“… technologically advanced societies must be prepared to encourage more sober lifestyles, while reducing their energy consumption and improving its efficiency.”

<snip>

Environmental concerns too often took a back seat to what [the pope] called “myopic economic interests,” adding the international community and governments had a moral duty to “send the right signals” to effectively combat misuse of the environment.

Of course, the immediate question ought to be; how should societies “encourage more sober lifestyles?” In a vacuum, the pope’s remarks might be dismissed as inspirational rhetoric, like a parent encouraging their child to eat their vegetables. However, these remarks are not made in a vacuum. They are timed to coincide with the United Nation’s climate change conference in Copenhagen, which this week aims to reach an agreement obligating rich nations, including the United States, to pay climate reparations to third world countries through an administration of global government.

This move by the Catholic Church to rhetorically support institutionalized redistribution of wealth is not its first. Liberal commentator Jack Clark, host of a podcast called Blast The Right, advances a challenge to conservative Christians to reconcile their political views with the teaching of Jesus in Matthew 25, which mandates Christians to care for “the least of these [Christ's] brethren” (i.e. the poor). Clark asserts that conservative Christians who oppose redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor do so in violation of Matthew 25. Clark relies heavily on Catholic social doctrine to support his position, relishing in what he clearly perceives to be a delicious irony. Indeed, Catholics are specifically and directly charged by the doctrine Clark cites to correct “systematic structures of sin” with “systematic structural solutions.” Clark argues such solutions can only come from government, and challenges conservatives to provide an “equivalent alternative solution” which helps the same amount of people in the same way, just as fast, just as certainly. In a recent Fightin Words podcast, I take on this challenge and provide what I believe to be a superior alternative solution to socialist economic policies. Key to this refutation is a direct confrontation with the Catholic Church.

As an authoritarian institution positioned as intermediary between man and God, the Catholic Church shares a defining characteristic with the state. Governments likewise act as intermediaries, intervening in the affairs of citizens to correct injustice. The Catholic Church is a form of ecclesiastical government which has at times been incestuously entangled with civil states or served as the state outright. So it should be no surprise to see Catholic doctrine supporting state intervention and centralized power. The question for conservative and libertarian Catholics becomes; is the Church infallible?

The Church has a vested interest in supporting the ideas advanced by President Barrack Obama in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech last week. “We do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected.” This quote was delivered in the context of advocating “evolved human institutions” to promote peace. It implies imperfect humanity can somehow manifest institutions capable of perfected results. If that is so, such institutions must be pursued, empowered, and supported. Clearly, the Catholic Church would derive an existential benefit from such a mandate. The alternative view, that humanity’s imperfection precludes the possibility of substantial evolution, to say nothing of perfected conditions, endangers institutions like the Catholic Church, the United Nations, and any oligarchy regarding itself separate and superior to the unwashed masses of humanity.

What say you Catholics? How would you answer Clark’s “equivalent alternative solutions” challenge? Do you agree with Pope Benedict’s comments regarding environmental responsibility? How do you reconcile your political beliefs with your religious ones?

I find it interesting that the English folk hero Robin Hood is best known  as a thief. Given his tendency to dispense loot to the poor, Hood’s thievery may seem iconic and exemplary to those who advocate the kind of “redistributive justice” spoken of by President Barrack Obama. However, when one delves deeper into the folklore, Hood seems far more iconic of something entirely different.

We must acknowledge folklore is never definitive. There is no canon, so to speak. Folklore evolves, grows, and takes on new dimensions. The earliest known references to Robin Hood suggest him to have been a commoner with no real political bent aside from an affinity for the lower classes. This version might rightly be considered somewhat analogous to modern “progressives.” However, later visions portray Hood as Robin of Loxley, a disenfranchised nobleman, a loyalist forced into exile amidst a treasonous regime. This latter characterization raises an interesting challenge to the description of Hood’s occupation as simply “stealing from the rich to give to the poor.”

Contemporary visions of Hood show him to be an outlaw only from the perspective of an illegitimate government. Hood does not steal from the “rich” arbitrarily. He targets those who have taken up with a usurper and directly profited from a pilfer of the masses. The treasonous Prince John persecutes his subjects for hunting “the King’s deer,” declaring all natural resources the property of the government. The people’s crops and wares are seized through taxation, leaving them cold and hungry. Hood works to restore the people’s capacity to provide for themselves. He does not do so singlehandedly or without cost to those he aids. He asks them to serve in the cause of their own freedom, even unto death. Also noteworthy is Hood’s eventual mediation between the classes. Hood has no malice toward the upper class, his class. Indeed, he acts in the name of King Richard the Lionheart. He acts to restore what is considered, in the context of his time and country, proper government. He becomes a hero and kin of both the people and their king. Given these qualities, does not Robin Hood seem more like a modern tea party patriot than a thieving advocate of socialism?

[en-tahy-tl-ahy-tis] noun.

a psychosis characterized by the subject’s inability to discern rights from entitlements, most common among proponents of “social or redistributive justice.” Commonly diagnosed alongside fairmania*, patients afflicted with entitlistis are functionally incapable of distinguishing the concept of unfettered access from the concept of provision. A contemporary example would be the inability to discern the right to access healthcare services from an entitlement to receive those services at a cost reduced or waived.

