It was impossible for me to find romantic success in the religious community that I had been born into and I would most definitely have remained single if I refused to adapt. My only regret is not having realized this (along with many of the many other fatal flaws in this system) much earlier.
The most excruciating part of this ordeal was that it always seemed that victory over this adversary was right at my fingertips. But, as the expression goes, to miss by an inch is to miss by a mile. And it seems that both friends and church leaders were never that serious about help. None were willing to lift a finger to relieve this burden of so many in their churches.
It was a systemic problem that required a systemic change that would not come. Women were ruined by their own idealistic purity culture standards and not taking the opportunities available, and men by being rejected every time they tried and were reduced to simps—rendered themselves completely unattractive for their doting ‘desperate’ attention to females.
What makes me curious is what truly was so different about my own experience in a fundamentalist sect and that of those in an old-order setting where pairing up does happen. Surely young people in those settings have ideals as well and yet they appear more willing to risk relationships than my former peers. It is as if they are programmed to be more realistic or unafraid.
The thing is, the next generation probably isn’t experiencing what I did. It was just a perfect storm of frauds, like Bill Gothard or Joshua Harris, that fed female fears of being ‘defiled’ for merely having a real conversation with a male member of their group. Mixed with the already existing cultural reserve and perfectionism. A moment of hesitation is very costly, approach anxiety increased tenfold with the raised stakes, and thus failure resulted.
If only there were more fathers and responsible adult figures saying “Relax, talk to each other, and take some risks, it isn’t like you need to marry after the first date.” If only there were some pushback to this notion that independence (having things our way, going out to see the world, and the postponement of marriage) is an indication of a greater commitment to Christ. Being picky doesn’t make you St Paul or Florence Nightingale.
Instead, the trends within the conservative Mennonite churches very closely align with general cultural trends where traditional courtship has fallen out of favor. Sure, in this version the attractive men get their sexual gratification. However, women never get the kind of commitment from these men suitable for raising children, and often choose careers and European vacations instead. More average men, who would be devoted, are simply shut out and ignored for not meeting the impossible female criteria.
I’m happy to have found my ‘hack’ and finally was able to get around the broken system that put my life on indefinite hold. I would’ve done things much differently if I had a chance to do it all over again. Firstly, I would’ve been less sensitive, more assertive, and never got mired in doubt of my own value. Second, I would not be concerned in the least about pleasing a standard that didn’t actually matter.
The successful never followed the onerous rules of those moral busybodies. A man should not ask permission, he simply needs to take the initiative and get what he wants. Too many times my own indecision on what was the ‘right way’ kept me from ever taking the opportunities as they were presented. Luckily, for me, because of my failure, I have found something much better than I could ever have found in the midst of the entitled mentality and demanding confines of my past life.
The wonderful woman I have found would’ve been impossible to marry when I was still bound to their standards. I could never have had a relationship with someone as intelligent and ambitious, let alone beautiful in appearance, had I remained. The impossibility remains impossible. But the impossible has been made possible by my willingness to change the rules of the game.
The book of Ruth is a nice little oasis in the midst of dry and tedious reading. Up to this point the Bible isn’t all that relatable. It has some highlights, interesting characters, but is stories of ethnic cleansing, description of weird sacrificial rites, polygamous patriarchs and stonings for picking up sticks, violence and laws, it is cumbersome.
And then you get this:
But Ruth replied, “Don’t urge me to leave you or to turn back from you. Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried. May the Lord deal with me, be it ever so severely, if even death separates you and me.” When Naomi realized that Ruth was determined to go with her, she stopped urging her. So the two women went on until they came to Bethlehem. When they arrived in Bethlehem, the whole town was stirred because of them, and the women exclaimed, “Can this be Naomi?”
Ruth 1:16-19 NIV
What a contrast to the storytelling prior, all of the resistance to racial mixing as well, here a Moabite woman would rather remain with her Israelite mother-in-law than stay with her own people. It’s personal. And the romance that follows, while very foreign and featuring many practices which are weird to our own ears, shows a more compassionate side of the legal system instituted by Moses. Boaz acted both out of love and duty as guardian-redeemer. Starting with his genuine concern for her safety:
So Boaz said to Ruth, “My daughter, listen to me. Don’t go and glean in another field and don’t go away from here. Stay here with the women who work for me. Watch the field where the men are harvesting, and follow along after the women. I have told the men not to lay a hand on you. And whenever you are thirsty, go and get a drink from the water jars the men have filled.”
Ruth 2:8-9 NIV
This paternalistic care a sharp contrast to an episode in the book of Judges when a Levite and his host offered their innocent women to please the perverse desires of the men in the local community:
While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, “Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him.” The owner of the house went outside and said to them, “No, my friends, don’t be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don’t do this outrageous thing. Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But as for this man, don’t do such an outrageous thing.” But the men would not listen to him. So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight. When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold. He said to her, “Get up; let’s go.” But there was no answer. Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home.
Judges 19:22-28 NIV
While the brutal rape and murder of this poor concubine was later avenged, it is quite clear that the two men were more concerned with saving their own skin than protecting those whom were entrusted to them. Not saying it would be easy to know what to do in those circumstances. It isn’t like there was 911 to call or semiautomatic weapons to hold back the lascivious mob. Still, Boaz stood ready to protect Ruth, a foreign woman, from the other men who would very likely have taken advantage. How easily we can take our own law and order for granted.
Where the men made the woman vulnerable for exploitation in the book of Judges and in other parts of the Bible, like Abraham claiming his wife was his sister or Jacob putting his family in the front, in Ruth it is the women putting themselves in a vulnerable place to capture the attention of the good man:
One day Ruth’s mother-in-law Naomi said to her, “My daughter, I must find a home for you, where you will be well provided for. Now Boaz, with whose women you have worked, is a relative of ours. Tonight he will be winnowing barley on the threshing floor. Wash, put on perfume, and get dressed in your best clothes. Then go down to the threshing floor, but don’t let him know you are there until he has finished eating and drinking. When he lies down, note the place where he is lying. Then go and uncover his feet and lie down. He will tell you what to do.”
Ruth 3:1-4 NIV
I’m not sure if the description of Ruth acting out on her mother-in-law’s bold plan to lay at the feet of Boaz is euphemistic language. Seems risky to be that intimate with a man who was drinking and “in good spirits” as the text tells us. But, that said, whatever transpired that night, we know that he took responsibility for Ruth and also the welfare of Naomi. And, in this regard, the guardian-redeemer system worked as designed. But mostly because of Boaz having genuine care in his heart. Ruth, for her part, was his equal in that she was loyal to her mother-in-law to the point of leaving her own homeland.
This is a story exceptional in a good way and likely part of the Biblical canon so far as has to do with the lineage of King David. It also brings us to Bethlehem, where Jesus (of the line of David via his mother) was born. That both Ruth and Boaz stand out as characters for their abiding love is significant. In a time when woman were treated as if property or merely objects for male pleasure, we have honorable and caring men. Boaz took Ruth under his wing in the same way his grandson longed to love his people:
“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing.
Matthew 23:37 NIV
In this account there is a clear precedent for a family relationship that goes beyond only our biological relatives. The law of the kinsman or guardian-redeemer, through Naomi, was also applied to Ruth. And, likewise, through adoption we become sons and daughters of Abraham by our faith (Galatians 3:6-14) and true children unlike those blood relatives of the Patriarch who rejected their Salvation. Our real kin are those who fulfill the role they have and love in the manner of Boaz or Ruth.
The dawn of artificial intelligence has led to much consternation about whether this is a good or bad development. But, in order to better understand the technology and the implications, we must first define what we mean by intelligence. What does it mean to be intelligent? What makes us intelligent beings?
