmness, something that Christ adamantly condemns (see Revelations 3:16). Even the words “peace and happiness” have a connotation today that is very different from the “peace and happiness” that we should be striving towards. Peace goes beyond the mere absence of wars or other physical evils, and being happy isn’t measured by how much pleasure one can obtain. The Greeks had a word for this happiness and peace; they called it “eudaimonia.”While this word is often translated as “happiness,” it is perhaps better understood as fulfillment, specifically in regards to one’s soul.When man acts according to virtue (that is to say, when his will is under the direction of his intellect), he obtains true happiness, and nothing can disturb him.Socrates hit the proverbial nail on the head when he said, “no evil can happen to a just man, neither in life nor after death.”
Seen here:Socrates at peace before his unjust death.
I think the headstrong sinner alluded to earlier understands this concept of eudaimonia better than Mr. Smith, for the consistent seeking and sinning of the sinner stands as a testament to the fact that fulfillment is not obtained through the material world. His seeking and devouring affirms Augustine’s philosophy of the human person - our hearts are indeed restless. The irony for the sinner, of course, is that the human heart will never find fulfillment until it rests in God. Thus in heavy sinning does this man continue to search, yet he will only find disappointment everywhere he turns until he comes to face the disturbing truth - nothing on earth can put to rest his restless heart. Nothing. If he’s a reasonable fellow, he will then appeal to the spiritual realm in order to to find the next zing. Consider it a process of elimination, and consider the hope for the sinner fulfilled.
If you’re still not convinced of the hope that lies within the most headstrong of sinners, consider the war that the sinner declares against God. If you asked him if he is a wicked person, he would laugh and probably say, “yes, I am wicked and I’m on my way to Hell,” recognizing that his murdering and conniving ways are indeed immoral. Ask the same question to Mr. Smith and he would most likely take offense and respond, “of course not!” (even though he is a liar in the workplace and lusts after his neighbor’s wife). While Mr. Smith is indifferent towards God, this isn’t the case for our treacherous sinner. No. The great sinner sees the Creator’s presence as an annoying, blinding light that must be eliminated if he wishes to continue down his path of sin. Of course the sinner’s quest is destined to end in defeat, for God is not known for losing battles. He reigns as the Eternal Victor. Perhaps it is necessary that I add a disclaimer: I am not advocating a festival of sin.What I am advocating is that you get off the fence - the fence that separates you living according to God’s statutes from spitting in His face.Choose, for goodness sake, something, anything, making a stand one way or another.I do not believe I need to tell you what the correct choice is, but I feel it appropriate to tell you that not choosing is the surest way to your own destruction. Moving towards something is better than not moving at all.
.jpg!Blog.jpg)
