It’s Probably Nothing

The point of my last few posts appear to be lost on more a a few people. In consideration of my readers, I will stick with the example of Jesse Stone because I both enjoy the show, and I also think that it often has a deleterious effect on women’s psyches.

First: We all must agree that violence and sex are similar in that they can both have their place, but use outside of their respective places can cause great destruction. Defense of another or an innocent is almost always good, and outside of that it is usually evil. Likewise, sex in marriage is almost always good, but sex outside of marriage is nearly universally bad. So far, so good, right?

  • If the Jesse Stone character stopped solving murders, men and women would stop watching the show. It would have no purpose.
  • If he unrepentantly murdered a man every episode, and then continued on with his day (and the show in general), we would all stop watching Jesse Stone. We would recoil from the wrongness of it.
  • If he stopped shooting the bad guys men would stop watching the show, because men watch the show to vicariously right wrongs. Men want him to continue dispensing street justice when deserved. It would be a bummer if he quit.
  • If he stopped fornicating women would stop watching the show, because the draw of the show for women is reveling in such a man. Women want to vicariously sleep with Jesse Stone. What upsets women is that he doesn’t continue fornicating long enough to get married. (Catch that?)

If you don’t get understand these principles, then you don’t understand human nature, and you’re not educated enough to make good decisions about what you or others watch. Your eye is too dark, and so everything is darkness to you.

22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light. 23 But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!

A darkness so great that men come to me for advice after 20 years of marriage. That’s 20 (more) years of allowing their wives and daughters to soak up any manner of pleasure without guidance, without confrontation.  As long as it had an appropriate rating, or doesn’t use the word “fuck” in it, then it made it past their dim eyes, and their wives dim eyes. The darkness deepened. Then they show up on the doorsteps of the Men’s Sphere; heartbroken by the world, divorced form their wives, and discarded by their children; asking, “What happened? What did I do to deserve this?” The answer is, “Probably nothing.”

Jesse Stone is lawful. Downton Abbey is lawful. The NFL is lawful. All these things can be consumed for nourishment and the waste eliminated by the body.

8 Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth. And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know. But if any man love God, the same is known of him. As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) but to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse. But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak. 10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol’s temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols; 11 and through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? 12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. 13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.

A lot of us (including myself) allowed these things in because we were told they were okay; we were told we could trust Disney, and the rating system, and network television, and adult time slots. Implicitly, too, we were told we could trust the the rack behind the counter at the convenience store to contain the lust; that we could trust the neon XXX sign to corral the smut. We were told–even while we read and heard the Bible say that all are sinful and everyone’s heart is deceitful–that Mama is a good person; that girls are pretty because they’re good, and good because they’re pretty. And the truth is that, generally, men will admit that they are sinful; actually sinful; as in right now; as in not because of what they are even doing, but for what they want to do, but aren’t. Women won’t.

11 Now Abraham and Sarah were old and well stricken in age; and it ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women. 12 Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also? 13 And the Lord said unto Abraham, Wherefore did Sarah laugh, saying, Shall I of a surety bear a child, which am old? 14 Is any thing too hard for the Lord? At the time appointed I will return unto thee, according to the time of life, and Sarah shall have a son. 15 Then Sarah denied, saying, I laughed not; for she was afraid. And he said, Nay; but thou didst laugh.

Look again at 1 Corithians 8:10-13

10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol’s temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols; 11 and through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? 12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. 13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.

And then take a look at the devastation of divorces around you; divorces whose causes mirror the lust, dissatisfaction, and thrill-seeking in those shows. Why argue with me? I didn’t accuse any of you.

Advertisements

Jesse Bone: Women on Tap

The as-promised Jesse Stone analysis.