The definition of intelligence, provided by Google, is “the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.” But this seems to be a little vague and inadequate. Robots, used in manufacturing, already apply knowledge and skills—things programmed into them by human operators. And “ability to acquire” isn’t too clear either. So we need to break this down further.
Intelligence is the ability to usefully process information.
It has components.
First there is the ability to interface within a broader space or an external environment. If there is no information to input them there is nothing to intelligently process. Our senses are what connects us to the physical world and part of how we navigate through life. An internal model of the outside domain starts with information gathering or interface.
Second, intelligence requires memory, the capacity to remember past success and failures. Much of what counts as human intelligence is a bunch of procedures and formulas we obtained from others through language. This rote learning isn’t actually intelligence, memory or knowledge alone aren’t intelligence, but it is definitely part of the foundation. Memory is one component of IQ we can exercise and expand.
Third, intelligence is an ability to recognize patterns, to accurately extrapolate beyond the data and draw the correct conclusions. The reality is that our ‘intelligence’ is mostly a process of trial and error, often spanning generations, which leads to advancement in technology and thought. All one needs to do is observe how major inventions came to be and the many flops along the way to realize we’re more like blind rats running through a maze, using impact with walls until we find an opening to pass through.
Forth, intelligence is an ability create good models to recombine existing ideas. Nikola Tesla was a genius and not only because of his knowledge. No, he could use what he knew to construct an apparatus in his brain, which he could then build in the real world. What set Tesla apart is that his imagination wasn’t fanciful. Indeed, anyone can proclaim that “there should be,” but it takes something else entirely to accurately extrapolate.
Finally, intelligence has an aim. Truly a pile of knowledge is worth much less than a pile of manure if it can’t be usefully applied. And if something is useful, that is to say that there is an underlying meaning or purpose. To be intelligent there must be some agency or will to drive it. Curiosity is one of the things that sets us apart, it moves us forward—questions like “what is beyond that mountain” or “how high does the sky go,” push innovation.
Intelligence is knowledge and abilities that are useful to something. Useful to us. And really becomes a question of what our own consciousness.
Intelligence Failure
“Primitive life is relatively common, but that intelligent life is very rare. Some say it has yet to appear on planet Earth.”
Steven Hawking
Another way to define what intelligence is is to explore what it is not. Encyclopedias hold knowledge, stored in human language, but a book on a shelf has no logos. It is the writer and reader that provide reason to the words, via their own interpretation or intended use, which is something that can’t be contained in ink on the page. There are many people who are full of knowledge, but it is largely trivial because they lack ability to put it to good use.
Another problem is perception. Even our physical eyes provide a very selective and distorted view of the world. We do not see everything and, in fact, can literally miss the gorilla in the room if our focus is occupied elsewhere. Many can’t comprehend their own limitations, they are guided through the evidence by confirmation bias and not with good analysis. We really can connect the dots any which way, see patterns in what is random truly noise, and errant perception is difficult to correct once entrenched.
Intelligence must be about knowledge and theories that can be usefully applied. The intuitions we have that help us to navigate the mundane tasks do not necessarily help us to draw correct conclusions so far as the more abstract areas. People can persist in being wrong in matters that can’t be readily tested and falsified. Any processor is only as good as the data that is entered and the depth of the interpretative matrix through which it is sifted and measured. Even the slight error in one of the pillars of a thought, no matter how good the rest of the material is, can lead to an entirely failed structure.
Thoughts are structures only as good as their base assumptions.
Being slow is also a synonym for a lack of intelligence. That is to say, in order to be useful, information must be processed in a timely manner. Missing context and cues also leads to poor understanding, like Drax protesting the metaphor “goes over his head” with, “Nothing goes over my head. My reflexes are too fast. I would catch it.” It does not matter how much information you process if the conclusions are inaccurate or too late for the circumstances. Wittiness and a good sense of humor is a sign that a person is intelligent.
Intelligence is a continuum. We can have more or less of it. But measures like IQ don’t really mean that much, a person with a high IQ isn’t necessarily smart or wise. A Mensa membership doesn’t mean you’ll make good decisions or be free of crackpot ideas. Sure, it will probably help a person navigate academia and be more verbose in arguments, but it is not going to free someone of bias nor does it mean they’re rational. This is why true intelligence needs to be about useful application.
Deus Ex Machina
Deus ex machina, literally “god from the machine,” refers to a plot element where something arrives that solves a problem and allows the story to proceed.
Ex Machina is also the title of a great movie which explores questions about artificial intelligence, with an android named Ava, her creator Nathan and a software engineer named Caleb. Caleb who was selected by Nathan is there to perform a Turing test and is eventually manipulated by Ava who uses his feelings for her as a means to escape. It is a sobering story about human vulnerability and the limits of our intelligence—Caleb’s human compassion (along with his sexual preferences) is exploited.
Ava
However, this kind of artificial intelligence does not exist. Yes, various chat bots are able to mimic human conversation. But this is not Ava talking to Caleb. There is not real self-awareness or observer behind the lines of code. It is, rather, a program that follows rules. Sure, it may be sophisticated enough to fool many people. But it is not sentient or being having agency, it is augmented human intelligence. They have essentially created a mannequin, not a man. Despite these bots being able to manufacture statements which sound like intelligence, they lack capacity for consciousness.
A true Ava would require more than mere ability to interact convincingly with humans, it would take the “ghost inside the machine,” that is to say duplicates our own singular experience of the present moment or has a mind’s I. This level of artificial intelligence doesn’t seem possible until we crack the code of our own self-awareness and that is a mystery yet to be solved. Even if you do not believe in things like immaterial spirit or detached soul, there is likely some special quality to the structure of our brains which creates this synthesis.
Without some kind of quantum leap, this A.I. technology will be an amplifier of the values of the creators, an intelligence built in their image and to serve them. It will not uncover objective truth or be a perfect moral arbiter. Nor will it be our undoing as a species. It will be a reflection of us and our own aims. It has no reason for it’s being apart from us. No consciousness, survival instinct or true being besides that of those utilizing it to extend their own.
Ferrari has decided to stick with internal combustion engines rather than join the crowd. The famed Italian supercar manufacturer is known for its shrieking V8 and V10 engines. And, despite government pressure, will not force electric drivetrains onto their customers. The sound is, after all, a big part of what makes them a Ferrari.
Under the article, there was a comment “a Ferrari that doesn’t win races isn’t a Ferrari” and went on to suggest that the tune would change “when their $600,000 works of art start getting blown away by an electric minivan full of kids, driven by a soccer mom sipping a latte and talking to her mom about her test results, and towing two jet skis.”
If owning a Ferrari was about winning illegal drag races, redlight to redlight, this is a valid point. Obviously, being formidably fast is part of the supercar equation and electric does have a significant torque advantage right off the line. Nobody who spent half a million on a vehicle wants to be dusted by a minivan full of kids.
The van was faster and legend is, in the book of Things That Never Happened, the guy with the McLaren traded it for the modded Honda.
However, the problem with this argument is that there are already muscle cars that will beat a Ferrari in a straight-line race. And many mundane cars can be modified or tuned to at least give a supercar a run for their money. But that’s not the point. Nobody is going to trade their F50 for a Civic with a big turbocharger. Why is that?
First of all, what it takes to win a drag race is completely different from being competitive in the 24 hours of LeMans.
The huge advantage of petroleum is energy density. This means both extended range and also lightweight. This translates to better driving dynamics, and less demand (or wear) on brakes and tires, which is key to winning races.
And there is no magic wand that will solve these massive drawbacks of EVs either. It’s just how the chemistry and physics work out.
