Author: VD

The Good Fraters make a few recommendations in the course of being interviewed by Bloggasm:

Simon Owens: What are the five blogs you’d recommend to supplement the reading of your own?

Fraters Libertas: Nihilist in Golf Pants: A little too PC at times, but still one of the overall funnier blogs.

Yucky Salad With Bones: Like Erma Bombeck on Meth.

First Things: Restoring the Christian intellectual tradition one day at a time.

Vox Day: Whether you’re on the Left or the Right, Vox will drive you crazy on a regular basis. He’ll also make you think.

The Evangelical Outpost: An evangelical Marine who writes on some of the most intellectually taxing philosophical issues of the day with humor and humility? If Joe only drank, he would own the keys to the blogosphere kingdom. Or he might post one a month at Fraters.

In all fairness, the evidence suggests that I’ve only driven one person crazy. She was a grad student I dated my sophmore year of college who wound up in a psychiatric institution about a year later. Interestingly enough, she was only woman I’ve ever dated who was definitely more intelligent than I am, which tends to support my theory that the higher your IQ, the more likely it is that your grasp on reality will be a little shakier than the norm as well.

Anyhow, it’s nice to know that the guys still enjoy swinging by despite my frequent apostasy from collective right-wing blogma.

The felicidally inclined Mindcleaner has been immersing himself in Ann Coulter’s latest and he pronounces himself unimpressed. The experience sparks three questions:

1. Do you read? Or, simply put, who reads? I don’t read because I discipline myself to do so or becuase I feel in any way compelled by something outside myself. I read because I enjoy it. Sure, I’ll pick up something challenging and “important” on a regualr basis, and more often than not, I enjoy it and agree with its importance. Of course, I rarely pick up a book liberals tout as important.

Most people probably won’t believe how much I read. I finish a book every third day or so, sometimes every second day, which is why I don’t bother keeping my reading list up to date. It simply changes too often. I read five or six books at a time, although I seldom read non-fiction books straight through unless they are particularly informative. As of now, I’m reading Melissa Scott’s “Empress of Earth” on my Treo, L’Amour’s 11th Sackett novel on my laptop, Oman’s “History of the Art of War in the Middle Ages” in my bed and Bruno’s “Fascisti” in the chair-and-a-half in my office. Yesterday I finished the previous book in Scott’s Heaven series and L’Amour’s 10th Sackett novel, as well as “The Case of the Deptford Horror” and “Five Rings in Reno” from a mystery anthology edited by Ellis Peters.

2. Does reading make you smarter? I know it sounds like a dumb question, but I know there are those out there who think they’re plenty smart but very seldom pick up a book. If you’re familiar with The Daily Kos (a liberal blog) you’ll know that its namesake has admited to not being that much of a book reader, prefering magazines and newspapers, and his readers think he’s about the smartest man alive. I’ve come across many conservatives who are the same way. They eschew higher education, some for good reasons, saying they would rather self-educate. I’ve asked a few about their reading habits and they’ve almost never anything by a non-radio personality. I’m not saying that can’t make you smarter, but if it does, I’d like to know how.

Definitely. Having read a wide variety of books means that even if you don’t know a particular subject very well, you will still harbor a general sense of it so when you need to go into detail, you know where to look. Novels can be surprisingly educational; until I read Norwich’s Byzantine history series, I had no idea how much Byzantine history I’d learned from Harry Turtledove’s Videssos novels. I was also rather shocked to learn how much less creative Mr. Turtledove was than I’d previously believed.

3. Is reading virtuous? If you’re a Christian, you can relate to the feeling of necessity to read your Bible. In evangelical circles, it goes without saying that a person should be well read. Not reading The Word is almost sinful if not actually sinful in many eyes. Is reading in general similar? What kind of person feels guilty if he or she does not read regularly? I don’t know if I’ve ever felt guilty when going an extended period without finishing a book, but I do know I feel something is missing if I’m not into a book. And if reading is virtuous, then is it virtuous to read just about anything? I don’t want to sound like an elitist, but can reading a steady diet of Romance novels improve a person in any way?