Although further research is required, it is believed entitlitis most likely results from institutional deficiencies experienced during childhood, particularly parental neglect to instruct wards of the necessity to earn provisions. Since the nature of childhood is such that sustenance is provided as a condition of custody, if children are not instructed to expect otherwise, they may expect to have sustenance provided perpetually. Left unchecked, this expectation may become irreversible, leaving the afflicted functionally retarded and vulnerable to becoming the ward of any party who will provide sustenance.

Case Study – Barbara Boxer

The proposed environmental causes of entitlitis are supported by the pervasive nature of the disorder in recent decades. The seemingly exponential spread of the disorder may be a consequence of undiagnosed cases achieving leadership positions in some of the every institutions whose deficiencies contribute to its spread.

A potential contemporary case study is the United States senator from California, Barbara Boxer. Recent evidence of possible entitlitis came in the form of her arguments on the Senate floor indicating a perceived “right” to tax-payer subsidized abortions. Arguing against a proposed amendment to the currently debated health care reform bill which would restrict purchasers of government-subsidized insurance policies from filing claims to cover the cost of abortion, Boxer stated, “Why are women being singled out here? It’s so unfair. We don’t tell men that if they want to … buy insurance coverage through their pharmaceutical plan for Viagra that they can’t do it.” An analysis of these comments indicates potential fairmania*, a condition commonly associated with entitlitis. Also noteworthy is the senator’s inability to distinguish purchasing a product in the private sector from receiving a publicly subsidized product, a major indicator of entitlitis.

The diagnosis seems most appropriate given the thesis of Boxer’s argument, “This amendment would be the biggest rollback to a woman’s right to choose in decades.” Accepting for the sake of analysis the contentious premise that women have the “right” to kill their unborn children, Boxer here frames an entitlement to abortion services as recognition of that right. The psychotic nature of Boxer’s argument is apparent in its potential application in policy, where women would have the “right” to kill their children and compel other people to pay for the cost. A similar argument made by a defendant in a murder trial would be rejected outright as ludicrous, i.e. I had the right to stab him, Your Honor, and the state should reimburse me for the knife.

Proposed Course of Treatment

Entitlitis is potentially fatal to a society if its proliferation continues unchecked. When the expectation for provisions exceeds productivity, a clearly unsustainable condition manifests, perfectly analogous to physical starvation. While short term starvation is survivable, long-term starvation leads inexorably to death. Likewise, a long-term lack of productivity coupled with sustained or increasing demands for provisions will inexorably cripple a society.

Fortunately, while the prognosis for untreated entitlitis is dire, the treatment itself is simple. Awareness of entitlitis before affliction may prevent its manifestation and inhibit its effect from those already afflicted. Education regarding the true nature of rights as boundaries keeping others out, rather than keys letting others in, coupled with an adamant refusal to accept inaccurate use of the language, may serve to quarantine the afflicted by evoking an institutional environment in which they cannot effectively function – that is to say one of personal responsibility.

* fair⋅man⋅i⋅a [fair-mey-nee-uh] noun. A psychosis characterized by an expectation that one’s personal perception of fairness shape their reality, regardless of how that perception conflicts with others or established measures of justice.

After several days of evaluation, I have decided to disband the First Church of Tiger Woods … and I will not renew the TigerWoodsIsGod domain name when it expires in a couple of months…

… you might think that such a decision might be difficult. In this case, it was not. Unfortunately, Tiger Woods has made it all to easy (sic) to realize that he is no longer worthy of any special admiration (emphasis added).

<snip>

… Tiger is clearly no longer deserving of being seen as a role model or a hero (emphasis added) …

One may grant Ziegler the benefit of doubt and assume his “First Church of Tiger Woods” is facetious. However, if you consider his comments and demeanor in a recent media appearance, it seems evident Ziegler genuinely believed Woods was worthy of “special admiration.” At one point, Ziegler asserts that Woods “appeared to be as close to perfection as anybody we’ve ever seen, not just on the golf course, but off the golf course as well,” an image now decimated.

It should go without saying that no human being is worthy of the kind of special admiration Ziegler held toward another man. Tiger Woods is not God. Nor is he remotely close to perfect. He is a human being, like all of us. He can hit a golf ball well. This capacity does not imbue Woods with some esoteric existential superiority justifying elevated expectations in all areas of life.

This manner of deification is not unique to Woods. A cursory examination of print, radio, and television media revels disproportinate fixation upon “beautiful people,” the elite in entertainment, business, and politics. The lower classes willing submit to the higher, evoking the distinction through a desire to be led, to be saved, and to belong, even if as property.  Sarah Palin is an example of someone who runs counter to this idolatry; she defies deification and was therefore rejected as a leader. The chief criticism of Palin during the 2008 campaign was her lack of “qualification.” On its face, this criticism was substantially undercut by the fact she boasted the largest amount of executive experience of any individual on either presidential ticket. The other three had none. Of course, executive experience is not what people referred to when they used the term “qualification.” What they seem to have meant is sufficiently convincing pretention conveying the peace of mind that comes with being mindlessly led and provided for.

