I was reading some comments on YouTube, in a Howard Zinn post. It was on American Exceptionalism. In the comments, someone posted, "I hope someday the world can read a true history of America." I have studied America. There was a quirp in Howard Zinn's statement, saying something to the effect, "The residents of Massachusetts, where the mayor at that time called it a city on a hill, went out and massacred the Pequot Indians." I've studied the major Indian wars. All of them. There was no colonists going out and massacring Indians. There were, for all intents and purposes, territorial disputes between tribes and colonists and Europeans, where all the factions would war among one another. There were probably Indian allies in the Massachusetts ranks. There were probably casualties on both sides. There were probably equally massacres committed by the Pequot Indians which led to the Colonists going out and attacking them. As, every Indian War went through this sequence of events. The Colonists would impede on Indian Territory, or have some economic sanction. The Indians would get pissed, and start killing Europeans. Then, the Europeans with their superior firepower would destroy the Indians. And, for all intents and purposes, war would happen, which in every war in history there is collateral damage. One would have to be against war in totality---even to ridiculous degrees---to censure the Indian Wars. Or, to believe they were somehow innocent. As, often, their response to theft was murder. And that is not justice. Rather, that is a felony being committed over a misdemeanor. With that being said, Howard Zinn was wrong. America is exceptional. But, there is one thing I will agree with him on. We have to be critical of our government. Otherwise, we will never know where we're failing, and never be able to build a better nation for the future. As what he said happened; a catastrophe, man made through the mismanagement of human resources, has occurred, where America lost her exceptionalism because she lost her freedom. However, if one wants a true history of America, I will work on it. I will tell the truth, to the best of my ability. And it will be obvious that Americans were in the right throughout most of history, up until about the era of Vietnam. Which, will not be surprising to me, because at about that era was the inducement of Free Love, Drug Abuse and Disobedience to Parents. And, it started the cycle of generational decline found in the Proverbs. To which, Gen Z are the generation that oppresses the poor, which in their unguided attempt to fix the problem, has only turned many to poverty and brought war to the streets of America. America is failing. Neifert, B. K.. The American Mythology, Book I. Kindle Direct Publishing, 2021. Text. Various Translators. King James Authorized Bible. Proverbs 30: 11 - 14. Bible Gateway. https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?qs_version=KJV&quicksearch=generation&begin=24&end=24. Web. Zinn, Howard. "The Myth of American Exceptionalism." MIT, 2005. YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6ym9B6I3UM. 2/17/22. Web.
A Dream I Had
I was lifted up in the Spirit, and two seraphim sung to me. I will not describe the seraphim, but they had six wings; but I saw their face and legs, and this I will not reveal, for it is a mystery. They sung the Cherubim hymn. The Cherubim are the majesty, the top order of the angels---not the second. The Cherubim are the four creatures seated at God's throne, given power and dominion over wisdom. The Seraphim are given power and dominion over love for God. They sung the Cherubim hymn in perfect Latin. Telling me to set aside my cares for this world. They kept repeating the line, "Let us set aside the cares for this life," saying "Nosotros" in the lyric. How do we fulfill this? Simply put, I think it's to ignore the worldly wisdom, the promise of gain, the promise of fortune, and the cares of this life. And it's to dwell on God and His Spirit. As the Cherubim mystically represent Wisdom---perhaps it is God telling me to discover and divine His wisdom, so I can help others set aside the cares of this life. Maybe, by teaching Christ, I will unburden them the yokesome weight of worldly success, worldly truth and worldly religion. How to unburden that? I do not know. It doesn't mean not to work. It doesn't mean not to care, or stop providing for your family. It means, rather, to lay aside the burden of worldly success---the dominion of Satan and the pressure to perform. It's to unburden and slacken the yoke this world lays upon us, telling us to pursue riches, fame, fortune, wealth, honor, glory and gold. Rather, to seek God's kingdom first, so we may receive Christ graciously, and be seen doing our priestly