Sunday, September 14, 2025

Bearers And Crosses: A Sunday Rumination

     I haven’t done one of these in quite a while, so please bear with me if need to knock a little rust off.

     Today, September 14, is the Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross. It’s not one of the better known feast days. It hearkens back to the fourth century, when the cross on which Christ was crucified was lifted above the Basilica of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. Sine then (if not before), the Cross has been an object of veneration and mystery. A number of miraculous cures have been ascribed to the sufferer having been touched by a fragment of the Cross.

     But the significance of the Cross is far deeper than its healing powers. It was on the cross, when Jesus was flanked by condemned thieves Dismas and Hestas, that He promised eternal life in heaven to the repentant Dismas. The Cross thus speaks to us of Divine forgiveness, which opens the gates of heaven to those who sincerely repent of their sins.

     These days, not a lot of priests talk much about sin. Funny thing, isn’t it? The Church exists specifically to guide men away from sin and toward God. But if we don’t strive to understand sin, how can we learn to steer away from it? Few of us travel with a priest at our elbow, ever ready to counsel us on the hazards we face. Wouldn’t do much good, anyway; sin is an individual matter, not something one can rely on a spiritual guide to avert.

     Inasmuch as the Cross is also the overarching symbol of Mankind’s spiritual burdens and the suffering Jesus had to endure to relieve them, it evokes a question of fundamental import to the sincere Christian. We were told, by Christ Himself, that we must take up our own crosses if we wish to belong to Him. He said it well before He was crucified; the cross – the severest form of capital punishment the First Century knew – was already a symbol of immense gravity.


     There’s a great deal of variation among Christians’ conceptions of sin. That variation gives weight to Christ’s command that we “Judge not, that ye be not judged. (Matthew 7:1) The Church recognizes this in its proclamation that, after the Ten Commandments and the Two Great Commandments from which they descend, the individual conscience is supreme in such matters. I’ve written about this many times, both here and in my novels, so I’ll resist the urge to expound on it yet again.

     From the contemplation of sin, we come to the subject of temptation.

     Temptation is a real thing. When it comes upon you, you can feel it at work. Quite simply, it’s the urging to disregard your conscience’s evaluation of some possible act. Your conscience, which is the mechanism you’ve been given with which to distinguish right from wrong, speaks softly, in whispers. The counter-whispers that exhort you to ignore your conscience are your temptations.

     Some of our temptations arise from our appetites and our desire to indulge them. Those may be entirely innate to the human animal. But some temptations have nothing to do with such things. They speak to our fallen selves, our incompletely controlled urges to hurt and destroy. Those, I believe, have an external source. Whatever the case, he who feels temptation testing his conscience must recognize the symptoms.

     I believe that when Christ told us to take up our crosses if we wish to follow Him, he was speaking of temptation. For our temporal burdens and sorrows are of this world. Everyone has some; no one gets a free ride. The temptations we face are our individual spiritual burdens – our crosses.


     Few men are admitted to the knowledge of another man’s conscience or the temptations he faces. Few of us talk about them. I’m unsure whether that’s for the best or whether we who believe should be forthcoming about them. It would certainly be a trial for me.

     Temptation usually aims at our personal weaknesses: unsatisfied currents of yearning and the sense of deprivation. Some key phrases to bear in mind are “I deserve,” “No one has to know,” and “Everybody is doing it.” He who finds himself contemplating one of those is in danger; he must look to his defenses. Whichever of his unfulfilled yearnings or resentments is front and center, he must back away from the urge to slake it. It’s seldom easy; ask Saint Paul.

     Shouldering one’s cross at such times is the spiritual challenge.


     Before I close, I want to mention one of the most emotionally wringing stories I’ve ever read. It was written by my friend F. James Dagg. It’s titled “The Bearer.” Imagine yourself in the protagonist’s role. Do you think you’d be equal to what was asked of him?

     For in James’s tale there lurked a special kind of temptation: the desire to flee from one’s duty. James’s protagonist didn’t flee, didn’t shirk. He carried his cross, though it took much from him, possibly including many years of his life.

     Each of us has a duty. Only you know yours.

     May God bless and keep you all.

