On suffering

Arguably the ‘greatest’ atheist of the 19th century, Friedrich Nietzsche, wrote in The Gay Science,

“When I think of the craving of young Europeans to do something, I realize that they must have a craving to suffer and find in their suffering a probable reason for action and deeds. These young people demand not happiness, but unhappiness, that should approach from the outside and become visible. They do no know what to do with themselves and therefore paint the distress of others on the wall. They always need others, and continually other others!”

I find this to be a remarkably insightful remark. Man needs struggle, he needs burdens, difficulties, and yes, he needs misery. The great motivating force of life is unhappiness. When these obstacles are removed from life it does not make for better living, but worse. Just as liberating man from responsibilities does not make him any freer, only less human, neither does liberating him from misery make him any happier. Instead, it becomes a motivation to engage himself in the misery of others. He revels in helping some stranger rather than his own, because he sees his own as the one oppressing the stranger.

In modern western society there is no great struggle for the average person. So they must conjure up some demons to combat. They imagine something oppressing them since what makes for better misery, which one can act against, than oppression? Leftism always has cannon fodder because it can always invent new victims, oppressors, and injustices. This keeps the masses busy, believing they are fighting against some oppression that they had not before realized existed but now understand is making them unhappy. But because the people know their life really is not that bad, their crusade is often on behalf of those whom they perceive to have it worse.

To experience this suffering they engage in empathy, feeling the perceived suffering of the victim classes. What the engagement in projection demonstrates is two things. First – Man must have suffering to give him purpose in life. Second – Those who engage in this empathy are shallow since they have forsaken the spiritual war for a physical one. We crave suffering and, more importantly, the struggle against suffering, for its spiritual fruits. There is no spiritual reward for struggling on behalf of perceived victims. It is vanity.

A Christian realizes that the greatest struggle in this life is not against poverty, tyranny, or ‘racism’, it’s against sin and temptation. This is a personal battle, one that each person must fight primarily by themselves. There can be no movement to eradicate lust, sloth, pride, envy, or hatred in your heart. All there can be is you and the support of friends and family. The attention has been turned outward; where we were not meant to concentrate. We are called to help others, yes, but help them with their inward struggle. That is the point of Christian marriage, to help each other in this life avoid sin and temptation. It is also the point of loving your neighbor as yourself, for it helps your soul and the soul of your neighbor.

One important issue to note is that external struggles can also be internal. In war, you are not only struggling against the physical enemy but against your own spiritual enemies such as fear and doubt. What distinguishes that form of external struggle from the one based upon empathy is that it is centered upon your inner character. Your participation in it depends upon, and shapes, your soul. A physical struggle for purely physical ends is hollow. It provides no benefit to your soul. Those who are this world focused abandoned the spiritual war for the shallow, physical war.

Advertisements

Masculinity is dangerous

The Committee for Women’s Equality and Patriarchy Abolition has found that it is now hate for people without vagina to engage in activities exclusive to them. This is an adjustment to Article IX, Section 16 which stipulates that there be no more “male-only spaces” since this is discriminatory and fosters an atmosphere of misogyny, patriarchy, and sociopathy, better known as masculinity. Henceforth all voluntary associations must comply with these rules or face legal reprimands and/or social pressure. We must forcefully make androgynous all areas of life, public and private, for the propagation of equality and the eradication of male privilege.

Earlier this year another milestone on the path to tolerance and equality was reached when openly homosexual teenage boys were accepted as members, thus ending the heteronormative disenfranchisement of the LGBTQ youth community. Now our Committee can happily declare our work in having girls admitted to the Boy Scout national jamboree has been successful. Just read the words of confidence from these two girls who intend on out-competing the boys and showing them that girls are equally as good, probably even better, than the boys,

Welles and Virginia McGhee can’t wait to go whitewater rafting on the nearby New River.

Along the way, they won’t mind showing the boys a thing or two.

“If we can surpass them, that’d be great, to show them that we’re just as tough as they are,” Virginia McGhee said.”

Society must be forced to understand that girls are just as physically capable as boys. Permitting them to compete against each other is a good way of demonstrating gender equality. In fact, it will be a boon for the boys since girls will introduce new values into competition which will make competitions fairer. This will also allow for boys to learn how to better interact with girls through sharing,

“”My daughter walked anywhere and a boy would open up his bag and go, ‘I’ll trade you because you’re a girl with anything I’ve got.’ She got everything she wanted when she was at jamboree,” Kagawa said. “”We tell all our girls that you’ll get any patch set you want.””

Alright let’s get real here. What this forced mixing of the sexes is all about, at heart, is to hinder the development of masculinity in boys. At the same time girls are being catered to, and placed on a pedestal, in another aspect of life; which is the last thing society needs. We have girls being told they will get whatever they want, have the boys kowtowing to their every demand so as to be considered “nice”, and boys forced into competing against girls.