duties. Paul says, "He who does not work, does not eat." But, those who work simply to eat, or those who work for the approval of others, this is the world and all it represents. We who mystically represent the Cherubim reject these notions, and all sound wisdom do we implore. There is more. The world weighs on the soul a massive burden. It wishes us to accept sin, to rejoice in wrongdoing, to desire, covet, work fruitlessly and tirelessly on things material and vain. We ought to be satisfied in our lot, wherever we are. If poor, as poor. If rich, giving the poor their needs accordingly. If in between, sharing the burdens of the less fortunate. We who mystically represent the Cherubim, we are given salvation through the rejection and denial of this world. Not through accepting, or working in it. The famous like Jordan Peterson, Paul Washer, Ray Comfort---although some of them doing good work for the kingdom, and some utterly evil and steeped in wrongdoing---we ought not covet these worldly positions. Neither pope, nor president, nor lawyer, doctor, scholar, master or sage. Rather, we are to do our little works here, unburdening the weak from their burden and taxation put on them by the rich, who lord over them the wealth of nations, and tell them they are inferior minded for not having obtained such position and status. This is what we unburden from ourselves. Neither to be great men like Paul, or Jeremiah or King Saul, but to be within our means, taking the meagre bread we can afford with satisfaction, and as a Chinese proverb goes, "Happy belly, happy life." Neither fruitlessly pursuing food, but rather being provided with the manna from heaven, which is God's word. Let our bellies be filled with God's word, and our mouths filled with truth. And let this feed us, whether as farmers, carpenters, painters, electricians, plumbers, writers, pastors, theologians, doctors, lawyers, tax officials, servant or king. Let God's word feed us, and fill our mouths and bellies, so we can be filled with good, and not care for the things of this life, pursuing the empty vanity of worldly success, achievement, or notoriety. If a Pulitzer Prize, only for Jesus. And if none, for Jesus as well, so long as it ministers with wisdom. If a Super Bowl ring, only for Jesus---for He decides and decrees who wins these honors, if there is an honest sport. Rather, let us work in the honesty of our professions, whatever it is, so enjoyment and satisfaction can rain down upon us. Not for these things alone,---I speak foolishly, yet don't---but for the glory of the Kingdom in honesty, truth and meekness. What we do, we are given by God to be great Chess players, honest folk and workmen, bakers, butchers and smiths; craftsmen, piano players, fashioners of toys, games, and the great furnishings which we all enjoy. Yet, make these things rubbish, should they be taken away in an instance. Make them counted less than a filthy rag, to be thrown away, if in peril for the Kingdom. Lay down the burden of chasing these things... receive the bounty God has given, if through honest gain. Yet, never put these things so highly that you will cause others to lose their portions, their spoils, their success... for this is idolatry. To covet what is not yours, nor rightfully, even as a poor man,---lay aside the burden of this world. For there will always be poor, and many poor are honorable, never stealing, never backbiting, always gracious for their received gifts. And these, I tell you, have great portions awaiting them in the kingdom, greater than I or any other man, for having suffered needlessly in life. For they have given up everything, and are called Apostles, taken out of the world and given new names. Let us be like them, ready at a moment to lay aside the dust of gold for the kingdom of heaven. For, if our flight is now, we must lay aside even family and friends and allies if it means fleeing to a kingdom which is safer. For, Jeremiah spoke to Judah, saying, "Flee unto Babylon." Not because Babylon was better than their home, but because it was just, and thereby they would not be cruelly mistreated by their own brethren. Be ready to lay aside all cares, all burdens---super bowl rings, world cups, Pulitzer and Nobel prizes, Fame, Fortune, Grandmastery,---if these things come at the cost of covetousness. Lay them aside, if they come at the cost of sin and unburden yourself with the cares of this world. If one must sin to attain these paltry riches, then it is better to be the poor out on the street. If, by worldly measure, one must sin in order to be successful... then it is better to live like half the world and suffer a short time, than to live luxuriously and spend an eternity in hell. Yet, for all of this, remember America was good.