I first heard of the Jesse Stone series a couple years ago when they showed up on Netflix Instant. I tend to like the movies that Tom Selleck picks, and from that I deduced that I would probably like the sort of work produced by the sort of people that would pick Tom Selleck to star in their movie. While Magnum P.I. is his most famous, his cowboy roles are not far behind in popularity. Westerns are one of the few genres where conservative minds are still depicted in an unabashed manner. It’s a natural fit for the outdoorsy and Republican-voting NRA spokesman. So, on that recommendation I watched the first one, “Jesse Stone: Stone Cold”. It was sort of slow, and quite somber; which pretty much describes the whole series…or at least the first five. It’s also directed squarely at the kind of people who would be accused described as conservative-minded; particularly those who are middle-aged (or soon to be) and female.

Jesse Stone is a former Los Angeles homicide detective who takes a job as sheriff of a sleepy New England village. He does this because his wife started having an affair which culminated in her leaving him. In turn, Jesse began drinking heavily, even getting in trouble for doing so on the job. Though he ran away from that life he remains in daily contact with his ex-wife via nightly phone calls; usually with the handset in one hand, and two fingers of Johnnie Walker Red Label in the other. In between solving murder cases, shooting bad guys, talking to his ex, and getting blitzed on good booze, Jesse finds the time to bed a number of women; at a rate of about two per episode. They are all attractive women between 32-to-40 years of age, have their own careers, and are eager to jump in the sack with him. That never occurs later than their first date–if they make it that far.

From a marketing perspective it is very clever. For starters: They managed to combine ALL the conservative heroic career tropes into one character: wrongly disgraced former cop, current cop, cowboy from the wild west, even a Los Angeles noir vibe. The only thing missing is military service, but I’ll bet it’s in the backstory somewhere. As I said: clever. That conglomerated conservative hero outline suggests that a whole lot of thought when into making him as broadly appealing as possible.

Here’s where I think conservatives are confused (see: Sherlock-by-way-of-GKC “You see but you do not observe”): Can you tell me which of the romantic plotlines is meant to appeal to men, and which to women, and why?

The phonecalls with his ex-wife are mostly for the male viewers; men who want their women to appreciate them for who they are, what they’ve done, and what they’ve sacrificed. Granted, this pulls a bit on the heartstrings of women, because they’d really like their respective men to be this hung-up on them, and they believe they’d treat their men better. If you took this storyline out, men would be less satisfied with the show. Women could take it or leave it.

But female characters in the series take their turns on Jesse’s bone for the female viewers; who identify with and idolize the strong female character with a great figure, good career, and space in Jesse’s bed. It doesn’t bother the female audience at all that he’s had many women there; all that matters is that their avatar–the sexy empowered career woman–secures the chance to be the last one there. Men, I think, don’t care about the bed-hopping either way. You could take these parts out of the story and male viewers wouldn’t care at all. Women, however, would stop watching.

If you point out this female preference for illicit sex in film they will deny it all day long, and if that doesn’t silence you then prepare to be called: petty, judgmental, tyrannical, disproportionate, etc. If you were to do the same to a guy about Maxim magazine, he’d shrug, and say, “Yeah, you’re right, but I like boobs.”

The real truth about porn is that it’s not even “mostly” a men’s problem. I have read several times now that porn is “becoming” a problem for women because now they comprise 30% of the hardcore video porn consumers. So that’s…

  • 30% of hardcore video porn
  • 97% of porn literature (smut novels, etc.)
  • 97% of porn in R movies
  • 72% of porn in music (generally, guys don’t listen to female artists, but girls do listen to male artists)
  • 72% of porn in magazine racks (tabloids, Cosmo, Maxim, Redbook, etc.)
  • 2% of porn in adult magazine racks (Playboy, Penthouse, etc.)

I took off 3% for the gays. If we factor in who is creating and modeling all this porn, then the percentages only go up. All I’ve included is (reasonable guesses of) the consumer market.

The Deliciousness of Bad Eggs

There exists a context–pop/current culture–that is totally out of our control. If I examine a show as if it existed outside that context then I might say: “Hey, that show is fine.” In my opinion it is very stupid of conservatives to do this, and this is how they lose the culture war. It’s not a coincidence that every year Disney makes a movie about strong entitled princesses that either reject their father, or he is simply not around. It doesn’t matter to them either way, because the main point is to make movies that highlight strong females who do not need a father to succeed; that all their sins mistakes make them the beautiful heroines they were always meant to be.