As Americans, there is a disconnect between our professed regard for liberty and this tendency to seek for ourselves gods among men. On the surface, we love to wrap ourselves in the rhetoric of equality, freedom, and the populist sentiments underlying representative government. On the other, we crave, demand, and ultimately crown royalty. A friend recently told me in reference to President Obama, “The way he speaks, you can just tell he’s intelligent. He’s so intelligent. And you want that in your president, someone intelligent.” The unspoken implication which I find echoed in criticisms of Sarah Palin is we want a leader who can serve as our civic auto-pilot, someone smarter than us, better than us, closer to perfect. Such a person demonstrates, through their intellectual peacocking, their right to rule. We dutifully oblige them. But this runs counter to such pedestrian ideas as “all men are Created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” We cannot have it both ways. We either believe all men have equal intrinsic worth, or we don’t. When we don’t, we come up with asinine ideas like the president ought to be smarter than us, or Tiger Woods is God, or any other manifestation of Beatlemania-like idolatry.

When Sarah Palin delivered her address at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul last year, many disaffected conservatives were heartened that such a plain person (that is to say someone risen from the middle class, without an Ivy League education, not from a political dynasty, with an earnest if naive lack of pretense, someone we might know, someone we might be) could still ascend to such opportunity in an American political system which otherwise produces relentless consolidators of power. Plain people liked Palin because she was like them. Others hated Palin for the same reason. We could not have some average nobody from some negligible backwater a heartbeat away from the presidency, we were told. How could we possibly stop thinking and take comfort in the superiority of a fearless leader when she shamelessly claimed “hockey mom” among her accolades? We might be compelled by a lack of patronizing reassurance to participate rather than mindlessly nod in response to emotionally comforting pseudo-intellectual rhetoric assuring us everything will be okay. We don’t want our hand on the wheel! That’s what elections are for – cruise control! Pull the lever and coast to next Novemeber! Palin did not sound like someone who would assure us we were in good hands so we could comfortably abdicate our sovereignty and the troublesome sense of panicked responsibility that comes with it.

This is a tendency we need to become self-aware of and begin to reject immediately. It is not partisan. There are no shortage of Republicans who buy into the idea of fitness to rule based on some intrinsic superior worth. Liberty is better served by public servants with average intelligence humbly applied within the constraints of principle than geniuses convinced of their right to proceed unchecked. Of course, to accept such a radical sentiment, one must value the principle of liberty to begin with. That principle rejects idolatrous claims of divinity or divine right, whether by men, or about men by others.

I think, speaking strictly from a technological standpoint, there is no question our freedoms are less secure than at any other time in history. America stands as the last historical example of exodus. Oppressed peoples who could not overcome the tyranny surrounding them choose to extract themselves from it and come here. We no longer have that option. There is nowhere else to go until someone figures out cost-effective interplanetary colonization. So we’re stuck with each other, stuck with the government we have, a government which is becoming increasingly interdependant with others, including an emerging global government (keep an eye on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change later this month). It makes sense, if our forebears’ only way out of tyranny was escape to a distant frontier, we cannot expect any different. Add to that advances in technology which enable those in power to keep a stricter eye on the population than any historical dictator dared to dream, and you have a recipe for inevitable tyranny.

Of course, it is only inevitable if we let it happen. It may be our forebears choose exodus because it was easier to escape and risk death in an unforgiving frontier than to stand their ground and fight a ruling system. We do not know what would have happened if exodus was not a choice for them. Could they have established freedom where they first stood? Can we keep it here now? Time will tell.

You cannot expect Michelle Bachmann, or her party, to go along with [the current health care reform bill] when it is fundamentally at odds with her entire ideology. Of course the parties need to cooperate and compromise in order to accomplish anything meaningful. However, compromise is only possible within the constraints of one’s principle. In the health care debate, along with virtually every other initiative this administration has floated, you evoke a fundamental disagreement regarding the proper role of government. Conservatives cannot be expected to merely massage the details of a plan which runs contrary to their entire paradigm. Republican ideas will likewise never be deemed as “enough” by those who believe the government should be unrestrained in its “problem solving.” As long as the proposals put up for debate grossly engorge and empower government, it will be necessary for Republicans to be “the party of no.” To criticize them for it is kind of like blaming a linebacker for doing his job. If you want cooperation, you need a proposal which does not test the limits of conservative and libertarian tolerance.

A perusal of other letters to the editor on the same subject serves as an interesting exercise in metropolitan anthropology. On the one hand, you have folks who rightly point out the absurdity of City Pages expecting Bachmann to sit down for an in-person interview when their organization is blatantly antagonistic, as evidenced by their even-handed cover.

On the other side, you have a rabid core readership incensed that City Pages would publish anything without being able to submit Bachmann to “follow-up” antagonism. Oh, you’re going to superimpose my head on an image of Sarah Palin and call me crazy? Sure, I’ll gladly sit down for an interview. Would anyone be so inclined?

City Pages enthusiastic bias is further demonstrated, as reader and Bachmann associate Bob Stephenson points out, by an inability to get basic facts right:

…you referred to her now famous Hardball appearance, and you incorrectly reported that she said that the “government would do well to investigate ‘anti-American’ congressmen.” What she actually said was that the American media should do so, not the government, which is something quite different.