Saturday, September 13, 2025

"A Man To My Wounding"

Have a "think" video:

The Shelter Problem

     Yes, yes, I know you’re tired of hearing about Charlie Kirk’s murder and what’s followed. Sorry; it’s on my mind, and I write about what’s on my mind. You see, there are parallels between the situation that produced Charlie’s murderer and the ones that make both black predation and Muslim violence so rampant.

     The explanation starts with an insight from Brigitte Gabriel:

     I think I’ve embedded this video before, but never mind. Gabriel’s explanation of the sheltering character of a population that protects and enables its violent fraction is on point. When Mao Tse-tung wrote that “The people are the sea in which the revolutionary fish swims,” he had the same idea in mind. The larger mass of that population need not be violent. It needs only to provide concealment, protection, and sustenance to its violent members. That greatly increases the willingness of the violent to go forth and slaughter.

     When black or Muslim violence erupts, the rejoinder from the peacefully inclined among us is often “But they’re not all like that. We can’t punish all of them for the deeds of a few!” This response is so common that it’s generated an Internet acronym: NAXALT. And indeed, by American standards of justice that rejoinder is correct.

     But the phenomenon has killed the degree of mutual trust that made America the social, economic, and political envy of the world. When it’s unwise, for the sake of one’s own well-being, to trust in the good will of strangers, trust will disappear. And that is exactly what has happened.

     We cannot trust blacks.
     We cannot trust Muslims.
     Worst of all, we cannot trust those on the Left – and we have no reliable way of distinguishing them from the others around us. Any of them could be an assassin or an enabler of assassins. Any of them might cheer at seeing one of his fellows brutalize or kill us. The culture that shelters them has reduced the risk of those things to them.

     That has increased the risk to the rest of us.


     Retail establishments and restaurants are beginning to sense the dangers. Some have already gone to what I’ve been (mistakenly) calling a “kill box.” Properly, it’s a delayed-admission security entrance. Below is a picture of the sort of thing I’m describing:

     The outer door is unlocked. The would-be entrant steps inside. The inner door remains locked against him until a security guard can decide whether he should be allowed to pass into the establishment. If the answer is no, he can proceed no further; he must leave.

     The “kill zone” where the would-be entrant must wait is of course transparent. It can be made as large as the proprietors think appropriate for their application. The walls are usually made of Lucite. In the future they may be made of armor glass, given how many guns there are in the world. I know of one such retailer, a furrier, who has already imposed such a control on his potential customers. He won’t be alone for long.

     Such controls, openly designed to separate dangerous elements from the rest of us, are a stopgap solution. They can only protect enclosures; they cannot protect public places. With Muslim violence and black “chimp-outs” becoming more frequent and more widespread, the long-term solution can only be a complete, enforced separation of the populations, such as this. Popular sentiment won’t yet support that, but time will tell.


     Trust in the good will of strangers is a social requirement. The loss of it atomizes us, as it’s doing today. An increasing percentage of Americans are unwilling to leave their homes to shop. They fear what may await them. Many such have ample justification. (Say what you will about Jeff Bezos, but thank God for Amazon.)

     Do you hate the idea? I do. But anyone with a better idea, a better vision for restoring public peace and amity is welcome to present it. In this regard I must hope that there are keener eyes than mine... though I’ve seen no evidence to that effect.

Friday, September 12, 2025

Rearguard Actions

     There may be no creature on Earth lower than Jim Acosta. You may remember his interminable badgering and hectoring of President Trump during his first term. Trump showed more restraint at his antics than I would have expected, far more. He even managed to restrain himself when a court ruled that he could not, on his authority as the president, expel the troublesome tosser from the White House press pool.

     This might have been the supreme example of Acosta’s arrogance and entitled-ness: demanding that Sarah Sanders, then the White House press secretary, contradict her boss in public:

     CNN fired Acosta awhile ago, perhaps out of recognition that he was the opposite of an asset to their viewership and sponsorship. But one of his ilk doesn’t disappear quietly these days. (Cf. Keith Olbermann) He’s sought out alternative channels by which to pump his vitriol into the national discourse. And of course, as there are many today, he’s found one:

     It would be foolish to expect Acosta to focus on the actual impact of the Charlie Kirk assassination. No, his bent compels him to look for a way to downplay the actual killing in favor of his political allies. So he trumpets that the Right is exploiting the atrocity!