Males are now being forced, de facto, into sharing the entirety of their lives with women, not being allowed to develop independently, and simultaneously being taught a warped version of chivalry. We lose our separate sphere while having to cater to those who were never invited in the first place. Men like to get away from women, we do not want to be around them all the time yet if we say “this is for men only” it becomes a hate crime. If you expect this to have anything but horrible results, you are naïve. Boys learn to be men through interacting with other guys in a masculine atmosphere. Girls, and primarily their feminist parents, want to end this.

The Kazakh game of kyz kuu

In the central Asian nation of Kazakhstan there is a local sport (no, not the running of the Jews) which is actually quite interesting. The game combines elements of romance and Kazakh tradition. Horses have long been an essential part of the nomadic people’s identity, so many of their activities involve horses. But they also have a history, like basically all other people, of raiding their enemies. During these raids the men would capture and take women, often on horseback. This game is a play upon that history. The best description of the game of kyz kuu (Girl chasing) is,

This is essentially kiss chase on horseback. A woman sets off on a horse at a gallop. After a small delay, a group of men, also on horseback gallop after her. The aim of the game is to catch the girl and kiss her while both are still at full gallop. Any man that does not manage to catch and kiss the girl is then whipped by her all the way back to the starting line. I know you think I’m making this up … but I’m not. The game has its origins in the nomadic traditions of raiding another party of nomads and stealing their women.”

So you have to chase a woman, who has a speed advantage, on horseback, catch her, and kiss her, while maintaining full gallop. I should hope for the man’s sake it is a pretty girl. Because if he fails to catch and kiss her, she gets to whip him all the way back to the starting line. This certainly beats any American romantic tradition I can think of. Playing kyz kuu would be a much better way for new couples, or even potential couples, to spend their Valentine’s Day rather than buying crap.

‘The Singers’, Oxyrhynchus hymn, and ‘A Psalm of Life’

The Singers

A poem by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

God sent his Singers upon earth
With songs of sadness and of mirth,
That they might touch the hearts of men,
And bring them back to heaven again.

The first, a youth, with soul of fire,
Held in his hand a golden lyre;
Through groves he wandered, and by streams,
Playing the music of our dreams.

The second, with a bearded face,
Stood singing in the market-place,
And stirred with accents deep and loud
The hearts of all the listening crowd.

A gray old man, the third and last,
Sang in cathedrals dim and vast,
While the majestic organ rolled
Contrition from its mouths of gold.

And those who heard the Singers three
Disputed which the best might be;
For still their music seemed to start
Discordant echoes in each heart,

But the great Master said, “I see
No best in kind, but in degree;
I gave a various gift to each,
To charm, to strengthen, and to teach.

“These are the three great chords of might,
And he whose ear is tuned aright
Will hear no discord in the three,
But the most perfect harmony.

*The Oxyrhynchus Hymn is the oldest known music notation and lyrics of a Christian hymn, dating from the second or third century. The English lyrics are roughly translated as,

.. Let it be silent
Let the Luminous stars
not shine,
Let the winds (?) and all the noisy rivers die down;
And as we hymn the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit,
Let all the powers add “Amen Amen”
Empire, praise always, and glory to God,
The sole giver of
good things,
Amen Amen

A Psalm of Life

A poem by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

Tell me not, in mournful numbers,
     Life is but an empty dream!—
For the soul is dead that slumbers,
     And things are not what they seem.

Life is real! Life is earnest!
     And the grave is not its goal;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
     Was not spoken of the soul.

Not enjoyment, and not sorrow,
     Is our destined end or way;
But to act, that each to-morrow
     Find us farther than to-day.

Art is long, and Time is fleeting,
     And our hearts, though stout and brave,
Still, like muffled drums, are beating
     Funeral marches to the grave.

In the world’s broad field of battle,
     In the bivouac of Life,
Be not like dumb, driven cattle!
     Be a hero in the strife!

Trust no Future, howe’er pleasant!
     Let the dead Past bury its dead!
Act,—act in the living Present!
     Heart within, and God o’erhead!

Lives of great men all remind us
     We can make our lives sublime,
And, departing, leave behind us
     Footprints on the sands of time;

Footprints, that perhaps another,
     Sailing o’er life’s solemn main,
A forlorn and shipwrecked brother,
     Seeing, shall take heart again.

Let us, then, be up and doing,
     With a heart for any fate;
Still achieving, still pursuing,
     Learn to labor and to wait.

70 years of wedded bliss

(h/t Lena S.)

As unto the bow the cord is,
So unto the man is woman;
Though she bonds him she obeys him,
Though she draws him, yet she follows,
Useless each without the other!”

Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

In our modern times it is easy to get swept away in all the cynicism and gloom of the ever growing insanity of life. For that reason it is good to remind ourselves of positive stories and, more importantly, that such positive stories are still possible. While the Supreme Court yesterday paved the way for the legalization of gay marriage here in the US, there is a good story coming out of Canada. It is about a couple, Doug and Helen Hatton, who celebrated their 70th wedding anniversary yesterday, June 26th, at a time when many cannot last even 7.