This is an ironic oversight in an article which rests heavily upon Bachmann’s alledged use of “misinformation.” At the very least, City Pages deserves credit for printing Stephenson’s correction.

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances (“The Constitution of the United States,” Amendment 5).

Arguably, and to various degrees, each clause of this amendment has been violated at different points in American history. Freedom of speech is now relegated to approved “zones (Hanna, 2009).” The press has been highly regulated at various points, most notably by the crippled but remerging “fairness doctrine (Almond, 2009).” And groups wishing to assemble to petition their government are required to file for permits which may be rejected arbitrarily (Hanna, 2009).

Perhaps no clause has been more abused and misinterpreted than the “establishment clause,” which restricts Congress from creating a church or restricting the free exercise of religion. Early American history demonstrates a common understanding of this clause which was eventually rejected by the Supreme Court in its landmark Engel v. Vitale decision in 1962, which instigated a shift in the definition of “establishment” from enforcement of a particular religion to the mere mention of anything religious .

Before considering Engel v. Vitale, it is appropriate to consider the context in which the First Amendment along with the whole of the Constitution was written, who wrote it, and what they had to say about it. There may be no better proxy for this investigation than the US Congress, as assembled in 1854 to address objections brought by select plaintiffs against “public religious expressions by legislative chaplains paid for by State budgets (Wallbuilders.org, 2009).” The plaintiffs argued that such religious expressions, funded by government and conducted in a government venue, violated the First Amendment of the Constitution. The resulting House report on the issue found the alleged violation contrived, citing the establishment and perpetuation of legislative chaplains under the tenure of the First Congress, which included many of the very men who framed the First Amendment.

On the 1^st day of May [1789], Washington’s first speech was read

]]> The following is a submitted assignment from a class I am taking on the United States Constitution which I thought this audience might appreciate:

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances (“The Constitution of the United States,” Amendment 5).

Arguably, and to various degrees, each clause of this amendment has been violated at different points in American history. Freedom of speech is now relegated to approved “zones (Hanna, 2009).” The press has been highly regulated at various points, most notably by the crippled but remerging “fairness doctrine (Almond, 2009).” And groups wishing to assemble to petition their government are required to file for permits which may be rejected arbitrarily (Hanna, 2009).

Perhaps no clause has been more abused and misinterpreted than the “establishment clause,” which restricts Congress from creating a church or restricting the free exercise of religion. Early American history demonstrates a common understanding of this clause which was eventually rejected by the Supreme Court in its landmark Engel v. Vitale decision in 1962, which instigated a shift in the definition of “establishment” from enforcement of a particular religion to the mere mention of anything religious .

Before considering Engel v. Vitale, it is appropriate to consider the context in which the First Amendment along with the whole of the Constitution was written, who wrote it, and what they had to say about it. There may be no better proxy for this investigation than the US Congress, as assembled in 1854 to address objections brought by select plaintiffs against “public religious expressions by legislative chaplains paid for by State budgets (Wallbuilders.org, 2009).” The plaintiffs argued that such religious expressions, funded by government and conducted in a government venue, violated the First Amendment of the Constitution. The resulting House report on the issue found the alleged violation contrived, citing the establishment and perpetuation of legislative chaplains under the tenure of the First Congress, which included many of the very men who framed the First Amendment.

On the 1^st day of May [1789], Washington’s first speech was read

]]> http://www.redstate.com/walterscotthudson/2009/11/30/the-free-exercise-of-religion-in-america/feed/ 5 http://www.redstate.com/walterscotthudson/2009/11/24/was-jesus-a-socialist/ http://www.redstate.com/walterscotthudson/2009/11/24/was-jesus-a-socialist/#comments Tue, 24 Nov 2009 14:37:23 +0000 Walter Scott Hudson (Diary) http://www.redstate.com/walterscotthudson/?p=39 There is a charge among some left-leaning professed Christians that conservative social policies neglect Christ’s commission to minister to the poor. Does the parable of the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25 imply Christians should petition their government to enforce “redistributive justice?” Jack Clark thinks so. We excerpt Clark’s podcast, Blast the Right, and consider his “equivalent alternative solutions challenge;” it is fine to oppose government programs which provide for the poor, Clark says, but only if you can present an equivalent alternative solution which will help just as many people, in the just the same way, just as fast. Otherwise, by Clark’s reading of Matthew 25, you are going to hell. Is he right? Was Jesus a socialist? Consider the arguments in this week’s show.

]]> There is a charge among some left-leaning professed Christians that conservative social policies neglect Christ’s commission to minister to the poor. Does the parable of the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25 imply Christians should petition their government to enforce “redistributive justice?” Jack Clark thinks so. We excerpt Clark’s podcast, Blast the Right, and consider his “equivalent alternative solutions challenge;” it is fine to oppose government programs which provide for the poor, Clark says, but only if you can present an equivalent alternative solution which will help just as many people, in the just the same way, just as fast. Otherwise, by Clark’s reading of Matthew 25, you are going to hell. Is he right? Was Jesus a socialist? Consider the arguments in this week’s show.