God’s Love
Love disciplines. Love does not sit idly, while someone puts themselves in danger. Or others. Sometimes, it is also loving to destroy. When we know God's love, it is not all forgiving, unless you repent. It is not all loving, unless you repent. God's enemies will not receive His love. They will receive the Sword as judgment, and the Worm shall eat into them for eternity, in the prison of hell. That is love. As, would God be loving, if He allowed evil to reign, and thereby create suffering for everyone? No one able to truly love, because we have redefined love as "No Rebuke"? The danger, of course, is that this current trend continues, and in God's wrath, He gives the nation over to its sin, like He did in Russia and China. And allow enormous suffering for a century, like He did in those nations. Which, only now are beginning to attain righteousness, and thereby receive some of their freedom. Righteousness exalts a nation. Sin destroys it. Would it be loving for God to allow the nations to suffer for seventy years, with no rest, no hope, hatred of the very things which make life good? Is that love? As Homosexuals hate good. They, by their very being, convince others to renounce healthy love, and thereby gain hedonistic pleasure. Love is but chemicals. Love is but a fleeting desire. Love is but the dirty filth created from sodomy and illicit sex. That is love. And true love, it is scorned, berated, falsely said to not exist. It is hated, women are taught to hate their husbands, and men are taught to be slaves to their wives' whim. And there can be no happiness. Ought God judge now? To remove the sin from us? Or, ought He succumb us to the sin, like a cancer, and we must bear the enormous pain for years on end without having it removed? For it is love which tells the patient, "Bear under this pain and burden, for your suffering is good and noble, the physicians will do nothing for it is not your choice"? Do any homosexuals wish to be so? Why not offer them redemption? Tell them they do not have to be what they are? They can be celibate, or even by miraculous grace have that abomination removed from their very DNA. The danger, of course, is accepting homosexuality as normal, and thereby destroying marriage, love, trust, childbearing... having false accusations of rape which make no man and no woman able to love one another, having disloyal and domineering women who make their male consorts slaves, and their families slaves to their lack of judgment. This is how the world was created by God. And given that men and women are built to follow God's law---because God is infinitely wise, and knows good better than we do ourselves---we can attain to true happiness by willingly following God's law. As, right now the world is miserable, on the brink of war; men and women are each other's enemies; races are warring amongst one another; nobody will forgive; theft, covetousness and lawlessness are abounding, for fools think these things are noble. And the danger, above all else, is that men are infinitely unhappy, and unwise, and cannot attain to true joy or satisfaction anymore on this Earth. Which is contrary to what the Earth was made for. Despite there being suffering for this world's being imperfect, let our suffering be a reminder of the things to come. And our joy made complete in the obedience to God's Law.
LGBTQAIS2+ Analysis
Essentially, take all the worst of humanity, and place it in a meaningless acronym. In this is racist, sexist, rationally phobic, abusive, contrary to natural law language. I could interpret it, but it only belongs to the individual. Thereby, the LGBTQAIS2+ and all other letters are delusional. They are fixed beliefs about reality that are verifiably false. Materially, Psychically, Physically, impossible to reconcile with any known truth. It is a fairytale, and not a very good one. It is not like Grimm Brothers, which discovers deep latent truths intrinsic about the human behavior. It is, rather, a truth unto itself, for the current generation, and constantly being redefined and riddled with contradictions. It is dangerous, because simply put, humans have two genders, and humans have bodies which are temples. It's pure evil. Slap a Swastika on it and it only gets slightly more pugnacious, as it deems Jews as simply another category of white people, and thereby wishes to silence the holocaust, and deny its racial significance. It is evil, consolidating corporations, government and large mobs of illiterate and unwise half scholars into an engine of state oppression attacking all normative truths found throughout human nature. It, rather, could be something entirely alien to our species, and likely is. It is like a UFO had landed, and placed these strange creatures on the earth, who don't recognize Gender Norms, nor Social Norms--- The question is, do we defeat them with reason? We must. Or, let them destroy civilization, and have the pieces picked up years later, when we recognize the great folly we entertained this century. They are dangerous, aberrant, contrary to all natural law and social norms, and are destroying liberty as we speak with figureheads such as Trudeau and Biden and Kamala Harris. Who will fight it? Russia? China? Must we lay off one shackle for another? Christians, I implore you to simply stand back and let nature take its course. It might be violent. There might be blood, but we ought not be the shedders of it. Great kings are appalled at the strange sight the West has taken. And we, as Christians, ought to submit meekly in the hope that our religion is given sanctuary by the next regime---should there even be one, and it not be the End Day Tribulation.