     This is not something to dismiss with a growl. Acosta is something of a standard-bearer for his ilk. He may be the most obnoxious of them, but he represents their attitudes and preferences very well. His approach has already been adopted by other Left-aligned commentators in the mainstream media.

     That’s the Leftist approach to anything terrible their allies precipitate. They don’t reflect on causes and consequences. No, it’s always “Republicans Pounce,” or something to that effect.

     It’s been clear from all the open Leftist jubilation over Charlie Kirk’s death that the killing of an effective conservative activist gladdens their hearts. A few have actually said that they wish it had been their deed, rather than that of an as-yet-unknown assassin. Do we really need any more evidence that they’re at war with us? Real, flying-lead, take-no-prisoners war in which Charlie Kirk’s death is something to celebrate?

     Other conservative activists have been pondering whether they should adjust their schedules, perhaps take additional security measures. May God watch over all of them at every moment. It’s clear that the cream-pie phase of this struggle is over.

     As distasteful as it is, we must keep watch on the mainstream media and their favored mouthpieces. Yes, they’re wounded and falling back, but “a wounded lion is a lion still.” If the Acostan message – i.e., that what matters most about Charlie Kirk’s death is how the GOP can benefit from it – should gain traction, the national discourse will be twisted to their advantage yet again. It wouldn’t be the first time the reptiles of the Left have pulled the rhetorical rug out from under us.

Thursday, September 11, 2025

A Declaration Of War

     Time was, wars were declared in formal notes, delivered by one nation’s ambassador to the potentate of another nation. Military operations waited until that note had been received and acknowledged. When hostilities did begin, they were often battles scheduled to begin at a particular time and in a particular place, with prior warnings delivered to any noncombatants in the area. Battles would often have mercy breaks, during which each side would collect its dead and wounded and care for them.

     Time was.

     I shan’t trouble my Gentle Readers with the tale of degradation that’s brought us to where we are. You may already know it, or some of it. Suffice it to say that nations’ warlike practices are no longer so civilized. The Geneva Conventions, noble attempts to return warfare to some degree of decency, are mostly honored in the breach, if at all.

     Today, wars begin with a military strike. “Oh, you didn’t know we were at war with you? Well, you know it now.” The attitude needs no analysis from me.

     That new “standard” applies to civil wars as well.

     Just in case you’ve been completely disconnected from national events for the past day or so, yesterday a sniper ended the life of Turning Point co-founder and popular conservative activist Charlie Kirk. A high-powered rifle bullet found his jugular from an estimated two hundred yards away. For a moment, it was a tragic, stunning shock, nothing more. Then the reactions and commentary from the Left began to accumulate: celebrations compounded with statements that “he deserved it.”

     It was barely possible to rationalize away Charlie’s murder as the deed of a madman, a “lone wolf,” before those reactions and comments began to appear. After that, it was no longer possible to interpret the assassination as anything but a declaration of war. Real war, the kind fought with bullets and bombs.

     The Right has been muttering darkly about the possibility of a modern civil war for some time. We’ve never wanted one. We hoped we could restore the Constitutional order of the United States by argument, education, and electoral action. We failed to reckon with the emotional dynamics in this deeply divided country. We also failed to understand the two attempts on Donald Trump’s life as we should.

     Clarity has come.

     I could go into depths of detail that would sicken even me, but there’s no need. The matter is simple. The Left has lost at the ballot box. It has lost the national argument. It has lost the emotional allegiances of decent Americans. Its back is to the proverbial wall. Its remaining choices are surrender and violence – and the Left never surrenders.

     War is upon us.

     We don’t get to say “No, we don’t want this,” and end it that way. We don’t get to stand back and hope it will happen somewhere else, to someone else. We don’t get to declare a personal armistice and live our lives quietly while others argue over the terms of the peace treaty. We don’t even get to buy peace by surrendering. We’re in Israel’s position now: every one of us in the Right is on the front lines.

     Charlie Kirk was targeted because of his effectiveness, but even more because of his openness. He wasn’t a supreme commander, any more than was Archduke Franz Ferdinand. He was a high-value target, but nevertheless a target of opportunity.