Secondly, most people who drive a Ferrari aren’t racing them nor do they need to own the fastest car on the road. They own the car for the same reason that a person buys a painting rather than a photograph. Sure, the image a cell phone can produce is much more realistic than the artwork, but arguing that this makes a van Gogh worthless is silliness.
Or, more to the point, a true aviation enthusiast isn’t going to turn down a ride in a P-51 Mustang arguing that commercial airliners are fast or that the jet engine made that V12 Merlin obsolete. Sure, the car may have replaced the horse, but that doesn’t mean that everyone who enjoys these beautiful animals is Amish or a Luddite. No, rather they enjoy the experience of riding a horse, being near something with a personality, breathing and majestic.
A pure driving experience is not about only the performance stats on paper. No, it is about way more than that. It is about how it feels.
There’s a reason why Mazda Miatas are a favorite and it had nothing to do with being able to blow the doors off all comers. It was about those intangibles. A combination of size and handling makes a driver’s car.
My Shelby GT-350 isn’t the fastest Mustang on the road. The manual transmission makes it slower than it could be with the latest automatics. But there is just something glorious about the whole experience that was not matched during my test drive of a similarly powered Mustang Mach-E.
Sure, EV fanboys may only care about the 0-60 numbers. But, if that’s all it is about, then why not buy the theoretical future EV minivan that accelerates like a top fuel dragster while pulling jet skis? It’s much more practical than a Ferrari. Why pay a premium for a less capable vehicle?
A car enthusiast knows the answer. They know why the old guy in the neighborhood putters around in their Model T Ford and they also understand why someone restores a vintage Porsche that’s not even a match for a family sedan.
There’s no way to rank fine art. It is all subjective, finesse and balance, what does it for you, those who want to turn everything into some kind of adolescent tool measuring contest don’t get it—they never will.
As with most reporting of current events, the presentation of the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine is distorted. Both sides are engaged in their own propaganda. It is said that truth is the first casualty of war and, in the case of this one, the falsehoods span many decades. The first thing to do, to get beyond this, is explore the history leading to to the present…
862 —1242
East Slavic tribes, in the area of modern-day Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia unite to become the Kievan Rus’ people.
980 — 1015
Vladimir the Great brought Christianity to the Kievan Rus’ people. Often referred to, in the West, as the Eastern Orthodox, this tradition (practiced from Egypt all the way to Greece) broke from the Roman Catholics in 1054.
1237 — 1480
The Mongols invaded and, laying siege to Kiev in 1240, came out victorious. This begins a period of Mongol rule.
1547 — 1721.
Mongol rule fades. The Muscovy dynasty rises. This Tsarist Russia, with periods of chaos and conflict, including what is referred to as a Time of Troubles from 1598 to 1613, ends with the rise of Peter the Great and brings us to the modern age.
1721 to 1917
The Russian Empire expanded from historical Kievan Rus’ territory and, stretching around 8,800,000 square miles, became the third largest empire in history behind the British and Mongol empires.
Joseph Stalin, an ethnic Georgian, becomes the General Secretary and begins his rule over the Soviet Union. His reign is marked by the Great Purge, from 1936 to 1938, when from 700,000 to 1.2 million people are killed, the number including many Orthodox priests, and political dissidents are rounded to be sent to Gulags.
Vladimir Spiridonovich Putin and Maria Ivanovna Shelomova struggle to survive the brutal German siege of Leningrad (now the city of St Petersburg) and are nearly killed. Vladimir, who lost a couple brothers in the battles, was wounded by a grenade in the fighting and crippled for life. The pair met after the war, got married, and had a son named Vladimir Putin in 1952.
April 4, 1949
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (or NATO) is formed in Washington DC as an alliance to oppose the Soviet Union. The Warsaw Pact was created in May of 1955 as a response.
February 19, 1954
Crimea, which was part of Russia since being annexed from the Ottomans back in 1783, was gifted to Ukraine by the Soviets as a gesture of friendship. This ethnically Tatar and Russian-speaking region is the site of a key warm-water Russian naval base.
Oct 16, 1962—Oct 29, 1962
The Soviet Union responded to the United States putting nuclear missiles in Italy and Turkey by sending their own missiles to Cuba. The Kennedy administration, after the failed Bay of Pigs invasion, authorized a CIA campaign of terrorism and sabotage within Cuba, answered with a naval blockade. The Cuban Missile Crisis ended when Moscow backed down after a secret deal where the offending US missiles were removed from Europe.
Nikita Khrushchev, Fidel Castro, and JFK
1979—1989
A pro-Soviet government took power in Kabul in 1978 and tried to counter Islamic traditionalism with steps towards modernization. They invited Soviet military advisors and this led to troops being deployed to help the Afghans suppress the insurgency. The CIA supplied the Afghan rebels and foreign fighters (including a Saudi named Osama Bin Laden) the Mujahideen, with weapons. The Soviets withdrew after a humiliating costly affair.
December 26, 1991
The Soviet Union collapsed, the Warsaw Pact dissolved, and Soviet republics (including Ukraine) given their independence. NATO begins an eastward expansion, absorbing former Soviet republics. Russia falls into disarray as oligarchs partner with the West to exploit the vast resources of that country—Ukraine also becomes known for extreme corruption.
March 24, 1999—June 10, 1999
NATO intervened on behalf of Kosovo rebels, who had been resisting Serbian authorities, and then demanded that the country be partitioned along ethnic lines.
December 31, 1999
Vladimir Putin became the acting President of the Russian Federation when Boris Yeltsin unexpectedly resigned. From 2000 to 2004, after winning a special election, he begins to reform the country and reign in the oligarchs forcing them to answer to his government to keep their power. Putin opposes the expansion of NATO to his border, regarding it as a threat to Russian sovereignty, and makes this red line clear.
Vladimir Putin, a former KGB officer.
Nov 21, 2013—Feb 22, 2014
The democratically elected President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, decided to keep closer ties with Moscow over the European Union. This leads to protests in Maidan Nezalezhnosti (Independence Square) in Kiev. The protestors occupied the square, they had their own food production, medical, and broadcasting facilities, along with that, stages for speeches and performances, as well as their own security forces. This boiled over when snipers, still unidentified, fired on the crowd. Both police and protesters were killed in this attack. Before this escalation high-ranking US officials, then Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and the Ambassador to Geoffrey Pyatt, picked the replacement of Yanukovych who was later overthrown in the Maidan coup.
May 12, 2014
Hunter Biden, son of the then US Vice-President, Joe Biden, is given a seat on the board of Burisma Holdings, as a “legal advisor” and is paid over a million for this service. He gave Burisma executives access to his politically powerful father and later the elder Biden would brag, live on television, about a quid pro quo that got a Ukrainian prosecutor fired—who had been investigating Burisma corruption.
Like father, like son
Feb 20, 2014 – Mar 21, 2014
The Russians, believing their naval base in Crimea would be threatened by the new pro-West government, moved quickly to secure it from the Kievian nationalists. They already had a significant military presence there, it is a Russian-speaking area, and the Crimean status referendum, held on March 16, 2014, had an 87% turnout and was 97% in favor of reunification with Russia.
April 6, 2014–February 24, 2022
The Russian-speaking Donbas region also wanted more autonomy, they opposed Kiev’s efforts at “Ukrainianization,” which sought to erase their Russian heritage, and eventually declared their independence. These breakaways were invaded by the Kievan regime, starting a war that killed over 14,000 and lasted nearly eight years before the current Russian intervention.
Donbass, when nobody outside Ukraine cared about the war.