Purchase a Copy of My Books Here
Meditation on the Word Tattoo in Seamus Heaney’s “Place-Lore” Poem Broagh
It's easy to read this poem, and get a completely different viewpoint. It's almost entirely inescapable for me, living by the Susquehanna, to see something entirely wrong in the poem. Though, a neat little interpolation I drew from it... it wasn't correct. The fact remains, that I put question marks by the word "Tattoo". I didn't like it in the poem, and thought Heaney was just pandering to a sort of strange ethos. It seemed strangely placed, and it should have been my first clue to slow down, and look at the poem more carefully. As, the "Tattoo" was taking another denotation, that of a "drumming" and it was describing the rain. Many things I got correct. Such as the description of the Tillage, the time of year---because I'm from a rural area too, these sorts of questions come to my mind. Yet, many things I got wrong, such as "rig" which didn't mean boat, but meant the tillage. And also "Tattoo", which dubiously I thought was placed in the poem, and I had begun to think I was reading an amateur. I followed through with my investigation, not knowing that "docken" wasn't "dock" as that's Scottish, but was "docken" as in dandelion, thistle, stinkweed, milkweed and the such. I had interpreted half the poem, yet why didn't I use my literary pretension, to assume that "Tattoo" in this instance wasn't being used to represent what I commonly think, and then the rest of the poem as well. It's a trap, of course, Seamus placed in the poem. Probably one to pleasantly drive a reader like myself to this other interpolation. Not dubiously, would a skilled reader place question marks next to "Tattoo", yet a more skilled reader might try to find sense three or four of the word in Webster. Which, this brings one to a question, of the reader's aptitude. Had I gone with my better instincts, in being skeptical of the word "Tattoo" and not been tainted by instagram poetry where such things would unapologetically be thrown around... I may have gotten the right answer on a first draw through. The poem is using idiomatic expression from the locale of Broagh; its dialect. So, pad, rig, docken and tattoo are not portmanteau or expressions of boats. It should be obvious to anyone, knowing the river is too small, the Moyola river is too small to have boats or docks in it. Yet, none are clued into that, unless they take great offense at the word "tattoo" and are thereby questioning the very deceptive nature of the wording of the poem. Seamus is aware of this, too, as there is a pleasant little side trek one can go on without first knowing the true meaning of the word. Yet, it would assume that Seamus would use the word "Tattoo" and refer it to a footprint. Such a thing is of an inferior quality for a poet of such high caliber, and ought to be condescended to the local dialect, over one's own prejudices and word associations. (Unless, of course, Seamus was superbly skilled enough to dual wield a metaphor, and thereby allow negative capability so a lay reader can also enjoy the poem. To which, if the poem has negative capability, Seamus' mastery is all to forward to make the use of Second Person Figure, to say that this significant character's footprint is now tattooed into the soil of Broagh. But, one would have to interpret the rhubarb is what ends like the "gh" and not the rain; to which, I received a pleasant meditation on man's impact on the environment with farming, getting a sort of sense of how we, through this, are a part of the land and nature, too.) The poem was beautiful, and the tradition is called Dinnseanchas, or more appropriately simplified to, "Place-lore." It's creating a mythology for the place---the very specific locale. And all of that is fine, yet how do we get to the true interpretation of the poem? Obviously Seamus gets us there by placing a gaudy word like "tattoo" into the poem, to help us be skeptical of some of the word choice. To make us tread more carefully through the poem's use of seemingly obvious words. Because, after using the internet to search the river, it should be clear the river is not wide like the Susquehanna, but is rather what we would call around my parts a creek. There can't be docks and boats on it. Which, is why "tattoo", the specious word choice, becomes the most critical word in the poem, to help the reader doubt their first impressions on the poem's meaning. As the poem is not about the narrator's childhood, where he would place shoeprints in the tillage. As there's another carefully chosen word, an innocuous one, "You". The poem uses Second Person Figure. Therefore, the narrator is talking to someone other than himself. Which, the word "tattoo" ought to bring one to this subtle doubt of their own first impressions. The rabbit hole is quite pleasant, but it's not the true interpretation of the poem, which can only be rendered in such a way that "tattoo" is the word which brings us to doubt our first impressions. And if one places question marks next to the word, to question why Seamus would use such a base word, it is meant to bring one to that question, and to be answered by a rarer, and more beautiful and poetic denotation. Heaney, Seamus. Selected Poems 1966 - 1987. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1990. Twelfth Printing, 1999. Text. mrdgEnglish. 05 Broagh. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aykv6QCWaEc. 2/14/22. Web.