     Other conservative speakers and public figures are on notice. But then, so are we all.

     I wish I could end this on a positive note, but there aren’t any positives to the thing. The Left has declared war on the Right. The violence will continue. It will probably escalate. More people will be maimed and killed.

     There’s no predicting the outcome. The Right has been too determinedly civil. We’ve never accepted the absoluteness of the contest. We’ve proceeded as if the contest could and would be settled by argument alone. But our adversaries will not accept defeat by that standard. They won’t stop short of anything but total power over all of us: the power of life and death and everything in between. Why should they not go to guns when the national discourse and the electoral contests turn against them?

     It’s August 1914 in America. The next few days will reveal much. For now, pray for our country. And clean and oil all your guns, of course.

Wednesday, September 10, 2025

Matt Walsh Goes Part Way (UPDATED)

     It cannot be made clearer than this:

     Note that Walsh is unsparing about the grisly reality of the crime. Note that he is unequivocal in condemning the mainstream media’s desire to turn the attention away from the crime and onto “conservative racism.” But note also that he shies back from the conclusion that the statistics he cites would force upon any of us: i.e., that whites cannot and must not have blacks among us.

     The black race is incompatible with the white race. Yes, some of its members have adapted to the norms of the advanced civilizations whites have built. But generation after generation, young black males have reverted to the norms of the jungle. When they do, their forebears fail to restrain or discipline them. Whites are left to clean up the mess... and, to add insult to injury, to hear ourselves denounced for “racism” for daring to notice the obvious.

     It is no longer possible to believe, after all these years and all our efforts, that the black race can be rendered safe for civilized society. The “not all of them are like that” deflection must be dismissed with prejudice if whites’ lives and property are to be protected.

     In a different context, Ronald Reagan asked pointedly, “If not now, when? If not us, who?” Those are the questions of the hour. The subject is different, but the urgency is just as great.

     What awaits us should we delay further will be too grim to bear.

     UPDATE: Don’t think for a moment that other blacks aren’t wholly behind Decarlos Brown Jr.:

     Young black men lap that stuff up. It’s their license for doing whatever they please to the rest of us.

     They must go. Even if it takes the imposition of martial law and a “Two Doors” scenario, they must all go. Where, I don’t know or care.

Tuesday, September 9, 2025

Enemies

     Do you have enemies? If you believe so, are they known to you individually? If not, by what criteria do you identify them?

     I’m not talking about board games, Gentle Reader. An enemy is someone who would like to see you come to harm. The nature of the harm need not be physical, though that would certainly count.

     The crime statistics suggest that there are a lot of people out there doing harm to others just now. In a great many of those cases, the “harmers” don’t know the “harmees.” Not as individuals, that is. They choose their targets by other criteria.

     Crime statistics can tell us a great deal, but they don’t elicit the kind of horror or passion for vengeance that the murder of Iryna Zarutska has awakened. Yet this, according to all we know, was an impersonal crime. The murderer was not acquainted with the victim. They had never previously encountered one another. Neither had said a word to the other before the killing took place.

     Individual crimes seldom evoke mass movements or large shifts in public opinion. Even utterly vicious killings don’t usually have that effect. A gang that knocks over a convenience store, killing a clerk in the process, is usually just treated as one more dreadful statistic. Until the statistics are studied for patterns, that is. Then the game changes.

     The murder of Iryna Zarutska had a special quality. The mass media were aware of it from the start. They could sense the kind of avalanche in public opinion it would loose. So they declined to cover it. Their explanation? “Just another local crime story.”

     When the media finally did deign to mention that murder, they tried to make it about – what else? – race and politics.

     Reflect on that for a moment while I put up another pot of coffee.


     I could go in a dozen directions about this, but you’ve probably read my other tirades about the race war in progress, so I’ll spare you that set of rantings. No, today my focus is on the mass media.

     We’ve known for quite a while that the media are boughten allies of the Left. Journalism attracts the Left-inclined ab initio, for reasons I’ll address some other time. Leftist activists and politicians have had great success at seducing journalists into supporting and promoting their causes. But above all, the media have been most useful to the Left in embracing and promulgating the Left’s narratives.