One thing I noticed about them was their playfulness. These two enjoyed teasing each other a bit. My favorite line from the article is when Doug says (highlighted),

Helen lives at Rapelje Lodge on Plymouth Rd. and Doug travels from his Denistoun St. apartment twice a day every day to see his wife.

“I do it just to see her, to be with her for a bit,” he says modestly of the dedicated trek.

“Where else would I go? Must mean I kind of like you.”

This is something too many people do not understand, the importance of simple joking and teasing. My grandparents were great with that and their marriage lasted just a few months short of fifty years when my grandmother passed. It is strange but with the elderly couples you can more clearly see the dynamics of a successful marriage. When two people can sit silently together yet know the other’s heart and mind, that is when you have truly become one.

Instead of teasing, I see and read about guys always complimenting and essentially appeasing the woman. An occasional compliment is constructive, constantly doing so is not. The men who do this are the same ones that place her as their center. It is not meant to be this way. Men are not the relation beings, women are. Women exist in relation to men; their fathers then their husbands. Those women who lack such relation are adrift in a chaotic existence. Men are, instead, the rock upon which women find refuge from their emotional whirlwind.

I believe those with the long, healthy, happy marriages are the people who best understand this and apply it to their lives. It is not misogynistic to say this about women because that would imply it is a bad thing for women to be this way. But it is not a bad thing. Eve was made that way before the fall, meaning it is an inherently good aspect of female nature. A man should neither cater to a woman’s erratic emotions nor allow himself to be controlled by them. He is meant to lift her above them, not be dragged down with her. Happiness for both comes from stabilizing the woman by first strengthening yourself.

How does a man strengthen himself? He places God as his center. It is possible to be a good man without believing in God, but you are not whole and your marriage will never be whole. I must note that he does not place the God of liberal, effeminate Christianity as his center, but rather the biblical God that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, struck down Uzzah, punished the Egyptians, saved an adulteress from a mob, healed the sick, and preached turning the other cheek.

The more people realize what makes a marriage such as the one Doug and Helen Hatton have, the more likely it is they may have a similar marriage. Although the chances of finding a respectable wife, or husband, today is rather slim it is still possible. At the end of the day, for those that are married, it all comes down to this, really,

They still hold hands.

Still look into each other’s eyes.

And still whisper “I love you.”

There is no equality

(h/t Hipster Racist)

The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal.“*

Aristotle

Simply put there is no such thing as equality. The worst tragedies of our age stem from the insidious notion that all people are equal. We can be equal before the law but not anything more. One particularly damaging result of this idea is that men and women must be equal. Feminism is supposedly (although I certainly do not believe it) about achieving equality between the sexes. Such a goal is untenable because to make such an attempt is the equivalent of trying to make apples equal to oranges. How can it be done? The answer is basically: it cannot.

Men and women have complementary natures and, thus, different roles to play. This is not about oppression; it is about acknowledging the laws of nature. Consider the story of Adam and Eve. God first made Adam (man). But God saw that Adam needed a partner, he was not fulfilled by his lonesome. Therefore God created Eve (woman) from the body of Adam. Woman was created from man, for man. Her body was created to receive his. Eve was the comforter of Adam, in body and soul. In her Adam finally found wholeness, and in making him whole Eve was fulfilled.

This is not about whether Adam was equal to Eve. It was about completion of the human person which could only be found in the unity of the sexes. Homosexuality is wrong and polygamy is wrong because they both reject this union. Man cannot be whole with another man and he cannot be whole with more than one woman. Those in rebellion against this eternal truth are denying the complementary natures of the sexes. One must believe that sex is interchangeable, that we are all essentially the same. But it is not true; common sense should dismiss that as lunacy.

A common mischaracterization of scripture would have us believe that men and women, in marriage, are called to “mutual submission”. This is simply not true. Only one person can be the leader in a marriage just as only one can be the captain of a ship. A woman is called to submit to her husband and a husband is to love and give himself up for his wife. This is not something radical, it is fairly simple. It amounts to deference of leadership and most decision making to the husband where he makes choices while honestly considering his wife’s interests.

The idea that men are to submit to their wives was created so as to prevent the Bible from appearing sexist. To require only women submit is to reject equality. However, this overlooks the fact that a man is then tasked with the difficulty of decision making and self-sacrifice for his wife. All feminism has done in terms of liberating women is removing them from submission to their husbands and instead making them submit to indifferent bosses/employers. Add to that the burden of difficult decision making which had once been removed from their shoulders has now been placed back on.

In the end, men want a refuge from the harshness of this world and women want to be that refuge. Why deny what we really want? The feminine is attracted to, and attracts, the masculine because the one wants what it does not have. This is how life works, how humans are made. Our physical bodies are even demonstrative of this complementary nature, of who is to give and who is to receive, who is to submit and who is to dominate. I have to wonder how this is not obvious.

*This first appears in 1974 in an explanation of Aristotle’s politics in Time magazine, before being condensed to an epigram as “Aristotle’s Axiom” in Peter’s People (1979) by Laurence J. Peter