Aesthetics Without Meaning — When Western Christians Play With Icons

If you become an Orthodox Christian, invariably people will excitedly tell you about their love of your Church with a kind of jealousy, hoping that you’ll approve. “My theology is more eastern than western!”, which apparently just means they don’t like rules. I’ve even met an Episcopalian who bragged to me that he was so Orthodox that he even believed in purgatory.

But all that is just the harmless quirk of belonging to the latest Christian fad. What bothers me more is when they — and I truly hate using this word — appropriate our aesthetics, butcher the meaning, and then assume we’ll admire their scant bit of interaction with us.

Like the Pentecostal megachurch pastor who went on a trip to Israel and bought a “Greek Orthodox stole” and wore it to church the next week. Or the relative who goes to Venice and says you would love the Church of San Marcos because of all the (stolen in brutal force) Byzantine art. Or the Catholic with the cartoonish icon of Jesus with his heart in his hand made from a gnostic group.

I don’t really get offended at things I can ignore, but on some level it is just a little annoying. The purpose in aesthetics is the meaning assigned to them. They don’t exist as an end in themselves. The distinctions in Orthodox Christianity that give rise to the name itself are not pretty pictures or cultural differences.

While symbols constantly change meaning based on context, to rob a religious symbol of all original meaning in a bland ecumenical gesture and then declare your Vatican II Catholic (or sodomite Episcopalian, or erotic Jesus Pentecostal) church is the same thing is rather insulting. We’re not disagreeing over ketchup and mustard. We’re disagreeing about the nature of reality and the way to heaven.

Assuming that I would find San Marcos interesting is an insult to me as an individual, because it assumes I only believe what I do because it looks pretty and not because I have integrity and truly believe in my beliefs.

Oddly enough, the Catholics’ warm gush of ecumenism and insistence that reunification is just around the corner is more disrespectful than if than if they just dismissively called us heretics. Though I suppose that’s half our fault for lying to them about it.

But sure, let the Catholics have icons. I don’t really care. In twenty years they’ll get bored and move on to something else.


More On The Morality Of Permission: School and Social Skills

I’ve been reading about unschooling the last few days. It’s a vein of homeschooling where you just let your kids do whatever.

Also, if you need me to tell you why public schools are child abuse, then this is the wrong blog for you. I’m assuming my readers already know. If the statement that public schools are child abuse offends you because “my wife is a teacher and she devotes her whole life to enriching young minds and is the backbone of this country”, then leave a comment in the comments section telling me how evil and ungrateful I am, because your opinion matters.

The big argument against homeschooling is that kids don’t get the right social development. While I have definitely met homeschoolers like that, it’s become less and less common as homeschooling becomes more common and co-ops flourish.

But even if it were true, that your homeschooled child will grow up to be a total social retard, is that any worse than what public schools will do to him?


Without going into a sob story about my childhood, I skipped over the social-emotional development phase from five to fifteen. This effectively made me autistic, and I would often say very offensive things with no awareness of it.

I had to spend high school and college learning social skills through observation and analysis. It was the greatest accomplishment in human history, and the world didn’t even notice. This experience has given me some unique insights.

1) Social skills are not an internally consistent set of rules. They are more like patterns. And different people will differ wildly on them. So you can’t really trust people to tell you when you’re being appropriate or not.

2) Most people have terrible social skills. They are only concerned with how others annoy them. They do not care how they annoy others. This is why most individuals in America would describe themselves as misanthropic, because most people you encounter are truly self-centered.

3) Most people value you solely for your entertainment value. They don’t see you as an end in yourself, and they would prefer that you see them as mere entertainment too. People are deathly afraid of vulnerability.

4) Being blunt and being tactless often look the same but are polar opposites. Most people confuse them.

4.5) People will forgive all kinds of flaws as long as you admit to them and try to be internally consistent. You don’t even have to apologize or say you’re wrong. If you’re always brutally honest (ie, blunt), eventually people will respect you for it.

5) People really resent kindness, gentleness, and politeness. They would rather you be gruff and rude so they can feel justified in hating you. If you are patient and forgiving with people, it will be met with resentment instead of gratitude.

All that may sound like common sense, but it’s really not.


In our society, we have a comic book narrative of history and society. We need a simple bad guy to overthrow.

It would be nice to say that the Morality of Permission comes from 13 years of being treated like a felon convict during what should be your most developmental years and that all this was planned out in a CEO’s office to make good worker drones in the 1920s.

But that’s too simple. Perhaps the origins of modern schooling has roots in that, but it’s not like every district superintendent in the country is on General Motors’s payroll.