I do not buy the line that women filter out the things we want them to filter out; the “bad eggs” as bad, for example. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard women say–of a pop hit they’re singing–,”Oh, I don’t pay attention to the words.” It’s a lie. It’s a flat-out lie, and they think they can sell it because they know men want to believe women are angels; that they don’t want dick; that they don’t think about sex; that they don’t linger on John Mayer’s much discussed sexual merits when they listen to his songs; that they don’t want to be the most beautiful and haughty princess who lives in a castle and has a potentially dangerous but ultimately harmless liaisons with foreign princes. Women don’t exist in a moral vacuum; waiting to be pulled towards or spared from bad eggs. They love them some bad eggs. (Which is why I detest the stupid idea that women like strong provider types, and that why they like bad boys is because they are actually displaying provider tendencies. My experience is they liked me bad.)

Re-purposed from this comment.

Are You Ready for Some Downton Abbey!

There arose, in the comments of my previous post, both a question about, and a defense of, Downton Abbey. So, why exactly have I banned Downton Abbey? Easy: For the same reason I banned pro football in my house.

Let me explain.

I have a friend who hates his job. It’s just above entry-level. It’s not exciting, challenging, or terribly rewarding. He works with (and for) a fist of women who are fat, gossipy slobs. To make it worse: His wife is a low-level executive at a major corporation. She is the bread-winner, and his income is rather superfluous. They use it to pay off their accumulated debt.

For years, every several months, my friend would ask me: “Hey, Cane, do you think you could get me on where you work?”

“Well, you’d have to have the skills I have. You need to get training.”

“Oh, ok.”

And then we’d go back to our beer and cigarettes and crack jokes, or maybe he’d start telling me a story which was ostensibly about the difficulties of raising children, but was actually about how his wife doesn’t contribute enough to that process. This is, of course, assuming he got permission to come hang out with me. [1]

This friend is certainly smart enough to do the work I do, and his logistical skills are better than mine. He could definitely do my job, but he won’t get the knowledge. This guy knows every name and statistic of every NFL starter, and has for the past 20 years, but he can’t be bothered to get a couple certifications that I could use to sell the rest of his experience. He spends hours every day watching sports broadcasts, watching sporting news[2], playing Madden, listening to sports radio in the car…

The common refrain is that he needs to man up, and it’s true. Yet, he’s already keenly aware of that. The mirror tells him this every day of his life. My saying it one more time won’t do anything but confirm him of the opinion that he’d better get used to the pain of being a lesser man. So, what could I do? One thing for sure: I knew the NFL wanted my friend in this state. They want his life devoted to professional football. They want his wife working to buy more crap to justify more Super Bowl commercials. They want him fantasizing and idolizing the life other men lead. So, I said, “To Hell with the NFL.”

1 Corinthians 8:1 Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth. And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know. But if any man love God, the same is known of him. As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) but to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse. But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak. 10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol’s temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols; 11 and through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? 12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. 13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.

To be clear: That’s my charity for my neighbor. Forgoing pro football is not an imperative for everyone who would be a Christian. It’s not the law. I’m not even recommending it.

Now that we’ve made a full circuit of my perspective you hopefully have a better idea of my perspective on the utility of entertainment, and how I judge what is good to consume. Taking this back to Downton Abbey, I wrote:

“[…] I put forward that the major dilemma of season one–Mary’s fornication and it’s, ah, resolution–was picked precisely because the one thing they [the producers of the show] knew all women can agree on is that banging a foreign prince and getting away with it is just too hot to ignore.”

To sum up the action under discussion: A Turkish noble visited the noble family in residence at the show’s title, and the eldest daughter (Mary) took him to her bed almost immediately after meeting him. That’s where he died. The women of the family conspire to hide it–not only from the public–, but the father and future suitors.