No, reading is not inherently virtuous. It’s actually an extreme form of self-absorption, even if it is required for self-improvement. I can’t imagine feeling guilty about not reading, since I would no more voluntarily do so than I would stop breathing. As for the intellectual nutrition to be found in a diet of Romance novels, I can only say that I would seriously question the elitist credentials of anyone who hasn’t read “Jane Eyre”, “The Tale of Genji” and “The Sorrows of Young Werther”.

Anyhow, I probably read 10 light books for every book that would be considered serious. However, I think most of what is currently considered serious literature possesses less merit than pulp science fiction from the Golden Age, so I cheerfully remain in near-complete ignorance of the all-important East American genre featuring the likes of Saul Bellow, Philip Roth and their tedious, navel-gazing inheritors repeatedly committing acts of literary masturbation.

From an old Florence King review of Wendy Shalit:

Women can’t tell men how to behave — they either inspire or fail to inspire. Today we inspire them by slamming doors on their fingers, pushing them away when they help us with our coats, and then, when they learn their lesson and begin to treat us with equal-opportunity boorishness, we change our minds and seek to enforce by fiat the respect which was once grounded in custom.

This is one of the most significant concepts a woman needs to understand about men. Most men absolutely loathe being told what to do and will barely tolerate it from an authority they recognize as legitimate, they will not accept it from a would-be substitute mommy. If you see a man respond to a direct female order by blinking, remaining silent and looking very blank, he is almost surely swallowing the vulgar suggestion that he would give to another man by way of response in the same situation. And the chances are very high that he will somehow manage to forget to obey.

It never ceases to amaze me how some women don’t realize how they are inspiring – or if you prefer, training – the men around them. They attempt to exert control by only being pleasant when the man is doing what they want, then are confused when the man begins avoiding their company rather than meekly altering his behavior. She ratchets up the unpleasantries in an attempt to control the situation and the relationship spirals downward.

The truth is, regardless of sex, when people reliably demonstrate a reluctance to be around you, the problem is very rarely with them, it is almost always with you.

However, as much as I respect both King and Shalit, they are both inclined towards romantic idealism instead of more dispassionate observation. Consider the following passage:

Shalit sees signs that modesty is making a comeback. Antioch College’s much-derided guidelines on asking permission to kiss and touch are not very different from The English Gentlewoman (1631) and the many Victorian chapbooks about men who “take liberties.”

Considering that the concept of the cam whore, Jenna Jameson and the delectable Brazilian wax were just entering mass culture at the time of King’s review, one has to say that as a trend spotter, Miss Shalit leaves somewhat to be desired.

To the four or five concerned Americans who are regular WND readers and inveterate mass emailers: please don’t send me WorldNetDaily columns. Believe it or not, as a WND columnist for the last five years, I am passing familiar with the web site and have even been known to read its articles from time to time.

Thank you.

I may be the only one to find a degree of humor in sex slavery:

Marlena, aged 32, has worked as a prostitute in Lithuania, Russia, Germany and Slovenia for about 7 years. This is her story. After graduating from the University she worked as a teacher of Music. She calculated that it would take her 25 years to collect money for buying her own apartment under the condition she would save every coin. She was thinking that marrying a wealthy man could improve the situation, but no wealthy man appeared.

Finally she met a young man called Roman. He told Marlena, that his job is assisting people in their employment abroad. Marlena knew that Roman’s mother worked in Spain as a house maid and earned 500$ monthly having full board and lodging. Roman promised Marlena to find her a job at a farm close to the place where his mother worked. He asked for just 150$ for his assistance. Marlena believed him. She did not pay attention to the absence of labour contract. She knew that her employment would be illegal so she was not surprised when she saw a German visa in her passport. Marlena was promised the salary of 600$. She took a plane to Frankfurt where she was met by Dmitriy, Roman’s partner. There her problems started.

What’s fascinating is the way in which that slavery is making a global comeback, not just in Africa and Asia, but in the very Eastern European countries from which the term “slave” originated. And it’s particularly ironic to see how college-educated Western feminists who insist that they are equal to men in every way are finding themselves to be completely helpless in the face of the barbarism they have worked so hard to advance. Such a surprise!