The Slave Bukowski
Another writer forced into the dubious nature of making a publisher rich. A slave to future publishers who made a fortune off of his writing, while he remained penniless. And what's worse, Bukowski celebrated this. If I thought he was a fool before, I now think him doubly the fool. If writing is like making love to a beautiful woman, and then getting paid, I call that same thing marriage. Which, he scorned. A song is playing, "A Little Bit of Sympathy." I will give him sympathy. The same censorship which left him destitute is the same idiocy that keeps me. I do not want a publisher making millions off of my work, while I lived scrounging for the bare minimum. I enjoy writing, I find wisdom in it... But I do not wish to make someone else rich. Unless, of course, I had already had my fair salary. Then I do not care what happens to my writing, if I got to eat from its fruits. How many writers does this happen to? Austen, Chatterton, Bukowski. The greatest insult is the generations later, who consume the books like a product, making publishers rich while the genius behind it hadn't made all but five hundred dollars. It's ridiculous. The most noble author is the one who gets paid for his genius. The most unfortunate author is the one who pays his publisher for his genius. It's better not to get published at all. Bukowski---I don't despise your writing. Only that you needed to be paid for your work. Not like a slave. Though, it's the wisdom of the Preacher in Ecclesiastes. A man compiles a whole lifetime for wisdom, and gives it to another man more righteous than himself. I hope to purify myself through Christ, so I can eat. But, you wrote wisely on the vanity of life, and had we been switched in time and space, we'd probably both have enjoyed our bounty. Your wisdom was that life is vanity. However, I have hope.
Disagreement
I had about an hour's long conversation about my philosophy of Logos with a friend. And I had noted the sensation of it turning into a debate. There was that antagonism, that shame, that hearty readiness for a rebuttal. I, then, listened. As what else could I do if someone were so adamant about their view. The topic was on Hebrews 11:1. Which in the KJV is interpreted as "The substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things unseen." In his translation it was, "The assurance of things hoped for, the conviction about things unseen." We got lost in the rabbit hole of Interlinear translations, to which I drew out my own interpretation, which is likely the most accurate with regard to the original Greek, "The understanding of things hoped for, and the exposing of things not seen." To which, Paul says not to quarrel about words. So, I simply laid out the evidence of God's existence. The Moral Law and the Fruit of the Spirit. As, these two go hand in hand. That we ought to minister, as Paul said, with power and not through man's reason. What is that power? It is kindness. Love. Patience. And if we obey those teachings---and others such as the Sabbath's Rest or to not Covet---we find ourselves happier. For that is the Logos, is God's word, as evidenced by the Great Sages who speak it through having found it by diligent search. It became clear to me that for a man to be a sage, he must have found God's word on his own. I had known this already, but I communicated it. Where he disagreed was in the sense that he interpreted what I had to say as "Reason". I do use reason, as firmly based on the evidence for the faith. The overwhelming evidence, but that reason is not something which a man can put under a microscope, nor scratch at with a scalpel. It is rather something that comes through understanding the meaning, and sense of the world around you. To which, in that meaning---the invisible evidence---we discover God's existence. He furthermore stated that one need assurance and conviction. I agreed wholeheartedly, yet what can a man stand on assuredly, without evidence? That is why Faith exposes what is unseen. It draws forth the hidden meanings and truths, which sensibly can be communicated and only a fool would refute it. This does not stop many men from being foolish. But, as the Founders of our Constitution felt, truth was self evident and established in God's Law. That God's Law was self evident---and on that framework, was our entire constitution framed. That truth is self evident. And surely it is, given that what we see from diverting from that truth is the pathways which directly cause suffering. That is why God is true, because we observe what is true, and see it firmly establishes the Law God laid down in the Holy Scripture. Which, if one reads the Holy Scripture scientifically, they neither find meaning or reason because they are looking to describe the miraculous with something mundane. Rather, the end of our conversation derived the true meaning of faith, which is in light of the overwhelming evidence that God is Who He claims in the Bible, we can rest assuredly that the things we do not understand---such as King Saul's Death, Noah's Flood or Adam and Eve in the Garden and the Tower of Babel---are sufficiently provided through the omnipotence of God's love. For without that Love firmly established and rooted in the truth, what would life be but despair and suffering?