Of all the women on the show, Mary is the prettiest and the most broadly sympathetic for modern women. She’s mouthy, bored, and derisive of anything except what strikes her fancy. Because of the expense of television production, it is in the best interest of the producers to use their most enticing hook in the first season. They need to get viewers to commit to watch it every week so that the advertising companies will offer more money to run their ads around the show.

The hook is this: “Imagine being your beautiful entitled self, but in the past; back when clothes were more elegant; back when there were horses and castles; back when you could really earn a risky thrill by fornicating with the irresistible foreigner.”

The conspiracies of the women is a major theme of the show, and the first time we see fully see it is in the cover-up of Mary’s fornication. The argument has been made that what we need is more of this conspiratorial action by women; that a missing piece of today’s social puzzle is women pulling levers behind household thrones to machinate good works, and that Downton Abbey provides a pretty good template for how that works. It’s my opinion that to say such a thing is to admit to having fell for the ruse. Yes, women’s conspiracy and impudence can be put to very good use and is too often missing in the background of Christian affairs. Playing upon this truth is how they get the conservative-minded sort of folks who like a good period piece to accept it. This way they get the introverted and extroverted sluts hooked; all with Dad’s approval.

I don’t know about other households out there, but this is something to which the females of the Caldo family are remarkably susceptible. And it’s not a movie, but a series; something to which you have to make a commitment of many hours to watch and understand. Even if every episode after the first two seasons are gen-u-ine conservative hallmarks, I cannot forgive the deep cynicism used in those twelve episodes. More importantly: I’m not so stupid as to think it just flies right by my wife and daughters without whispering in their sinful and relatively undiscerning minds that they are missing out on some really good fucking and drama.

Before you start harrumphing that nearly every show worth watching has some form of perverted content in it, let me spare you: You’ve missed the point. What I ban is not based upon whether I agree with the actions of the characters, but whether I believe the show has a corrupting effect on the neighbors who live in my house. It very well could be the case that this doesn’t tempt your neighbors…but the fact that it’s a hit show–from Britain–speaks against that possibility…that and the fact that American women practice fornication almost universally.

[1] I adore his wife. She’s very sheep-y, and I believe would follow his lead if he took it. At least, that was true a few years ago. Now they’ve established patterns, and breaking patterns is painful even when it is helpful. Resetting mishealed bones is no work for sissies.

[2] Sports broadcasts and news are a double-whammy because cable/satellite is expensive. In the age of Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon Instant the only reason to have cable is for the sports. Very often one of the bills that send women to the office to act as other men’s wives is cable/satellite. It’s part of a larger cycle of pushing women to “produce” in the corporate fields so that they can be “better” consumers. Then, having developed a taste for consumption, feel compelled to “produce” to obtain and justify that consumption.

Matt Walsh Gets Bored and Blows Up Families

I took a trip over to Matt Walsh’s blog today. His most recent post is about the scourge of male adultery in the form of pornography. Actually, that’s not quite right. It’s a condemnation of married men as adulterers if they’ve ever used porn. What follows here is my comment there.

The most likely explanation for the author’s post is that the author struggles with porn use, and his heavy-handed attack here is an attempt to convince himself take his desire for porn more seriously; that–deep down–he isn’t one of Those Guys. And, it is heavy-handed to throw the word adultery out there when women are chomping at the bit to rule over their husbands–as the Bible says they are. Once they’ve got the adultery bit in their mouths grace and forgiveness are thrown completely off.

It’s very true that in many households the husband is illicitly storing highly explosive porn. He keeps it tucked away; that’s why we have to “catch” them using porn, like A Girl reported above[1]. He knows its wrong. He probably hates himself after he uses it. A single match like that can really scar a man.

Forget Fifty Shades of Grey. There are gallons of incendiary Downton Abbey, sticks of Cosmo, molotovs of Teen Mom; gases of Maroon 5, and bricks of The Housewives of Wherever…and they’re thrown causally around the house. Really, it’s stacked to the ceiling.