]]> http://www.redstate.com/walterscotthudson/2009/11/24/was-jesus-a-socialist/feed/ 31 http://www.redstate.com/walterscotthudson/2009/11/22/2012-a-sunglass-wearers-review/ http://www.redstate.com/walterscotthudson/2009/11/22/2012-a-sunglass-wearers-review/#comments Sun, 22 Nov 2009 12:42:11 +0000 Walter Scott Hudson (Diary) http://www.redstate.com/walterscotthudson/?p=37 In the 1988 film They Live, “Rowdy” Roddy Pipper discovers he is living in a society which has been overrun by a malevolent alien presence. The invaders, disguised as humans, have infiltrated every nook and cranny of society, controlling government and other institutions. They propagate their will through subliminal messages dispensed in media. Special sunglasses enable the wearer to see through the alien illusion, revealing both the content of subliminal messaging and the identity of the aliens themselves. It is with homage to this film that Fightin Words presents entertainment reviews intended to look beneath the surface and decode the messages and influences within. As this objective is substantially different from the typical entertainment review, the reader should expect spoilers.

The end is nigh. In Roland Emmerich’s latest blockbuster, this eschatological cliché is at last fulfilled. Continents sink into the sea, tidal waves engulf the Himalayas, and Wisconsin becomes the new south pole. This is disaster porn, with destruction on a scale so vast it often defies digestion. Short of a supernova, black hole, or Death Star attack, it is unlikely a more dramatic catastrophe could be conceived of and portrayed on screen. 2012 follows an ensemble of characters as they struggle to survive the end of the world. Of course, it isn’t really the end of the world, just the world we know. Humanity survives. But it must start anew on a globe where every institution, border, and nation has been wiped out. As the tagline in the trailer declares, “no matter where you live, no matter what you believe, one date will unite us all.”

This is the philosophical theme the film works tirelessly to promote; when you strip away our contrived institutional divisions, we are all the same, all part of one big happy human family. Survival requires abandoning antiquated paradigms and placing faith in the experts among us to “ensure the continuity of the species.” The paradigm most in the crosshairs of this philosophical apocalypse is Christianity. The eccentric Charlie Frost, a pirate radio host played with slovenly relish by Woody Harellson, demeans the Bible as the least accurate predictor of the end of days among competitors like the Mayan calendar and the writings of the Hopi Indians. The iconic statue of Jesus Christ in Rio De Janeiro is shown crumbling into dust. An entire sequence focuses on Catholics gathered in prayer at the Vatican who are unceremoniously eliminated as the grand symbol of ecclesiastical authority comes crashing down upon them. One shot focuses on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel as a crack in the roof just happens to split between the depiction of man reaching out toward God. Given the literal world of possibilities in a film of this scope, the focus of the filmmakers seems wholly intentional.

There is a technique prevalent in film and television for suspending disbelief which can also be used to desensitize an audience to concepts they find instinctively repulsive. It works like this; a proxy character reacts to something unbelievable or repulsive by expressing an objection similar to that the audience might express. A second character then addresses the objection in a way that, within the context of the fiction, makes the unbelievable believable or the repulsive acceptable. In 2012, the always cantankerous Oliver Platt plays a high level US government official whose entire purpose is to fulfill this desensitization role. His cold, calculating, opportunistic humanism is meant to be disliked, but proven correct. In various scenes he and others serve to desensitize the audience to political assassination, shadow government, eugenics, biometric surveillance, and acceptance of class distinctions based on royalty, wealth, and perceived usefulness to the collective of man. In one scene, Platt’s character is shown talking on a phone to his aged and deteriorating mother for the last time as he prepares to evacuate to secretly constructed arks meant to preserve the elite. After the call, a character catching the end of the conversation says, “I would have thought they’d have given you an extra ticket [to take your mother on the ark].” Platt responds, “They did.” He goes on to justify leaving his mother to die, as she is old and useless and better off left behind.

Such a fate is prescribed for the entire unwashed mass of humanity, as the world opens up to swallow them whole. Watching the outcome of the devastation leaves one with the distinct impression this catastrophe might be a good thing. After all, the remnant of humanity (a miniscule percentage) represents the best and brightest from every corner of the globe, no longer separated by the institutions which formerly defined them, free to establish a united nation superior to any which came before. An epilogue title reads, “Day 27, Month 1, Year 0001,” indicating the death of the Old Order is an event which supersedes the birth of Christ as the moment from which we measure time. Watching this reminds one of the many proclamations from academics like Professor Eric Pianka from the University of Texas which openly call for massive reductions in human population, the thematically complementary evangelism of the New Age (or “New Thought,” as it is now conspicuously self-titled) which predicts a coming enlightenment to replace the Old Thought, and the entirety of progressive political ideology which draws upon masturbatory secular human delusions which imagine a communist utopia. Adherents to these philosophies will find much to love in 2012.

A last note of interest, the only two world leaders who refuse to board the arks are the presidents of the United States and Italy. The Italian president is said to be “trusting in prayer,” while the American president is merely “going down with the ship,” a concept which Platt’s character patronizingly describes as “noble.” It strikes this reviewer that the exclusion of these two parties from “the continuity of the species,” is indicative of a desire for the New Order to rise without the influence of the American republic or its Christian heritage (Italy –> Rome –> Vatican). It is further noteworthy to cite this exclusion is voluntary, perhaps representing an anticipation that adherents to the Old Thought will not want to sail into the Brave New World. This interpretation may be a stretch, but certainly jives thematically with the rest of the film which, along with being an able ensemble piece showcasing some of the most ambitious special effects ever conceived, is a pill of philosophy clearly intended to question the merits of established institutions while suggesting some people are intrinsically worth more than others.

