First, my unsolicited and entirely predictable take on last night's presidential debate -- and on every presidential debate, past and future. In the words of Señor Dávila:
The approval of imbeciles is the final factor in victories.
Of course I hope these imbeciles decide to pull the lever for Trump -- assuming they know how -- but they're imbeciles nonetheless. Imagine how stupid one must be to not know whether or not one is a leftist! And yet, the question of whether or not the United States will continue to exist as the United States is in the hands of these oblivious low- and no-fos.
The principles that define left and right are deep, wide, pervasive, and irreconcilable. Last night's moderator was, like Chris Wallace, another leftwing imbecile, but her final question was particularly imbecilic -- something along the lines of "if you win the election, what will you say to reassure those who didn't vote for you?"
There is nothing Biden could say to reassure me. Unless maybe he renounces Satan, which I don't see happening.
Speaking of whom, let's get back to his revolutionary activity.
No, wait. One more thing. What would Gagdad say to reassure those who despair at the prospect of a President Harris? Once again, I will channel the good Señor. I would draw from my own Book of Pointed Gags & Wisecracks, but they're too scattered and disorganized for quick reference:
Christianity does not solve “problems”; it merely obliges us to live them at a higher level.
The conservative is a simple pathologist. He defines sickness and health. But God is the only therapist.
I do not belong to a world that perishes. I extend and transmit a truth that does not die.
Defeats are never definitive when they are accepted with good humor.
With good humor and pessimism it is possible to be neither wrong nor bored.
Resignation must not be an exercise in stoicism but a surrender into divine hands.
There's another principle I like to keep in mind: that that which cannot continue will not continue. After all, I live in California, which is a daily experiment in trying to prove that the impossible is possible, e.g., mandatory electric cars when there's not enough electricity to keep the lights on, or open borders when there's not enough water for existing citizens, or more funds for public employee unions when we've already accumulated $1,000,000,000,000 (a trillion) in unfunded pensions.
Which of course is why Nancy Pelosi is trying to lard the COVID relief bill with bailouts for Democrat run disasters such as California and New York.
Back to the book we were discussing in the previous post, Revolution and Counter-Revolution. I'm going to cut to the chase and give my bottom-line take before I proceed to defend it: when we talk about the demonic or diabolical, we are fundamentally describing the "spirit of revolution," bearing in mind that we must define what we mean by "revolution."
For example, in this context it is entirely inappropriate to call our founders "revolutionaries." In fact, they were very much the opposite, in that they wanted nothing to do with overturning the order of the world, but rather, restoring the ancient rights to which we were and are entitled. Our founders were terrified of revolution, which is precisely why they created a constitution to "contain" and neutralize such destructive impulses and energies.
Conversely, everything about the left -- especially since the Wilson administration -- is about weakening our Constitution in order to strengthen the Revolution. Now they want to pack the Supreme Court in order to transform it into a revolutionary body, but this is what the left does: it ruins everything, from art to religion to education to whatever it touches.
Of course, they wouldn't agree that they're ruining anything, rather, perfecting it. Marriage is better now that it isn't restricted to one male and one female. For that matter, women are better now that they are free to deny their femininity and pretend to be men. Likewise a pajama-soyboy castratti is a perfect man.
Which reminds me of an article by the always excellent David Solway. I still haven't figured out how to embed links with the new blogger format, but here it is:
I was going to discuss the piece anyway in the context of the Revolution, because the denial of male and female nature goes to its very essence; you might say to its denial of essence, for denial of essence is the essence of the Revolution. And no, I'm not just trying to be clever; this is the thesis of Weaver's classic Ideas Have Consequences, the most consequential idea of all being....
Put it this way: you really have only two choices, or a choice of two principles. Depending upon how you choose, hundreds of implications and entailments follow, right down to whether you are a conservative or revolutionary (of course, the leftist is never intellectually consistent, so in his case it doesn't matter that he believes mutually exclusive ideas).
The choice is: common sense realism or nominalism; Aquinas or Kant; God or nihilism; intellectual or anti-intellectual; order or dis-order; freedom or egalitarianism; light or darkness; individualism or conformity; gratitude or envy; racial colorblindness or racist identity politics; justice or "social justice"; Etc.
Exaggeration? Polemical? Simplistic? Tendentious? I really don't think so. Let's cite some passages from the book in question. Here's a description of how the Revolution kills institutions and souls: it attacks Christian civilization like a certain tree in the Brazilian forest, the "strangler fig," which wraps "itself around the trunk of another tree, completely covers it and kills it."
Analogously, "the Revolution approached Christian civilization in order to wrap itself around it and kill it." Consider how homosexuality infiltrated the priesthood with predictable consequences. It very much reminds me of Iowahawk's Timeless Tweet about the four stages of leftist destruction:
1. Identify a respected institution.
2. Kill it.
3. Gut it.
4. Wear its carcass as a skin suit, while demanding respect.
The Supreme Court. Marriage. Academia. Journalism. The "art world." And increasingly, science.
Oh yes, and gender. Back to Solway's piece and then we're out of time. Why are feminists such miserable people? This is like asking why the palm tree you're trying to grow in northern Canada isn't flourishing. You're denying its essence, which is to say, its reason for being (i.e., its formal principle).
By the way, I haven't even finished the article. I just know ahead of time that it will provide us with some insultaining examples of what we're talking about:
The weakening of men and the empowerment of women, as “women claw their way to ever increasing power and fix men (especially young, white men), in their crosshairs,” destroy the sexual, romantic and institutional bond between the sexes. Similarly, the common preachment that men should jettison their manhood and become more like women is to distort the gender relationship and introduce a schism into the culture that can lead only to turmoil and unhappiness for both men and women....
Modern feminism, however, is determined... “to depict everything pertaining specifically to women as ‘oppression’,” leading to a pervasive resentment that vitiates their “essential nature”....
Feminism is a conspiracy against productive relationships, romantic love and the traditional family—a conspiracy disguised as a historical necessity, much like the anti-family [Revolutionary] communist doctrine with which it has close conceptual ties....
What we are witnessing, in Robert Curry’s terms from Reclaiming Common Sense: Finding Truth in a Post-Truth World, is a war on the crucial role common sense plays in our lives, for example, “the denial of plain fact that humans are either male or female,” with all that the genetic binary has implied since the beginning of recorded time. This “plain fact” has been routinely and programmatically denied by feminists and gender mavens, for whom sexual differentiation is “fluid” and a matter of choice or feeling. The real “deniers,” however, are the feminists and their male enablers.... As a result, the culture is in disarray and its future, as Kierkegaard saw, is despair.