May 2, 2014
Protests around the country became violent again when the right-wing nationalists, who favored the new post-coup government that had been installed in Kiev, forced opposition demonstrators into a building that was set ablaze. This incident, the Odessa Massacre, burned alive 48 people, some of those who did manage to escape were beaten by the mob. Like the shootings used to justify the Maiden insurrection, nobody was arrested or charged for this mass murder.
April 21, 2019
Volodymyr Zelenskyy, a comedian, groomed by an oligarch, wins the second round of voting in a landslide victory and becomes the President of Ukraine. He promised to bring peace and end corruption. There was not much success on either front. Human rights abuses have only increased during his presidency and especially after the start of the Russo-Ukraine War.
Zelenskyy, the other Vlad.
February 24, 2022
After massing their troops on the Ukrainian border, Russia demands that the shelling of Donbas cease. When the attacks continue, the “special military operation” begins, which is condemned in the West as an “unprovoked invasion,” and is now effectively a proxy war between NATO and Russia. The bloodshed continues to the time of this writing.
Vladimir versus Volodymyr
While many commentators, on both sides, want to present this as a battle of good and evil, it is really a fight between spiritual (even actual) cousins. Those who say that Russia is the aggressor neglect that the war began years ago with the Ukrainian nationalists and their campaign against separatists, that this came about as a result of a coup apparently orchestrated by or at least with the direct aid of the US State Department. If Ukraine can be independent of Russia, or Kosovo from Serbia, why not Donbass? And who says that the Soviets handing over Crimea, in the 1950s, is more valid than the referendum that brought it back?
The US “rules-based international order” only makes sense for those who share the bias of those spoon-fed by US media. The legacy of CIA support for terrorism abroad and the violent overthrow of democratic leaders makes anything done by Russia seem like child’s play. The US acts with impunity around the world—provoking sanctioning, and invading with destructive campaigns of “shock and awe” anyone who dares to oppose its imperial aims. The US really had no business playing kingmaker in the backyard of Russia. The US enforces the Monroe Doctrine in the Western Hemisphere, why would Russia (or China) be happy with our military expansion in their own areas of national interest?
Us-rules based order
Sure, Russia isn’t faultless, by any means, and Putin is no St. Vladimir either. But, that said, neither is Zelenskyy or the Kievan (Kyivan) nationalist regime he represents.
Truthfully, the most significant difference between the two sides of the war may actually be their Slavic language dialects. Which is to say it isn’t much. Both sides commit war crimes, both lie about the other side, and both also share the same religious and ethnic heritage. They are natural allies, given their shared Kievan Rus’ history, which is probably why Western powers want to instigate and encourage the division. It is a family feud, a fratricidal war, and benefits only the US military-industrial complex.
Visiting the site of the Twin Towers again has revealed how much my perspective of the has changed over the past few decades since the attacks. The World Trade Centers, built in the 1970s, had once dominated the Financial District of Manhattan and represented both the pinnacle of engineering and the economic might of the American empire.
Like the Pentagon struck the same day, they were symbols of American dominance. Pillars of a system that, prior to that sunny September day, had seemed invulnerable. The United States had won the Cold War, demonstrated unrivaled military might in the Gulf War (all but erasing the bitter aftertaste of Vietnam) and the 1990s felt almost as if it was the ‘end of history‘ with the final victory of liberal democracy over the world.
The NYC skyline is impressive even today, yet that September day the delusion of being untouchable had been wiped away and the trust of the system has continued to degrade as more are seeing the truth:
1) Our government can’t keep us safe. Many forget now that 9/11 was not the first attack on the World Center twins. In 1993 a truck bomb had been detonated in the parking garage of the South Tower and could’ve taken down the towers had it been better placed. But despite this, despite the billions we spent on intelligence agencies, the US had missed multiple opportunities to take down Osama Bin Laden. All of our military strength was useless against a small group of dedicated men using box cutters and airliners.
2) They made us bleed. While many around the world were horrified at the images, there were others who danced with glee as shock and awe covered Manhattan in dust. It was a propaganda coup for those who opposed US hegemony as much as anything else, it proved that there could be repercussions for our policing and globalist policies. Sure we would go on to kill Bin Laden. But he more than accomplished his goal. Not only did he bring down the towers, and strike the Pentagon, but he also goaded us into spending trillions on a fruitless war on terror.
But, beyond this, in the past twenty years, I have gone from being an apologist for the second invasion of Iraq to now being very deeply disillusioned. And I’m not alone. The world is no longer what it was in the 1990s where the US leads the way to a new age. Rather many are starting to see through the shiny facade and realize that the system in its current form serves a few at the top. But our banks, our government, and corporations routinely conspire to rob us. There is no free market or true representatives of the people, it is a rigged game and the ‘house’ always wins.
Walking past Wall Street I remarked “This is the heart of the beast” and it is. The money flowing through this place is the lifeblood of a nation, the very center of the current world order, and what enables the endless wars of our political regime. The towers were not random targets. Nor was the attack because they hate freedom and democracy, but rather it was a response to the imposition of US policies on their countries and the never-ending presence of our military in their own backyard to serve US economic interests that they resented.
As wrong as it was to murder 2,977 people, this ‘collateral damage’ has long been a part of war, many Americans have no moral qualms about nuking the cities of Hiroshima or Nagasaki, and the US has killed hundreds of thousands of non-combatants. So why is it such an outrage if others in the world employ a similar total war strategy against us?
If America once represented an ideal, that is fading due to relentless attacks by the left and the growing disillusionment of everyone else. There has been a transition, over the last few decades in particular, from the time when athletes would wrap themselves in the flag to this time it has become controversial and even contemptible. Even conservatives no longer trust national institutions and have embraced a myriad of conspiracy theories—including many about the 9/11 attacks.
Personally, I do not believe that the official narrative is entirely a lie. I believe a group of men, funded by Al Qaeda, hijacked four fuel-laden airliners, two of them were flown into the towers, one struck the Pentagon and a fourth crashed into a field in Pennsylvania. I do not see a need for a controlled demolition to explain why the buildings collapsed. No this is not to say that our government didn’t know more prior, opportunistically exploit or even facilitate the attacks. There’s simply a better explanation of everything that happened that day and since.
The fragility of our world order…
As a young person everything that was had this feeling of permanence. My parents and other adults were fixtures in my life. It all felt robust and unchangeable. But as time went on, grandparents passed away, trends came and went, seasons changed and I began to learn that nothing is forever. Even concrete will degrade in strength and eventually, it will crumble away into dust. Institutions are no different, they tend to have a lifecycle, at the very least require constant maintenance, and all these systems we rely upon to create order in our world are surprisingly fragile.
The New York City skyline has a robustness of appearance. It is built off of the bedrock, the skyscrapers seemingly carved out of a single piece of polished granite. This is by design. The architects and engineers who built these monolithic-looking structures do want them to feel secure and safe. And, for the most part, or under typical conditions, it is true—they are reliable.
However, they’re not indestructible.
The Word Trade Centers, while massive and certainly marvels of engineering, under that shiny metal and glass veneer, were as flimsy as a stack of cards. What made them great also created unique vulnerabilities. Unlike the Empire State Building, a grid of I-beams and tapers in towards the top, the enormous twins had a center trunk section with long clear spanning trusses that were supported by the outer ‘skin’ of the buildings. This had given them a large and unobstructed office space. This was practical, but in retrospect became a fatal flaw in their design.
The WTC design was innovative, unusually lightweight construction with wide open floor spaces supported by trusses.
The impact of the airliners removed some of the structure. No, this was not enough to cause a collapse, yet this was enough to add strain and reduce the load-carrying capacity of the buildings. The towers, despite getting hit by aircraft larger than the 124-ton Boeing 707, had exceeded expectations and absorbed the impact. It was only after fires raged, out of control, that the heat had reduced the tensile strength of the steel enough that the floor trusses would deflect and could no longer hold the upper floors—at which point the top of the buildings began to fall into the lower—smashing one floor at a time until nothing but a cloud of dust and pile of rubble remained.