Here’s come Matt Walsh to throw the bomb of adultery into the house. When it goes up like Hiroshima, what will he say? “Well, that guy shouldn’t have had a drawer-ful of TNT. Serves him right!” Where is the word against the pro-snark, pro-loud, ungentle, envy-raising, emotional porn (Not just “trash”, but trash meant explicitly to titillate the sexual senses. I’m looking at you, Crawley dynasty) that FILLED the house that Matt threw the bomb of adultery into?

Not a peep, Matt?

[1]In the comments, someone calling themselves “A Girl” wrote about walking in on her father viewing porn. I left the following remark addressed to her:

You need to read your Bible before you get on the Internet and retell stories about your father.

<i>Genesis9: 20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: 21 and he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. 22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. 23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness. 24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. 25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. 26 And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. 27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.</i>

And it was so.

Harmful Risk Aversion: Example II

In Dalrock’s latest post, He Ruined the Surprise, we learn about Jenny. She’s a very typical smart-mouthed and vanity-crazed woman who is in dire need a of being told to sit-down, shut-up, and get to work. She divorced her husband because she was bored, and she’s bored because she’s been taught that she ought to be excited about everything; instead of being taught to bring excitement

10 Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest.

to everything she has to do

23 and whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men; 24 knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ.

including her husband.

Unfortunately, it didn’t take very long until the comments of Dalrock’s post were loused up with finger-wagging at the victimized husband and the pastor who tried to stand up for that husband, their congregation (which Jenny polluted with rumors, gossip, and divorce), and for Christ. You can’t do that and then wonder why pastors and husbands aren’t doing their job.

An Example of Harmful Risk-Aversion

In the comments of the previous post on why I will remain anonymous[1] SunshineMary asked:

Cane, I’m a little confused at the two things you are comparing. The liberal examples you gave are examples of corrupt cronyism. Why should conservatives emulate that?

Because if it’s not corrupt it’s not cronyism, and if we actually are correct, then it’s not corrupt. Let’s compare a couple of fictitious (but common) examples of what I’m talking about.

Libby Left Makes Good

Libby Left is in marketing, and pro-abortion. On Saturday she goes out to counter-protest a pro-life group picketing outside a Planned Parenthood. Enraged by their presence, Libby crosses the street to the pro-lifers to shout slurs directly in their faces. This is so invigorating to her that she completely loses her senses and begins to spit on them. A brawl ensues. The police and media are called, and Libby is among several arrested and makes the headlines of the local rags as the instigator.

Monday she returns to work, and Sindy–Libby’s boss–asks her all about the experience. Regretfully, for Sindy, public pressure mounts on their company, and she is forced to let Libby go for the sake of the company’s public image. Not only does Sindy give Libby a stellar recommendation, she calls a few friends for drinks and they find her a job at another marketing agency. A month later, no one remembers Libby was fired for acting like a barbarian, but the story of her arrest–spitting and all–makes her a hero at parties.

Connor Right Gets Isolated

Connor Right is a facilities manager for a chain of Christian bookstores. Saturday he and his wife participated in a pro-life protest against the opening of a new Planned Parenthood office in his city. While he was there, a crazed counter-protester raged at him for ten minutes; culminating when she purposefully splattered his wife’s face with the mucus her yelling had generated. Connor retaliates, and shoves her down onto the grass. The police, having been summoned, witness the spitting and Connor’s retort, and both he and the spitter are arrested. Connor makes bail, and the news.

The following Monday, Connor’s fellow church member and boss, Sinclair, has security meet Connor at the door. He is escorted off the property and told his belongings will be delivered to his house. Frantic for his family’s welfare, Connor calls his boss for an explanation. Sinclair simply says, “You can’t hit a girl, Connor.” He replies that he knows what he did was wrong, but Connor’s pleas only encourage his boss that he’s doing the right thing. Sinclair sums up his obligatory Christian charity with, “You should have known better. I’ll pray for you.”, and they never speak again.

Why?