]]> In the 1988 film They Live, “Rowdy” Roddy Pipper discovers he is living in a society which has been overrun by a malevolent alien presence. The invaders, disguised as humans, have infiltrated every nook and cranny of society, controlling government and other institutions. They propagate their will through subliminal messages dispensed in media. Special sunglasses enable the wearer to see through the alien illusion, revealing both the content of subliminal messaging and the identity of the aliens themselves. It is with homage to this film that Fightin Words presents entertainment reviews intended to look beneath the surface and decode the messages and influences within. As this objective is substantially different from the typical entertainment review, the reader should expect spoilers.

The end is nigh. In Roland Emmerich’s latest blockbuster, this eschatological cliché is at last fulfilled. Continents sink into the sea, tidal waves engulf the Himalayas, and Wisconsin becomes the new south pole. This is disaster porn, with destruction on a scale so vast it often defies digestion. Short of a supernova, black hole, or Death Star attack, it is unlikely a more dramatic catastrophe could be conceived of and portrayed on screen. 2012 follows an ensemble of characters as they struggle to survive the end of the world. Of course, it isn’t really the end of the world, just the world we know. Humanity survives. But it must start anew on a globe where every institution, border, and nation has been wiped out. As the tagline in the trailer declares, “no matter where you live, no matter what you believe, one date will unite us all.”

This is the philosophical theme the film works tirelessly to promote; when you strip away our contrived institutional divisions, we are all the same, all part of one big happy human family. Survival requires abandoning antiquated paradigms and placing faith in the experts among us to “ensure the continuity of the species.” The paradigm most in the crosshairs of this philosophical apocalypse is Christianity. The eccentric Charlie Frost, a pirate radio host played with slovenly relish by Woody Harellson, demeans the Bible as the least accurate predictor of the end of days among competitors like the Mayan calendar and the writings of the Hopi Indians. The iconic statue of Jesus Christ in Rio De Janeiro is shown crumbling into dust. An entire sequence focuses on Catholics gathered in prayer at the Vatican who are unceremoniously eliminated as the grand symbol of ecclesiastical authority comes crashing down upon them. One shot focuses on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel as a crack in the roof just happens to split between the depiction of man reaching out toward God. Given the literal world of possibilities in a film of this scope, the focus of the filmmakers seems wholly intentional.

There is a technique prevalent in film and television for suspending disbelief which can also be used to desensitize an audience to concepts they find instinctively repulsive. It works like this; a proxy character reacts to something unbelievable or repulsive by expressing an objection similar to that the audience might express. A second character then addresses the objection in a way that, within the context of the fiction, makes the unbelievable believable or the repulsive acceptable. In 2012, the always cantankerous Oliver Platt plays a high level US government official whose entire purpose is to fulfill this desensitization role. His cold, calculating, opportunistic humanism is meant to be disliked, but proven correct. In various scenes he and others serve to desensitize the audience to political assassination, shadow government, eugenics, biometric surveillance, and acceptance of class distinctions based on royalty, wealth, and perceived usefulness to the collective of man. In one scene, Platt’s character is shown talking on a phone to his aged and deteriorating mother for the last time as he prepares to evacuate to secretly constructed arks meant to preserve the elite. After the call, a character catching the end of the conversation says, “I would have thought they’d have given you an extra ticket [to take your mother on the ark].” Platt responds, “They did.” He goes on to justify leaving his mother to die, as she is old and useless and better off left behind.

Such a fate is prescribed for the entire unwashed mass of humanity, as the world opens up to swallow them whole. Watching the outcome of the devastation leaves one with the distinct impression this catastrophe might be a good thing. After all, the remnant of humanity (a miniscule percentage) represents the best and brightest from every corner of the globe, no longer separated by the institutions which formerly defined them, free to establish a united nation superior to any which came before. An epilogue title reads, “Day 27, Month 1, Year 0001,” indicating the death of the Old Order is an event which supersedes the birth of Christ as the moment from which we measure time. Watching this reminds one of the many proclamations from academics like Professor Eric Pianka from the University of Texas which openly call for massive reductions in human population, the thematically complementary evangelism of the New Age (or “New Thought,” as it is now conspicuously self-titled) which predicts a coming enlightenment to replace the Old Thought, and the entirety of progressive political ideology which draws upon masturbatory secular human delusions which imagine a communist utopia. Adherents to these philosophies will find much to love in 2012.

A last note of interest, the only two world leaders who refuse to board the arks are the presidents of the United States and Italy. The Italian president is said to be “trusting in prayer,” while the American president is merely “going down with the ship,” a concept which Platt’s character patronizingly describes as “noble.” It strikes this reviewer that the exclusion of these two parties from “the continuity of the species,” is indicative of a desire for the New Order to rise without the influence of the American republic or its Christian heritage (Italy –> Rome –> Vatican). It is further noteworthy to cite this exclusion is voluntary, perhaps representing an anticipation that adherents to the Old Thought will not want to sail into the Brave New World. This interpretation may be a stretch, but certainly jives thematically with the rest of the film which, along with being an able ensemble piece showcasing some of the most ambitious special effects ever conceived, is a pill of philosophy clearly intended to question the merits of established institutions while suggesting some people are intrinsically worth more than others.