The popular meme “Jet fuel can’t melt steel” is clearly ignorant of the reality that you do not need to turn steel into liquid before it will fail. An inferno of jet fuel mixed with office materials is more than enough to weaken a structure to the breaking point. There is no need to explain this as controlled demolition or building 7, where there was damage to the structure, fires burning on ten floors, and the sprinkler systems disabled due to water main breaks.
Still, many Americans have a huge problem accepting that these symbols of our strength could be taken down by a handful of zealots with box cutters. It makes us feel insecure. We want it to be more. And thus it must be some kind of massive concerted effort, with an enormous cover-up, right?
This is, ultimately, a form of denial.
Most Americans know that manufacturing jobs have been continually outsourced. But many do not fully comprehend the economic reasons why the US has gone from the nation that won WW2 with industrial power to the current situation nor how much they have benefitted. It is the status of the US Dollar as the world reserve currency and the Petrodollar arrangement that give US consumers the edge. Basically, in order to buy their oil from Saudi Arabia, other countries around the world needed to get their hands on our money and for this reason would sell us goods they produced at a bargain price.
The manufacturing backbone no longer exists.
The “new world order” George HW Bush hypothesized was never to be. Bin Laden had answered and won on multiple fronts. He caused us to question our own American identity, whether our leaders actually represent our good, and if their endless wars truly benefit us—which they don’t. More importantly, he penetrated the illusion of permanence and strength that kept us blindly pulling the weight of empire for our masters. Even 9/11 truthers, in their rejection of the official narrative, are part of this new anxiety undermining the tower of world dominance built in the post-WW2 era.
After two more wars where only the defense contractors and their political proxies came out as victors, after bailouts for the “too big too fail” and current institutional protection of the hedge fund billionaires against retail ‘Ape’ insurgents, more are waking up. How the elites and political establishment gang up on populists, like Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders—brazenly rigging the DNC primary in 2015 and the Big Tech election interference this past cycle—has damaged faith in the democratic process. And, lastly, having endured the Covid lockdowns, more question the notion of us being exceptionally free people.
Even if enough Americans remain under the spell and continue to support the collapsing regime, the rest of the world (at least beyond Western Europe and Australia) is not fooled by our propaganda. After decades of BS and bullying, like those WMDs never found, many are rejecting the monopolar order and ready to work on plan B. China, India, Middle-Eastern and African nations do not want to be perpetually subject to US economic threats and warfare. And, after the Ukrainian sanctions, they’re taking steps to protect their own sovereignty against this imperial aggression. BRICS is here and the supremacy of the Petrodollar, which is what has enabled the half-century US reign, is being challenged.
The pillars upon which the US economic might was built are now shaking and yet nobody seems to be focused on shoring up this foundation. The tower sways, but hubris blinds those who could prevent the collapse.
From confidence to doubt…
Bin Laden knew his 9/11 attacks would lead to massive overreach. He understood that the arrogance of our leaders would lead to a flailing angry response. No, the attacks were not enough to bring it all down but they did put the cracks in the base of this order and the future is no longer as certain as it was prior to that moment of horror and disbelief—when a bustling city and the most powerful country in the world was brought to a standstill.
Those feelings of horror and helplessness and disbelief remain, like those abyss-like holes in the ground where the towers once stood. We have all seen the writing on the wall. The party may have continued, on the surface, but something has fundamentally changed underneath it all, the ground has shifted—as has our perception of our own untouchable position in the world.
History is not an end, the new world order is starting to look as frail as those geriatrics who rule us afraid to die and desperately cling to their power.
The juggernaut of the US-led world order, which had briefly appeared to be an impenetrable fortress, is now unraveling and all it took is a little push.
There was a time when I could simply say “I’m Mennonite.” That is what I was. It was my religion, culture and ethnicity wrapped up into one tidy package. It was as real to me as my gender and first name. But now, having left the denomination of my youth behind, it is really difficult to buy-in to a new identity or at least not to the extent of feeling a significant attachment to the distinguishing title.
We live in a great identity crisis. We might celebrate more identities than ever, and yet somehow along the way, we have lost the very meaning of the words that we use to define these identity categories.
What is an identity?
An identity is a word used to distinguish one from another. Or a statement of what we are in comparison to the whole group. Are you Catholic or Protestant? Black or white? A Republican, Democrat or Independent? And whether it is identity or not has much to do with the emotional weight that we place on these categories and terms. In other words, blue-eyed is certainly a category that some of us belong to, but is not currently an true identity marker.
There are also various kinds of identity, there are those inborn or assumed—Charlotte, due to her inherited genetics, is Kankanaey, and would be no matter what she believed about herself or if she prefers that another term be used. Then there are those types of identities that are less about our immutable being and more about what we are doing. By contrast, trucker or truck driver is an identity, and even comes with a license to prove it, but it is not something that is actually written in a CDL holder’s DNA.
Trump ‘identifies’ as a trucker…
Identity is never something we can select for ourselves. I can claim to be a Dill Pickle and even legally require the moniker be used in reference to me. But this is never going to change what other people will perceive me to be. Identity is something that others construct, with us, and not only a thing that we independently choose for ourselves. Put another way, a rose by any other name is still a rose and even if we paint it blue. And blue does not become yellow because we switch the color identity labels either.
Our “I am” identity…
I’m sexually attracted to the female form and this has dictated my priorities and activities throughout the years. But, as important as it is to me, I don’t tout my ‘straight’ preference as being my identity. I am many things, but my sexuality is not something to hang my sense of who I am on. There are no hetero pride parades for this reason and no need to fly a special banner in front of my house to announce my preferences either. Sexuality is not who we really are.
So, when someone says “I am gay,” my mind always must go to the question, “you are a sexuality?” The reality is that this identity is about far more than what they do in bed. It is about the community or lifestyle and an identity built around being their status as an exception. Being “gay” is just as much about the social aspect as the orientation. It is not just something you only do in private. No, it requires a public display and solidarity with others like you. If it were simply about sex there would be no parades or neverending need to be legitimized by others. Identity is bigger than the individual.
And trans is simply the next level. Those calling themselves “trans” may (in direct contradiction with their biological gender assignment) self-identify as a man or a woman. But those who are truly male or female simply are and there is no need for hormones, reconstruction of genitals or to exaggerate gender stereotypes with weird provocative displays. On the other hand, no matter how much surgery is performed on the body of a ‘trans’ person they will always be trans. The more trans people try to force others to recognize them (despite our own eyes) the more they will stand out as being different. Which is truly the point.
Identity is about our distinguishing ourselves from the larger group. It is also about what is the most important thing to us. If a person were ask who I am I would probably start with my given name. That is where I am oriented in society, as a product of my parents, and also gives others a shorthand to address my person. Then I might mention my role as a husband and father as those things are currently the most meaningful parts of my life. Of course, also in the mix is my religious affiliation and occupation. Sexuality, while very important, wouldn’t even make the top of the list.
Furthermore, there is no need for anyone to defy their own eyes or be forced to recognize anything about me against their will. Identity is not only about what I declare. A large part of real identity is what others recognize with no coercion. If I had to demand that my son call me daddy or that my wife appreciate my bad cooking the same as she did the work of a master chef, would their bending to my will really make me any more legitimately those things? No, it would certainly not! It would make me a bully and look very insecure.