Now or Then?
There is a great divide among literary theorists on whether we interpret a piece of literature in view of today's age, or we view it in the view of the past. Some silly ideas were posited that we can read a word in its modern denotation over its archaic denotation. But, I find that has a singular answer, that we ought to read a word within its original context. But, the idea persists, whether we read a work only as it relates in its historical context, or if we read a text as it relates to the modern age. And I think this is a question we ought to answer. The answer, of course, is that we do both. No work can properly be communicated unless we read it in view of today's age. Without our modern understanding, the works we read can have no significance whatsoever. Having no recourse to modern wisdom, modern ideas, our current environment, the works of the past mean nothing. As, I was reading Samuel Adam's essay, and I had realized quite immediately that the words resonated today as much as they did then. Yet, if one pedantically read the work as it was in the time period---they would say, "Well, these times were different." I'd say yes, they were. But, without a doubt, the words resonated with me in today's climate, as a defense of freedom in view of the declining Western Condition. That decline is into classism, tyranny, and a loss of mobility. And Samuel Adam's works resonated so strongly, that exactly what he wrote about then applies to today's age. The circumstances are different, yet the principles translate across time barriers. That, if the English can be understood, then there remains cross parallels between the past and present, which are inherent in communication. It's not a secret that this is how the Bible communicates its message. A lot of preachers go wrong by trying to study it purely within the historical context---and often they evade the obvious meaning by doing so. I've heard it done many times, people drawing what they think the story meant in the contemporary context, such as Jesus' parables or teachings. Yet, the stories are universally so, that it would be appalling to think that one would need that historical context to understand the Bible. People, for centuries, were without it, and the Bible communicated truth to billions of people independently of its historical age. With this, I think it's important we understand interpretation doesn't mean pedantic forays into the exact context and meaning, to cut off from it relevant meaning for today. It's imperative, often, that one brings with their interpretation some of their own knowledge, or else the knowledge cannot be assimilated within the modern framework. Equally, it's important to know and interpret the text exactly as it was read back in its age, as that, too, is itself an important context. That too draws wisdom, and historical insight. Therefore, reading ought to be dualistic, keeping both the past and the present in mind when analyzing a text for its significance. Various. The Constitution of the United States of America and Selected Writings of the Founding Fathers. "American Independence", by Samuel Adams, pp. 113 -125. Barnes and Noble, inc, Leather Bound Classics, 2012. Text.
Online Debate
It used to be something I did, was argue incessantly with Atheists on YouTube. And then I read the scripture, "They fast for strife and debate." I realized that was my fast. I was ministering to an audience, that---having made the mistake again---can only seethe with hatred and slander and abuse. Paul lists debate as a sin in Titus 3:9. And I realized apologetics is a useless field. The more we argue with nonbelievers, the more we show ourselves on their turf. The constant debates are sinful. When atheists ask for evidence, I have piles of it. I can literally write entire books on the evidence for God's existence. If they don't want to believe, they don't want to believe. It's not for a lack of evidence that these atheists lose their faith. It is a lack of faith. A lack of desire for God. An atheist posted a nasty little remark on a channel. I could have gone through the entire schloop. What would it have accomplished? Unless he were willing to learn---unless he had desire for God---there'd be no breaking through to him. Truthfully, what brings men to God is a life well lived. A life of obedience, and then the following joy. We can talk until we're blue in the face, but unless we minister with power---the power of the fruit of God's Spirit---we can never accomplish a persuading argument. What would happen? I would talk for hours with this person. Maybe even days. Every comment I'd sense his undying hatred. His quarrelsome spirit. The yoke of the burden of the conversation would hang over me. He, in his foolishness, would bring up some obscure point of nihilism. He just doesn't want to see the evidence. The evidence is that God's law works. It works better than our faulty understanding. A whole generation are taken away in their wickedness. They think all day on violence and lust. It is not curiosity, nor nobility that atheists start quarrels. It is merely their own hatred for your soul. The demon within them, which wants to destroy all peace. Quarrel not. Debate not. Nobody was won to the faith from an argument.