If American women choose to reject Judeo-Christian tradition, they will eventually find themselves facing the brothel or the burqah, just as their college-educated sisters in Europe are learning now. And if you think that this bizarre future is impossible, do keep in mind that the USA is only 40-50 years behind Europe in trending towards a post-Christian culture.

Women don’t seem to realize that many of the evils they currently lament is the result of a society that has changed already. I note that a 71″ plasma goes for about 20 times more than a college-educated white woman these days. Clearly this is an outrage that all men of good will must join together and address, as it’s inexcusable that an entertainment necessity should cost so much.

As for the sex slavery, if feminists are so concerned about it, then let them end it. It’s not a problem for men and we have been reliably informed that feminists need us the way a fish needs a bicycle. Only one guess as to what the female solution to sex slavery is, since it’s the same nebulous one they propose for everything from acquaintance rape to wage inequities: “The society should change its attitude….”

Right, good luck with that.

From SwissInfo:

The 29th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, which starts on Tuesday, is due to decide on a resolution that would amend the movement’s statutes to include the new “red crystal” emblem and recognise the Palestinian Red Crescent Society….

The new emblem was approved by a majority of the 192 signatory states to the Geneva Conventions at a stormy diplomatic conference hosted by Switzerland in December. Twenty-seven mainly Muslim countries, including Syria, voted against and ten abstained. The crystal must now be approved by the full movement, which includes all the signatory states, the 183 national Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies and the international bodies of the Red Cross.

This means that in another fifty years, we’ll probably be reading about Red Crystal death camps in Africa. As always, you can count on an organization electing to abandon its Christian roots to eventually devote itself to the opposite of what the organization was founded to do. I’m just disappointed that they didn’t have the nerve to go all the way and announce the Red Pentagram, or the Red Head of Baphomet.

But hardly unexpected:

Newly elected leader of the U.S. Episcopal Church Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori said on Monday she believed homosexuality was no sin and homosexuals were created by God to love people of the same gender.

Jefferts Schori, bishop of the Diocese of Nevada, was elected on Sunday as the first woman leader of the 2.3 million-member Episcopal Church. the U.S. branch of the worldwide Anglican Communion. She will formally take office later this year….

It could also widen divisions with other Anglican communities, including the Church of England, which do not allow women bishops. In the worldwide Anglican church women are bishops only in Canada, the United States and New Zealand. The Robinson issue has been particularly criticized in Africa where the church has a growing membership and where homosexuality is often taboo.

I included that last paragraph to point out that Larry’s statement yesterday about how the worldwide Anglican church is growing in no way supports his argument against my statement that female leadership is the most obvious way to see that a church has contracted a fatal spiritual disease and is on the decline.

If you attend a church that features female pastors, I encourage you to look very closely at its emphasis. The vast majority of the time, you will find a constant pressure towards social activism and away from Scripture and the salvation message of Jesus Christ. If you find this to be true of your own church, I recommend that you abandon it and go in search of one that consists of believers rather than pretenders, prey and predators.

Given that Jesus Christ and the Apostle Paul both warned against false teachers, I have always been mystified that so few Christian churches make any effort to watch for such wolves in sheep’s clothing or expel them when they show themselves.

The Fraters have this interview on NARN up at their web site. I think my next visit with them will be in August.

Today’s column was much more the sort of column I wish I wrote more often. While it’s not the sort that generates much discussion or email, it’s the sort of thing that I actually enjoy doing as opposed to cranking them out on autopilot. I’ve been contemplating the notion of dropping the column and simply continuing with the blog lately, as whatever notion I had of becoming a columnist/author in the vein of [insert name of random WND columnist here] appears to have gone by the wayside.

Please don’t think I’m asking for pats on the back or Prozac-by-email here, it’s quite normal for me to get bored with things and move on after a few years. I am a dilettante, after all, not a journalist. I should probably mention that Mr. J. Farah and I are getting along fine, just last week he emailed me to bring to my attention a topic on which he would like me to write. (Although I think I may have to cram a Nazi analogy in there just for kicks….)