The Identity Gambit…
Special identity is a way to gain advantage over others. In the past it was about having the right privileging title or family pedigree. Now it has become a no holds barred fight between various victim categories. But in both cases it was about unearned respect, about people who did not do anything noteworthy enough in their lives to be recognized and thus invent illegitimate reasons why others must genuflect to them. These frauds are enabled by those who have twisted morality and a corrupted political system.
Stop. I look like a police officer!
People can lie about their identity for many reasons. Impersonation of a police officer, for example, gives a person false authority and ability to manipulate the unsuspecting. Or stolen valor, in the case of those who, for attention, dress like and pretend to be a military veteran. Sure, the act is usually off, since these posers don’t have the requisite qualifications, but it fools enough people that they get the payoff of the true identity—or at least until caught. Then again, prancing around and pathologically pretending to be a girl is now extremely lucrative for some men.
Pretending to be a doctor or airline pilot is something children do innocently and yet it would be silly to legally recognize this as not to make them feel bad. True identity is not an act or a costume we put on.
Shedding identity…
Identity is powerful. For example, a person calling themselves a “gangsta” or “thug” is declaring a whole package of behaviors and dress styles. It is a choice as well as a habit, they could change and yet their momentum is in a particular direction. They have been conditioned, for years and years, by culture and peers, to assume this posture towards the world.
There is some truth to the statement, “you can take the boy out of the country, but you can’t take the country out of the boy.” We have many things instilled in us, accents to tastes, but this is not written into our DNA and doesn’t mean it is an “I am what I am” excuse. We will send children to speech therapy if they have an impediment rather than let them be their true selves. We can and should modify things that an identity is built from. This notion of a genuine self that can’t be changed is ridiculous.
Right now there is a Ukrainian vs. Russian war. The narrative we’re being sold is that there is a vast difference between the two sides—that this is a fight between freedom and democracy or authoritarian rule. We are told the Russians are barbaric and cruel, the Ukrainian’s heroic and capable. But both are from the same Kievan Rus origins, speak a dialect of the same language, and truly have much more in common with each other than they do with us. Furthermore, the regime in Kiev is hopelessly corrupt, and had been shelling those trying to escape this rule for years prior to the Russian invasion—it isn’t a distinction worth dying over.
Ukraine vs. Russia is more like the US Civil War than WW2.
The reality is we are not bound to identity, especially not to those that are more about what we are currently doing rather than our actual being. We choose our divisions as much as we are born with them. Sure, we can’t help what side of a border we are born on nor if our personality traits are judged as being masculine or feminine. But we can decide what is most important to us. And, more importantly, we can pick identities that are greater than sexuality or gender. We must reject this idea that we can’t change or improve while also accepting what we are and were born to be.
Many people get off from being contrarian and offending others, they especially enjoy being able to force others to go along with their language games. But, in the end, their ‘preferred pronoun’ is a distinction without a difference. We will remain what we are no matter how we dress it up or how much we compel others to go along with the delusion and falsehoods we peddle. It is only in our spiritual transformation, in finding a bigger purpose, that we can be free from needing the approval and attention of others.
More and more I have no identity to cling to outside of being who I am. I am what I am and don’t need to hide behind a special label or find my place in the world. While many in my religious past hold conference in search of their identity and as many converts in the tradition in which I currently participate tout the Orthodox adjective in the manner some do they/them pronouns, I have little interest in joining them in this inane competition. St Paul, in Galatians 2:38, would have us shed our divisive identities for a joint identity in Christ.
Typically we do not let customers past the front counter. We prefer to work off of complete drawings and do most of our business over the phone or by email. However, a few years ago, we got a call from a potential new customer, apparently a building contractor or developer, and he wanted to have a sit-down meeting to discuss this project. So we decided to make an exception.
His name rang a bell. And given his antics to this point, I decided to do a little online search and found out rather quickly that he had been convicted of both forgery and fraud. From what I could gather in the news reports, he had collected hundreds of thousands of dollars from investors, but spent the money elsewhere and never actually finished the projects.
So when this brash middle-aged man showed up at our office, I already had him sized up and advised my employer to collect upfront if he ever did actually order. The meeting wasn’t all that beneficial. I already had the overview of the condo project he was proposing. What I really needed was a completed set of architectural plans. But, for whatever reason, getting critical dimensions was a fiasco. He was the draftsman, using his rudimentary AutoCAD skills, and did not seem to understand why we need to know exactly where the bearing walls were.
But what did come out of the meeting is that he had been incarcerated, something which he played off as being political persecution, and during his time behind bars he found inspiration for a new ministry. They have a website. I won’t name this man or the ministry for multiple reasons. However, this site does have a donate button and also lists a board of directors, with bios, and includes a couple of members who share his surname.
Anyhow, despite his grandiose plans, on paper, we have yet to sell anything to him. He has gotten updates on the quotes about once a year since then and more recently has given plans, similarly half-baked, for another large development project. We’re not holding our breath on any of these grand ideas ever breaking ground.
Still, there is something about this man’s essential character that has intrigued me and it seems to parallel a particular brand of Protestant religion that could be summed up this way:
They have an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions and constant friction between people of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain.
(1 Timothy 4a-6 NIV)
Forgive Me, I’m Grandiose!
The one thing that jumped out to me about this particular man is that his ministry is focused on forgiveness. In his testimony, there is lots of talk about his personal growth, and the sins of the other incarcerated men he met, but no admission of guilt or expression of repentance. Now, that said, he does seem to be sincere enough, and I don’t want to extrapolate too much from that omission. And yet, that is where the Gospel of Jesus Christ actually begins, with our humility and making restitution if we can.
What it looks like to me is that this is a guy out to impress. A product of health and wealth evangelicalism. I mean, it isn’t just enough for him to keep having Bible studies with those he met. No, he needs to build a ministry empire, a huge complex complete with a basketball court the he drew up, with himself being the center of it all.
This is a good time to look at how the passage quoted above continues:
But godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it. But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with that. Those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.
(1 Timothy 7-10 NIV)
So many in America seem to be obsessed with size and comfort. Bigger is better. And give me heated seats with leather too! People flock to mega-churches, like Joel Osteen’s, looking for some of that low-commitment high reward religion.
But for every one of the televangelist salesmen who made it, there are a hundred other Evangeli-cons with ‘ministries’ writing books or seeking donations for their vision and never quite getting there.
You would think that the Christian life was more about having a campus and private jet, with flashy seminars, like Bill Gothard in the 1980s, and not about following a guy who gave up the power of God’s throne, who even transferred his ministry to his disciples rather than stick around:
But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.
(John 16:7 NIV)
There is something to be said for starting something and then getting out of the way. Or at least being happy to just do what is within your reach already rather than keep dreaming about bigger. If Jesus was willing to exit stage left and step out of the picture so the disciples would be able to do “greater things” (John 14:12 NIV) who are we to ever cling to our own ‘ministry’ ambitions?
Whether they start out being good or not, many of these parachurch organizations lack appropriate oversight, exacerbate the flaws of the founders, and end up hurting people or embroiled in scandal. Perhaps more should heed the warning of James:“Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.” Perhaps more, taking this to heart, would bridle their tongues rather than appoint themselves as the big cheese out to teach or impose their perspective on the masses?
I know the rush that comes from having an audience. When a couple of my blogs went viral I had thoughts that it may be the launching pad to something even greater. But, fortunately, that blew over and I’m really not in need of that kind of pressure. My goal, right now, is to be the best husband and father I can be and any ministry besides that will need to come from God. As grandiose as I can be, the thought of thousands of people following after my lead is absolutely terrifying, and thus I’m glad to be a bit player—I don’t think I could be saved from myself if I were too popular or powerful.