]]> http://www.redstate.com/walterscotthudson/2009/11/22/2012-a-sunglass-wearers-review/feed/ 0 http://www.redstate.com/walterscotthudson/2009/11/18/sins-of-the-founding-fathers/ http://www.redstate.com/walterscotthudson/2009/11/18/sins-of-the-founding-fathers/#comments Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:03:12 +0000 Walter Scott Hudson (Diary) http://www.redstate.com/walterscotthudson/?p=35 Sidenote: As I post this entry, I am watching a live stream of proceedings at Continental Congress 2009, currently in session in St. Charles, IL. I have not had the time to dutifully review the content which CC2009 has so far produced. It is my understanding there will be archive video of the entire conference and many documents coming out of the event to peruse. Getting a comprehensive feel for the event will take time. That said, my initial impression of what is taking place in St. Charles is one of kinship. Regardless of whether it receives any mainstream attention or produces the mass movement it intends, I feel I am witnessing something special. Particularly in light of David Barton’s fantastic presentation on the founding of our nation, which I excerpted in my latest podcast, it is apparent CC2009 is being conducted in the same spirit of reverence for Nature’s God and the self-evident demands of Liberty as its historical namesake. Do yourself a favor and check it out.

As a Christian, I do not believe in karma per say. However, I do believe nations, like individuals, reap what they sow. One of my final electives, a class on the United States Constitution, has required a consideration of federalism and how it has evolved over the course of our nation’s history. There is no disputing our momentum has led further away from state sovereignty toward an evermore powerful federal government. There is a basic libertarian concept which says the larger a republic, the less likely it is to remain in touch with its people. This is why the federalist compromise which generated our Constitution enumerated the powers of Congress in Article 1, Section 8, and further contained implied powers with the Tenth Amendment. This initial arrangement of dual sovereignty, with relatively explicit federal and state jurisdictions, has been described as a “layer cake” in comparison to the modern “marble cake” of so-called cooperative federalism. These academic terms mask a blunt reality; we enjoy less liberty now than at any other time in our nation’s history. Of course, one may rightly point out that, for some disenfranchised groups, there is more freedom now than at the Founding. The end of blatant slavery and the eventual recognition of civil rights was due in no small part to the strengthening of the federal government. This is where karma comes in. Ironically, the initial deprivation of liberty for some in America has led over time to a deprivation for all.

When we hear Reverend Jeremiah Wright say “G-d damn American!” or listen to Van Jones demand we “give [Native Americans] the wealth,” we shake our heads and wonder how men could live in a free country and wish it less free. When I reflect on how my black father’s initiative, intelligence, and unflinching work ethic lifted our family out of a deteriorating Detroit suburb into a brighter future, I marvel at memories of him nevertheless lecturing me about “the white man” and my inherent racial disadvantage. When I speak to black friends or acquaintances, the vast majority are instinctively “progressive” regardless of lifestyle. What explains this phenomenon?

I submit that our nation has paid for the sin of racial inequality by inadvertently canonizing centralized authority as the savior of the disenfranchised. Imagine if we had gotten it right from the beginning, if there had been no slavery, if “all men are created equal” had truly meant all. How much more might our nation have been blessed? Black people in this country believe in government because government was necessary to impose that which free men would not rightly recognize on their own. As a result, a grand precedent has been set in their hearts and minds. Government is always right. Bigger government is always better. Government will provide what “the white man” will not. This is a horrific tragedy, arguably worse than the slavery which led to it, as it perpetuates a less direct slavery over a far broader population.

Many blacks are beginning to wake up to the shell game. Men like Thomas Sowell, Bill Cosby, and Lloyd Marcus have become unsung pioneers in a conservative movement which gains new outspoken faces seen in blogs, television, and alternative media. Conservative blacks understand that the plight of our fathers was leveraged by oligarchs to secure their own power. In this way, the black race has been no less used than when it was held in chains. The results have been devastating, as related by Kevin Jackson, author of The Big Black Lie: How I Learned the Truth About the Democratic Party, in a video from a tea party protest:

Blacks lead in all negative categories as a culture, in things like highest teenage pregnancy, highest number of single-parent homes. We lead in the lowest number of business starts, highest amount of high school drop-out rates, lowest number of kids entering college, lowest number of kids graduating college, highest unemployment, highest per capita on welfare, highest in prison.

He then brilliantly shouts down a reporter who counters his list with the question “What have the Republicans done for you lately?”

You know what? I don’t wake up in the morning looking for someone to help me. I look in the mirror for that help. <unintelligible due to cheers from surrounding protesters> That’s the stupidest question you could ask a black man… what has a Republican done for him? What has a Democrat done for me? I just gave you that explanation.