     Leftist politics requires that certain narratives get traction. The most prominent of them has been the oppression narrative, particularly in matters of race. The notion of ongoing race-based oppression probably matters more to the Left than any of its other themes. Therefore, its allies in the media must take care:

  • To cover any event that can be framed so as to lend support to the notion that whites oppress blacks;
  • To refuse to cover, or to minimize or distort, any event that leans in the opposite direction.

     Some time ago, I wrote:

     Word gets around. Something as atrocious as the rape-torture-murders of Christian and Newsom cannot forever be kept from the light of day. People talk: policemen, forensic investigators, neighbors, reporters, reporters' clerical assistants, cleanup specialists, garbagemen, the families of the victims, their neighbors, and their neighbors' kids. There's simply no hope that the story won't sooner or later be told. When it is told, after a long interval of silence, people will naturally ask one another, "Why haven't we heard anything about this before now?" They will suspect conspiracy.
     It's easy to suspect conspiracies, and difficult to disprove them. Conspirators are secretive by nature, seeking always to conceal or disguise their identities and deeds. Successful conspirators are well prepared to deflect the blame for their crimes onto wholly innocent others. With this as the model, one who begins to suspect that he's being deceived has a long, hard road to travel to disabuse himself of the notion.
     Journalists who downplay or conceal inter-racial crimes out of the mistaken notion that they're helping to avert further hostility are either deluded or hopelessly stupid. By furthering the conviction among private citizens that we're being lied to, they advance the concomitant conviction that "the other," about whose deeds we're being denied full and accurate reports, really is someone to be feared...someone to be located and destroyed, or cast out of our midst, for our own safety's sake.
     Thus, whatever their conscious motives and intentions, politically correct journalists who spike stories about horrific crimes by black perpetrators are the new segregationists. It is their decisions about which stories should be emphasized and which ones must be buried that will persuade white Americans that their black neighbors cannot be trusted and must be expelled from the body politic.

     An insistence that reality must be shoved aside – denied or suppressed – to make way for a counterfactual narrative is the height of delusion. Word gets around. The supposed purity of the deniers’ motives cannot hold back the tide.


     Most Americans first heard about the murder of innocent white woman Iryna Zarutska by black multiple felon Decarlos Brown Jr. on X. For the first two days after the event, the media wouldn’t say a word about it. “Local crime story” was the rationale. But the “coverage” that followed gave the game away.

     White Americans are angry now. Angry enough to do what? Perhaps not angry enough to start lynching the blacks around them. But they’re angry at the media, for sure. The media have revealed themselves as our enemy.


     During the 2002 war to depose Saddam Hussein, a lot of jokes were cracked about Iraqi information minister “Baghdad Bob,” who was known for denying every report of American advances against the regime. One picture, in particular, became commonplace:

     Baghdad Bob’s behavior is easy to understand. He was working for Saddam Hussein. He had to serve the interests of the regime or lose his job... and quite possibly his life. There was no reason to doubt where his allegiance lay.

     But the mainstream media claim to work for us. It’s become all too clear that that is not the case. The media are enlisted in a cause that threatens our very lives. In advancing that cause, they repeatedly deny the reality of events. When that’s no longer possible, owing to independent journalism, they strive to obscure the causes and the implications. Shall we impute to them the foreseeable consequences of their actions?

     Draw your own conclusions.

Monday, September 8, 2025

Foresights and Golden Ages

     “I have praised the past, the present, and the near future with all the insight God has given me. Peering into the farther future, I have seen nothing but obscure and terrible things which it is not in me to praise. So it is certain that I have fulfilled my task, and may now rest.” -- Olaf Stapledon, Odd John

     Have you ever felt that way?

     Yes, it’s going to be one of those mornings.

***

     Though little known and appreciated today, Olaf Stapledon was a giant of early 20th Century speculative fiction. His novels Star Maker and Last and First Men are considered seminal to the science-fiction field, though there’s little of scientific or technological speculation in them. Both of those, and Odd John quoted above, display a height and breadth of imagination few modern writers have equaled. Yet his tales were notably pessimistic, even fatalistic in tone, whatever his personal inclinations may have been.