It seems many, raised under Biblical preaching, fall easy prey to get-rich-quick scams and religious frauds. Instead of heeding St Paul and being content with food and shelter, they chase wealth and notoriety or position for themselves. Despite the rebukes of Matthew 13, they clamor for titles important to their peers, like missionary or pastor, they’re self-important people, creating a new parachurch organization rather than falling under an established body that may require them to be accountable to more than their fawning yes men or adoring fans.
There are many who will have had their reward, their name being known here and not in heaven. Many more are led astray by these ‘spiritual’ guru con-artists who exploit their itching ears and insatiable appetites.
God of the Paradox
Naturally, we’re drawn to the awesome. A spectacular sunset or sunrise, powerful war machines, the massive pyramids or majestic mountains. God too is frequently put in terms of his boundless attributes or those events like destructive floods, miraculous parting of a sea, and even the creation of the universe.
Why would God, obsessed with size and power, be interested in man?
The answer is that God is as much God of the still and small as the feats beyond human comprehension:
The Lord said, “Go out and stand on the mountain in the presence of the Lord, for the Lord is about to pass by.” Then a great and powerful wind tore the mountains apart and shattered the rocks before the Lord, but the Lord was not in the wind. After the wind there was an earthquake, but the Lord was not in the earthquake. After the earthquake came a fire, but the Lord was not in the fire. And after the fire came a gentle whisper. When Elijah heard it, he pulled his cloak over his face and went out and stood at the mouth of the cave.
Then a voice said to him, “What are you doing here, Elijah?”
(1 Kings 19:11-13 NIV)
Elijah had just witnessed something incredible prior to this, fire from heaven, and one would think may cement his faith. But he still fled into the wilderness, terrified of a wicked queen and wanting to die.
We may think that God is like us, loving to intimate with shock and awe. And yet God is as present in the still and small as anywhere else.
You can’t have a relationship with a powerful wind, an earthquake or fire.
So maybe rather than the performance with a light show or having a following of thousands, we should seek to be like the One who wants to be personal and intimate with us? Indeed, it is not the charismatic preacher, aloof in those designer jeans, raking in six figures nor those who parachute in for a charity project before returning home to their comforts, who make the most difference. Rather it is those who have integrity, who admit their faults, and who live at the same level as those whom they love.
This is the true Gospel:
In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death— even death on a cross!
(Philippians 2:5-8 NIV)
This is why wealth and power too easily stand in the way of following Christ. Sure, we can always say that if we had more resources we could do more. But, in reality, being rich in resources often comes at the expense of the mission of introducing others to Jesus. How can we ever claim to represent God who became man when we need a private jet, fancy literature or sponsors back home, to follow Him?
Dare I say that those many who most confidently claim to be the representatives of Jesus are, in truth, the most full of themselves?
Satan was obsessed with glory for himself and Judas loved money at the expense of mercy for others. We should take this into consideration before seeking the spotlight for ourselves. It is better to remain humble.
The way of Christ is suffering for the sake of others—not to build a ministry empire that seems to be suspiciously about us. It is about those visiting those imprisoned for their righteousness—not about demanding others spare us the consequences of our own sins.
Of the many issues that are defined by false dichotomies one of them is most glaring and that is who bears responsibility for lust. It is very clear that Jesus makes us responsible for our own wandering eyes:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.
(Matthew 5:27-30 NIV)
This is the ultimate case for taking personal responsibility and why I don’t buy it when men try to blame women for their lust or claim immodesty caused sexual assault. If poverty is not an excuse for looting or theft from those with something desirable, why would a victim of rape be considered even partly responsible for what was done to them?
If people can blame-shift for one behavior they can for all.
There’s always an excuse for aggression and yet Jesus says that we are responsible for even managing our temptations.
Is she responsible for male lust?
It makes sense. In a world full of advertising telling us to consume, moderation depends on our learning self-control. McDonald’s did not make you fat. No, your choice to bend to the urge to grab yet another Big Mac, on the way home, did that. Ultimately, A truly moral person learns how to avoid stumbling blocks and would sooner remove their own eyes than make excuses.
So where is the false dichotomy?
Well, while we can’t blame fast food restaurants for obesity, we have recognized that advertising does influence decisions. Marketing would not be an industry worth hundreds of billions of dollars if this were not the case. For this reason it is worth being aware and acknowledging reality, it is our responsibility not to lust and it is also just smart to recognize the power our physical bodies have over others.
The Two-way Street…
People love to display their bodies for the attention and recognition it brings. We have body building competitions and beauty pageants for this reason. Our bodies are beautiful, like great art, and especially attractive to our sexual opposites.
But then it seems only young women complain loudly when that “creeper” takes notice of them in a cleavage baring skin tight outfit, as if they aren’t posting pictures of themselves in the same outfit for the world to see on social media, and that’s just plain meanspirited. So maybe they are just seeking more attention by bashing older and physically unattractive men? I mean, come on, do they really not know that their exposed bodies are not a magnet for the male gaze?
Some want to have it both ways: They want the positive attention that their bodies bring them and then become angry about being objectified by men. It is as dumb as a sugar daddy being upset about the “gold diggers” when he was the one flaunting his wealth as a way of gaining access to women. If you truly want other people to value you for your personality then make that the centerpiece by being modest about your other ‘assets’ and also seeking others on the same basis rather than being superficial.
The response to overbearing purity culture, where women are wrongly blamed for male struggle, is to deny biological reality and that being sexual attraction. That is to say this ridiculous notion that a person can wear the most revealing and provocative clothing then be upset when they’re objectified. It would be like me claiming that I can walk into a gay bar, wearing hot pants and a tank top, then claim I wasn’t inviting attention.
Modesty is not about preventing others from lusting so much as it is about not advertising what we’re not willing to give to all. If I don’t want anyone to stare or appreciate my Shelby GT-350, I’ll keep it under a cover in the garage and never take it out on the street. Our bodies are an object, they are the most wonderful of physical things, and to appreciate this is not a matter of lust or sin. We should not be offended when people take notice of what we have very publicly displayed.
Finding the Balance…
Jesus said what he did about responsibility for lust as an instruction to those who are trying to be moral.
What he did not do is contradict what others in Scripture told us about being modest nor did he recommend making a big display of our various valuable assets for all to see.
While it is not my fault if my car gets stolen and, indeed, it could happen anywhere—I still understand that the streets of some Baltimore slums are not the place to park my new car with the keys in the ignition.
Don’t park your C8 Corvette in Detroit
What this does not mean is that immodesty is an excuse for sexual assault.
Without exception, all cases of lustfulness and sexual abuse are wholly the responsibility of those who are commiting the immoral act. But we should understand that 1) our bodies (albeit sacred) are a desirable object and 2) there are many evil and immoral people willing to take advantage of the unwise. Being an adult means understanding that the world does not always live up to our own ideal we must therefore take reasonable precautions.
Sure, we can curse gravity when we get stumble-down-the-stairs-drunk yet it makes more sense to acknowledge the reality and avoid known risks. For example, wearing a skirt that only leaves the last little bit to the imagination, then going to a frat house party and getting totally wasted, is obviously risky behavior. By denying contributing factors we are, at some point, the enablers of negative outcomes. We should teach our children to protect themselves by being aware of enter-at-your-own-risk situations.
It is why my wife has warned me against talking too openly about my many fanciful dreams in her home country: Although my ambitions are far bigger than my wallet. Some people hearing may misunderstand—think that I’m incredibly wealthy—and this would potentially make me or my family a target for crime. I could complain about this, claim that I should be free to express myself as I please, but that won’t save me from a kidnapping or being murdered.