Anyhow, the column is approaching its fifth year this fall, and while it’s been an interesting experience, I don’t see that there’s really much more to be done with it that can’t be accomplished as easily via the blog. Sure, VD the random blogger is intrinsicly less interesting than Vox the WND columnist, but it’s clear that being a consistent #3 there is slightly less meaningful than being the #3 winger on my local soccer club. (We got promoted this year.)

I haven’t reached any conclusions yet, I’m simply musing aloud. Reading my column today made me realize how trivial many of my columns over the last three years have been and how a literate form of communication is increasingly irrelevant in a post-literate society. I like the old books and I enjoy seeing what lessons can be gleaned from them, but I am growing less and less concerned about the precise way in which the American people decide to destroy themselves.

Admittedly, to leap off history muttering “go on and fuck yourselves, then” doesn’t exactly have an F. Buckleyesque ring to it, but it does sound rather like something I might say.

Derb forgets that modern group socialization is relatively new:

That old Viennese witch doctor cast a long shadow. If I turn out wrong, it must be Mom and Dad’s fault! This cast of mind has influenced & distorted child development research for 60 years. Nowadays, however, there is a lot of counter-research, in which the influence of the home family environment, at any rate after age three, dwindles away almost (according to some researchers, anyway) to inconsequentiality. The big determinants of adult personality are (1) genes, and (2) group socialization. The home environment of the child comes in a distant third.

Probably the best thing we dads can do to give our kids a happy and useful adulthood is to make enough money that we can choose where to live, and then choose a district where our kids will be group-socialized to civilized bourgeois norms.

This strikes me as a shallow statement, given the way in which it assumes the sort of group socialization that only occurs when children are sent away to run around and learn about primate behavior in the temporary zoos known as “schools”. Given that parents control what sort of group socialization is permitted the child – and the admission that most parents choose the Lord of the Flies method doesn’t change the fact that they are choosing it – means that parental influence is absolutely vital even if Derb’s theory is true.

Now, I agree that parents do not establish personality. That is obvious to anyone who has ever observed an infant; it’s amazing to see how children demonstrate aspects of their personalities described by their mothers when they were still in the womb. But group socialization can only become dominant in those individuals permitted to spend the vast majority of their formative years in groups, an assertion so obvious it approaches a tautology.

The Episcopalians continue their hell-bent slide towards organizational suicide:

A woman was last night elected as the first female leader of the American branch of Anglicanism in a historic but divisive development that could hasten the break-up of the worldwide Church.

The Bishop of Nevada, the Rt Rev Katharine Jefferts Schori, who is a leading liberal on homosexuality, is the first women primate in the history of Anglicanism.

Her role as Presiding Bishop is the equivalent of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Her surprise election was greeted with whoops of joy by pro-women campaigners at the General Convention of the Episcopal Church, where she was chosen by her fellow bishops in four hours of voting.

The Episcopalians appear to be on step seven. It’s interesting to see how a church that rejects Biblical instructions in the smaller issues soon begins to reject them in the larger ones. It’s not an accident that churches which embrace homosexuals and women in leadership roles soon begin to deny the Resurrection and the Bible. The only thing I find confusing about the whole thing is why they bother to call themselves Christian, although perhaps the monetary incentive to claim the millions of dollars owned by the church is reason enough to take it over.

And while I’m sure one must exist somewhere, there isn’t a single church in my experience that has continued to grow once it decides that the Apostle Paul’s insistence on male leadership is merely societal tradition and therefore outmoded. From what I’ve seen, they soon begin doing stupid things that inevitably lead to a rapidly declining membership. Now, feel free to label me sexist and so forth if you like, but I’d like to see each such critic also name a single thing in which increased female involvement has proven to be demonstrably beneficial other than the tautological benefit of involving more women.

“What a historic moment for the church,” said the Rt. Rev. Cate Waynick, the bishop of Indianapolis. “What an omen for the church….

I can’t argue with that. And by omen, I mean Damian, you understand.