     It seems that in some sense, Stapledon recoiled from his own imaginings. The monk Langatse into whose mouth he put the words at the top of this piece certainly didn’t like what he foresaw. Of course, one can always suppose that was purely for fictional purposes. Whatever the case, an Englishman who lived and served through World War I can be forgiven for a bleak view of existence.

     Old men often acquire such a view, even if they’ve lived in a golden age. Age can do that to you. It’s born from a dislike of change and a sense of impotence.

     Ours may someday be recalled as a golden age, even if many alive today would not agree.

***

     I’ve often thought it a blessing that we cannot see the future clearly. I think it would conduce to a fatalism that would be difficult to overcome. Think of the records of those cults that believed that they could see what was coming. Did any of them end well?

     A major benefit of Christian faith is its optimism. Though he can control little of what happens in this world, the Christian believes that he can control his own fate in the life to come. It’s entirely up to him; no other force, personal or impersonal, can take that from him.

     One who disbelieves in the life to come doesn’t have that balm for his temporal wounds. This life – indeed, the present moment – is all he has. If he’s a news junkie, the effects can devastate him beyond recall.

     Christian or not, immersion in current events is not good for us. It leads to foresights, whether accurate or inaccurate, that darken the soul. That so many of us are so immersed does not bode well.

***

     What can we make of developments such as the ones in Britain and Australia today? Is it not clear that a time of trouble is coming for those nations? If we turn to America, where much that’s in progress parallels the course of events in those other lands, does the future look any brighter?

     When a decent man confronts a story such as this one:

     ...it takes a mighty effort to turn aside from the rage and horror it induces. The same is true of the multitude of stories about racially and ethnically motivated attacks on innocent individuals. Most of those attacks are by groups of blacks on individual whites. The determination required to turn away from the fury produced is enormous. Some don’t manage it.

     Even those who do manage it experience a change in demeanor. No matter how pleasant or peaceful one’s own existence, the specter of all-encompassing violence that can strike anyone, anywhere, at any moment darkens one’s vision. It’s certainly darkened mine.

     It’s among the biggest of the influences that’s draining our benevolence from us.

***

     Yet having said all the above, I can’t go on to say don’t pay attention to the news. The news often tells us what we need to know as individuals. It’s the foresights that result from news immersion that wound us.

     Many alive today know a prosperity and security that no previous generation has experienced. (Yes, even those of us who still have day jobs.) One reaction to the torrent of reports of ugly events is to isolate ourselves, shut out the noise – to wrap ourselves in our personal circumstances, pull them tight around us. Howard Beale described that reaction in Network:

     “We know things are bad — worse than bad. They’re crazy. It's like everything everywhere is going crazy, so we don’t go out anymore. We sit in the house, and slowly the world we are living in is getting smaller, and all we say is: ‘Please, at least leave us alone in our living rooms. Let me have my toaster and my TV and my steel-belted radials and I won’t say anything. Just leave us alone.’”

     Others become frenzied, and strive to build a fortress against the threats. Still others are filled with hatred and fury. And some simply give up.

     Those are the consequences of too dark a foresight.

***
     A fake fortuneteller can be tolerated. But an authentic soothsayer should be shot on sight. Cassandra did not get half the kicking around she deserved. -- Robert A. Heinlein

     I have no idea what state of mind Heinlein was in when he wrote the above, but I suspect it had some elements in common with mine at this hour. I have a misty vision of Western society’s near future, and it is not pleasant. I have a somewhat more solid vision of my own future, which is more agreeable. For I am one of the fortunate ones; I enjoy a “personal golden age.”

     I could, should I choose, “turn off the news” and simply enjoy my own circumstances. I’m often inclined to do so. After all, I have plenty of food, clothing, wine, living space, diversions, and entertainments. (And guns.) I could take refuge in those things, pull them tight around me, and ignore the general descent into chaos and squalor. I could easily justify doing so.

     But I don’t. I keep track. And on this eighth day of September in the Year of Our Lord 2025, I can’t say exactly why. Yes, it gives me plenty to write about, but what other good does it do?

     So I’ll end this morning’s ramble with a question:

     Is it the course of prudence to strive to remain well informed, or is it folly to concern oneself with what’s beyond one’s power to redress?

     Have a nice day.