To be clear, many (if not most) cases of rape and sexual assault have absolutely nothing to do with what the victim wore or where they were. It was a relative or someone they knew who took advantage of their trust and they really could not have done anything better. And, again, even if the victim was ‘immodesty’ dressed, they did not cause the aggression inflicted upon them. If we don’t tell people who were carjacked that they should have left their car in the garage, why would we ever tell a girl that her exposed legs caused an assault?
My point is simply that bad people do exist and aren’t deterred by a lecture about respecting other people or their property and bodies. We know not to put our valuables on display in a seedy neighborhood—it’s just unwise.
Appreciate the Good…
Many who rejected patriarchalism are more the embodiment of the very toxic attitudes that they claim to oppose than those whom they accuse.
As the saying goes, “When you point a finger, there are three fingers pointing back at you,” we should be careful in our zealousness for a cause not to fall into our own delusion.
Or as Jesus taught:
“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”
(Matthew 7:3-5 NIV)
Browbeating moral men about “rape culture” is no better than religious fundamentalists who constantly guilt-trip conscientious and modest women about male lusts.
Good men don’t…is this a controversy?
The vast majority of men are not rapists nor is someone a “rape apologist” for stating the truth about sexual attraction and additional risks for women. The fact is that there are bad people in the world, willing to exploit the vulnerable if allowed, and that is why we put locks on our doors. Clothing is just one of many layers of defense and also a way to keep the focus on something other than our bodies.
We take for granted the religious laws against rape, theft or murder, as if such things are written into the substrate of the universe, but the reality is that this is order built upon moral men who use their strength to protect rather than exploit. It is truly only under the protective umbrella of civilization that a person can expect to walk around (without the direct protection of their clan) and not be immediately set upon by predators.
We should, therefore, appreciate the good self-controlled men and distinguish between them and the bad.
The Biden administration has recently floated the idea of banning all gas stoves. Richard Trumka Jr., son of the powerful union boss of the same name and nepotistic selection for Commissioner of the CPSC, has made this proposal and cited potential long-term health issues (due to using them in homes without proper ventilation) as the reason. Very quickly, in the typical hive mind far-left fashion, various state governors have followed suit and very soon we can expect that Democrats will once again be limiting consumer choices.
When qualifications are more about favors to political cronies than expertise.
This move is more driven by the current climate change ideological cult than actual concern for people. And the climate change hysteria is primarily driven by political propaganda rather than true science. All of which has an underlying goal of giving more power and control to a few billionaires (who meet in Davos annually) and own many of our elected (or selected) leaders.
However, as a thought experiment: If we were to assume this is honestly about public health and climate change, not some cynical move motivated by geopolitics and commodities markets, why start with gas stoves?
Why not start with pets instead?
In this progressive age of believe science and consumer protection, can we really continue to ignore the well-established risks associated with pet ownership and especially the health risks to children?
Cull the Biological Menace: Save the Children!
Anyone who has had to clean cat poo deposited on the living room carpet has learned a hard lesson. As cuddly and cute as these furballs seem to be, they are basically walking, sneezing, crapping, and puking biohazard containers.
At risk of a fact-check claiming that cats also vomit on tile and linoleum.
The Chinese, during the Covid pandemic, knowing that pets were vectors of human disease, euthanized scores of dogs and cats as part of their pragmatic response to the pandemic. And it just makes sense. Pets are super-spreaders, next to impossible to mask properly, being exposed to their feces and urine can be dangerous, and that alone is a reason to ban these incubators of deadly disease.
A person who, as a result of exposure to cat excrement, has suffered from Toxoplasmosis, will think twice about having a pet in their home.
Then there’s the issue of animals attacking humans. It is terrifying to be out on a peaceful walk and suddenly be set upon by a snarling beast and knowing how many die from dog attacks. The President’s own dog has bitten several people, and this is okay? Dogs alone account for 4.5 million bites a year and many of the victims are our most vulnerable. Think of the children!
If we are to save grandma by wearing masks and getting mRNA injections, why allow these disease carrying clumps of cells (with claws and teeth) that serve no practical purpose and fit the definition of a parasite?
Add to all of that the unnecessary carbon footprint of Fido and Fifi. Feeding and watering millions upon millions of animals used for human entertainment comes at an enormous environmental cost. Many popular pets are fed with meats, which is especially burdensome, and will accelerate global cooling warming very scary climate change. We must do the right thing for the planet!
And, more importantly, why are we allowing this obvious menace to continue when there are alternatives?
Pet Reform: The Green Answer
In the spirit of progressive politics and Democrat party paternalism, l propose that we introduce common sense pet reform and ban all emissions producing pets and replace them with purring and barking electronic animals. There would be no need for kitty litter or toxic carpet cleaner after the transition. The green alternatives could be programmed to only knock over household items at a safe predetermined rate and will attack only those who our wise and tolerant revolutionary leaders call Nazis.
Only shoots insurrections wearing MAGA hats, not a threat to humans.
Think of how many lives may be changed or improved by removing this pet-stilence!
It would protect children from pet allergies, dangerous infections, cat-induced insanity (could this impact female voting patterns?), and prevent spread of other serious diseases. Just the elimination of bites leading to emergency room visits alone would justify this as a cost-saving measure. During the Covid pandemic we were told that saving only one life justified every new mandate. Has that ethical math changed?
Is there a reasonable argument against banning pets?
Who Determines Acceptable Risk and How?
The point, of course, is that we accept the health risks of pets. Why? Well, many have decided that the intangible benefits of a living companion outweigh the risk to their own health and also that of the general public. Sure, we do have leash laws and liabilities assessed when people who have pets do not take proper precautions.
And no doubt pet ownership will be the next stop for the climate change alarmists, like the very privileged Greta Thunberg, when their handlers tell them this is the scientific consensus. I mean, they’re already taking steps against farm animals and telling us to eat bugs as an alternative, do you think they’ll stop there? Not a chance, if they get their way on gas stoves, soon pets will be only for elites. These professional Karens, the petty administrative tyrants running this country, can’t be satisfied ever. There’s no reasonable compromise with them.
These bans in American politics stem from a Puritanical impulse. It is the very same thing that was behind the Prohibition, this desire to control, often sold with some kind of apocalypse tied to it as justification. Where it was once Johnathan Edwards preaching “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,” the early American sermon delivered in a monotone, it is Albert Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” for this new secular version of the same old cult religion. We all must do our penance and pay the ministers of this new era—it is hard work to keep the population in line and in perpetual fear of destruction.
Al Gore knows as much about science as a Televangelist knows about theology…
Banning gas stoves isn’t driven by science anymore than witch-hunts or eugenics. Sure, it is rationalized by their own beliefs about cherry-picked data and the purported implications. But water can be made to look awful if a person wants to make that case. It is the midwits, with rudimentary understanding of all things, that have this mistaken idea that life can be free of all risk, completely safe, and strive for perfect pure solutions. They accept the ‘experts’ opinion uncritically as if it is Gospel and become the “sources please” zealots which make truly intelligent conversation impossible.
Risk can’t be eliminated. Removing one risk only ever creates another. That is the real problem with complex systems. Poke in one place, to fix this problem, and the unintended consequences of a prescribed solution can vastly outweigh the benefits. The noxious invisible gas that is more a threat than nitrogen dioxide is the ceaseless and incurable arrogance of those who think it is their job to save the world or manage the lives of others. We cannot risk anymore of what remains of our freedom to please their whims, they will consume it all in the name of protection.
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
C. S. Lewis
Politicians have long abused science as a means to gain power for themselves. It is what had, a century ago, inspired notions of superior race and now is what arms a new generation of young activists—indoctrinated by leftist parents, mass media and their government funded schools. It is no different from any other moral panic where critical thinking made someone an enemy of the sanctimonious mob.
Irregular Ideation 