In neither case did the involved party transgress the values of the associated groups, nor the relationships between themselves and their employers, nor the friendships. The difference is Sindy values Libby’s association, shared principles, and has no problem extending Libby mercy to re-cover from an error committed while upholding those principles.

Sinclair values his own sense of justice and order above all else; including Connor’s association and shared principles…and Connor’s family.[2] He abandons any actual charity or redemption for the appearance of holiness; that others will not think he is like Connor. More importantly: It’s really important to Sinclair that others don’t believe he is like Connor; whether he is or not, and whether they will think it or not simply because he helps Connor find a new job.

In this age, there is very little that can be done about the pressure the media puts on a company, and it’s not fair to shut down a whole company just to keep on one man (even for the sake of his family). Many of those other workers have families, too. But that’s not the issue. The problem isn’t that sometimes men get knocked down; it’s that conservatives don’t want to make it their business to help those men back up; not even those who are repentant. They offer nothing but wishes.

Further reading:

The Parable of the Good Samaritan

The Parable of the Wicked Servant

The Introduction to the Book of Job (specifically)

If the Jews had answered that question wrongly they might have lost all their after influence in human history. They might have sunk even down to the level of modern well educated society. For when once people have begun to believe that prosperity is the reward of virtue their next calamity is obvious. If prosperity is regarded as the reward of virtue it will be regarded as the symptom of virtue. Men will leave off the heavy task of making good men successful. They will adopt the easier task of making out successful men good. This, which has happened throughout modern commerce and journalism, is the ultimate Nemesis of the wicked optimism of the comforters of Job. If the Jews could be saved from it, the Book of Job saved them. The Book of Job is chiefly remarkable, as I have insisted throughout, for the fact that it does not end in a way that is conventionally satisfactory. Job is not told that his misfortunes were due to his sins or a part of any plan for his improvement.

But in the prologue we see Job tormented not because he was the worst of men, but because he was the best. It is the lesson of the whole work that man is most comforted by paradoxes. Here is the very darkest and strangest of the paradoxes; and it is by all human testimony the most reassuring. I need not suggest what a high and strange history awaited this paradox of the best man in the worst fortune. I need not say that in the freest and most philosophical sense there is one Old Testament figure who is truly a type; or say what is prefigured in the wounds of Job.

[1] I will say that I don’t fear being outed, or doxxed. This wasn’t always the case (I think I wrote about that incident somewhere before), but it’s ultimately in God’s hands. The point isn’t whether I have faith that God can or will preserve what He wants preserve, but how I do not believe we are actually willing to participate.

[2]That’s an important point because, generally speaking, those of the conservative mindset are more likely to be married and have children. A conservative, then, is objectively more valuable because he represents many more people than just himself. Sinclair’s arrogance is more valuable to him than 4.1 people!

Changing the Subject

Over the past couple days I’ve had some time to blog, but my shipping containers are on various trains of thought are all over the map. While they’re being re-routed, I still need to post something–anything–just to not let the habit of writing fully die.

Awhile back there was a lot of conversation about the merits of posting anonymously versus writing under your legitimate name. The reason I don’t is because I don’t want Cane Caldo to be a subject of conversation at work. If that happens I’ll eventually get fired. They’ll just stop hiring me; not because I did something wrong, but because I work with a lot of women who–after hearing about what a modernist can only interpret as misogyny–will express a vague unease about me; they just would feel more “coooomfortable, you know?”, with someone else. My direct managers will happily comply with a suitable replacement.

But, honestly, the issue is that we here are–for the most part–of the conservative bent of mind, and conservatives conserve nothing as much as grace and respect. They hoard it, really. Consequently, I have zero faith that any of you would or could find me another job.

Liberals don’t do this to each other. The ACORN employees who were responsible for destroying the entire organization went back to work the next day for the NAACP, or the Urban League, or some other association of like-minded folks; and with pats on the back for their bravery. Here’s what conservatives offer each other: “That sucks, but you screwed up, and you should have known this would happen.” Perhaps (if they’re feeling extra forgiving that day) they’ll tack on, “I’ll pray for you.”

I’ll pass.