Jackson focuses on the Democrats as the force behind uncomfortable black demographics. In truth, the blame goes much further, encompassing the entire progressive movement and blacks themselves for failing to recognize the cliff off which they were led. Of course, the rest of America does not get off either. After all, it would never have been possible for civil rights to be leveraged as a wedge for corrosive socialist policies if race had not separated man one from another in the first place. We reap what we sow, even over generations. For posterity’s sake, let us now sow seeds of liberty by distinguishing rights from entitlements and empowering Americans of all races through education, activism, and incentive to produce.

]]> Sidenote: As I post this entry, I am watching a live stream of proceedings at Continental Congress 2009, currently in session in St. Charles, IL. I have not had the time to dutifully review the content which CC2009 has so far produced. It is my understanding there will be archive video of the entire conference and many documents coming out of the event to peruse. Getting a comprehensive feel for the event will take time. That said, my initial impression of what is taking place in St. Charles is one of kinship. Regardless of whether it receives any mainstream attention or produces the mass movement it intends, I feel I am witnessing something special. Particularly in light of David Barton’s fantastic presentation on the founding of our nation, which I excerpted in my latest podcast, it is apparent CC2009 is being conducted in the same spirit of reverence for Nature’s God and the self-evident demands of Liberty as its historical namesake. Do yourself a favor and check it out.

As a Christian, I do not believe in karma per say. However, I do believe nations, like individuals, reap what they sow. One of my final electives, a class on the United States Constitution, has required a consideration of federalism and how it has evolved over the course of our nation’s history. There is no disputing our momentum has led further away from state sovereignty toward an evermore powerful federal government. There is a basic libertarian concept which says the larger a republic, the less likely it is to remain in touch with its people. This is why the federalist compromise which generated our Constitution enumerated the powers of Congress in Article 1, Section 8, and further contained implied powers with the Tenth Amendment. This initial arrangement of dual sovereignty, with relatively explicit federal and state jurisdictions, has been described as a “layer cake” in comparison to the modern “marble cake” of so-called cooperative federalism. These academic terms mask a blunt reality; we enjoy less liberty now than at any other time in our nation’s history. Of course, one may rightly point out that, for some disenfranchised groups, there is more freedom now than at the Founding. The end of blatant slavery and the eventual recognition of civil rights was due in no small part to the strengthening of the federal government. This is where karma comes in. Ironically, the initial deprivation of liberty for some in America has led over time to a deprivation for all.

When we hear Reverend Jeremiah Wright say “G-d damn American!” or listen to Van Jones demand we “give [Native Americans] the wealth,” we shake our heads and wonder how men could live in a free country and wish it less free. When I reflect on how my black father’s initiative, intelligence, and unflinching work ethic lifted our family out of a deteriorating Detroit suburb into a brighter future, I marvel at memories of him nevertheless lecturing me about “the white man” and my inherent racial disadvantage. When I speak to black friends or acquaintances, the vast majority are instinctively “progressive” regardless of lifestyle. What explains this phenomenon?

I submit that our nation has paid for the sin of racial inequality by inadvertently canonizing centralized authority as the savior of the disenfranchised. Imagine if we had gotten it right from the beginning, if there had been no slavery, if “all men are created equal” had truly meant all. How much more might our nation have been blessed? Black people in this country believe in government because government was necessary to impose that which free men would not rightly recognize on their own. As a result, a grand precedent has been set in their hearts and minds. Government is always right. Bigger government is always better. Government will provide what “the white man” will not. This is a horrific tragedy, arguably worse than the slavery which led to it, as it perpetuates a less direct slavery over a far broader population.

Many blacks are beginning to wake up to the shell game. Men like Thomas Sowell, Bill Cosby, and Lloyd Marcus have become unsung pioneers in a conservative movement which gains new outspoken faces seen in blogs, television, and alternative media. Conservative blacks understand that the plight of our fathers was leveraged by oligarchs to secure their own power. In this way, the black race has been no less used than when it was held in chains. The results have been devastating, as related by Kevin Jackson, author of The Big Black Lie: How I Learned the Truth About the Democratic Party, in a video from a tea party protest:

Blacks lead in all negative categories as a culture, in things like highest teenage pregnancy, highest number of single-parent homes. We lead in the lowest number of business starts, highest amount of high school drop-out rates, lowest number of kids entering college, lowest number of kids graduating college, highest unemployment, highest per capita on welfare, highest in prison.

He then brilliantly shouts down a reporter who counters his list with the question “What have the Republicans done for you lately?”

You know what? I don’t wake up in the morning looking for someone to help me. I look in the mirror for that help. <unintelligible due to cheers from surrounding protesters> That’s the stupidest question you could ask a black man… what has a Republican done for him? What has a Democrat done for me? I just gave you that explanation.

Jackson focuses on the Democrats as the force behind uncomfortable black demographics. In truth, the blame goes much further, encompassing the entire progressive movement and blacks themselves for failing to recognize the cliff off which they were led. Of course, the rest of America does not get off either. After all, it would never have been possible for civil rights to be leveraged as a wedge for corrosive socialist policies if race had not separated man one from another in the first place. We reap what we sow, even over generations. For posterity’s sake, let us now sow seeds of liberty by distinguishing rights from entitlements and empowering Americans of all races through education, activism, and incentive to produce.

]]> http://www.redstate.com/walterscotthudson/2009/11/18/sins-of-the-founding-fathers/feed/ 0