Does the system create the psychopath or does the psychopath create the system? Perhaps both. A circle has no beginning.

People send their kids to school because it’s free daycare. The reality is that parents like the Morality of Permission that schools teach. It certainly makes parenting easier. And the parents themselves follow this morality. All of Western Christianity, at least today, is based on the Morality of Permission.

The Morality of Permission removes accountability. It’s the perfect marriage of Calvinism and Catholic indulgences. You’re told exactly what you have to do, and beyond that you’re free to do what you want. The authority has told them exactly what the rules are. Show up on time, and if you behave then you can watch television.

So it’s not just that kids spend 13 years in an artificial social environment with a karmic morality of carrot and stick. It’s that they exist in an entire society of carrot-stick morality. They learn it from their parents and churches. They learn it on television. They are told America is all about doing what you want.

Blaring your music outside the apartment building is a sacred right, because the landlord never told you you can’t. And anyone who asks you to turn it down is a blasphemer.


A lot of this stems with some extreme frustrations I have with my job, especially people blasting their music and even walking off and leaving it going and then telling on you to the manager when you turn it down, but I try not to talk about work here. I work four days of 12 hour shifts in a warehouse that has been well-described as a glorified fifth grade lunchroom.

My advice, both with work and life in general, is that you just have to tune out the world. Most people will be terrible. Most people are cowards who act tough. Most people love the Morality of Permission. A job is just a means of getting a paycheck, and getting angry at the people there is a sign that you’re trying to find meaning in the meaningless. If your boss wasn’t devoid of integrity on some level, then he wouldn’t have become your boss. So don’t take any of it too seriously or too personally.

And before you judge the psychos around you, take a look at yourself and figure out the ways in which you are a psycho to others. If we were all a little more considerate of others — that is to say, if we filtered the world through Jesus’s words to “treat others as you would want to be treated”, and as a general attitude instead of an absolute law — then the earth would truly be paradise.

What The Hell Is A White Supremacist?

I am a stereotypical loser neckbeard virgin obese gamer who lives in my mother’s basement because I’m bitter at how my ex-wife got better treatment in court. I am looking for an identity to provide meaning. This alt right white supremacist thing sounds like it could be worthwhile. Just one thing: What the hell is a white supremacist anyway?

Do white supremacists believe that all whites are superior to all non-whites on an individual level, or that the average white is better than the average non-white, or that the top 5% of whites in some metric (intelligence, creativity, morality, etc) are better than the top 5% of each non-white race in that same metric?

Is supremacy a statement of objective fact (ie, whites have committed a lot less war crimes and social oppression compared to other races give similar opportunities) or a recommendation for how the world should be governed?

Does it mean that the leaders of the world should be white (like the UN is) or that every white person should rule over non-whites?

Do white people have to be superior in every metric? Can we still be superior overall if the Chinese are better at chess? If we find out the Chinese have cheated on the exams, does that affect the world’s supremacy ratings?

If whites aren’t supreme, which race is the world’s best race, taking everything into account?

Is it okay for whites to be supreme at invention and exploration if we give the Asians supremacy at math and clarinet and give the blacks supremacy at farmwork?

Can I be a white supremacist and still look down on the Dutch? Are Greeks white?

I looked into several alt right websites, but exactly none of them explained this. Kek has failed us.


[The above is satire to point out the inherent meaninglessness of political insults. Obviously. White supremacists don’t exist. Even Andrew Anglin has said that on Jim Goad’s podcast. Even Hitler thought the Chinese and Japanese were superior to the Germans, because for some reason his opinion is still relevant almost a century later.]

Commentary on Harry Potter: Book Seven

Book One and Introduction; Book Two; Book Three; Book Four; Book Five; Book Six; Book Seven


Sucking it up and listening to Harry Potter 7. I’ve really been dreading it. I just know it’s going to be terrible.

The scene with Voldemort was a breath of fresh air. Then we switch to more mourning over Professor X. Frankly I don’t care about this character. They could have killed him with cancer in between books and explained it with a passing reference, and I wouldn’t have noticed.

Then more obnoxious Dursley drama, which just feels out of place the more serious the books have gotten. Yeah, yeah, white nationalists are stupid and incapable of human emotions. We know already. Maybe the Dursleys just wanted decency from their relatives. There’s no easy way to explain how the boy you raised turned into a transexual or a sodomite.

I’m told that there’s a lot of backstory on Professor X in this book. And the owl and (I’m assuming, but we’ll see) Hagrid just died. Again, Rowling misunderstands her own books. The reader only mourns a beloved character because he knows he won’t see the character for the rest of the series. Killing everyone off in the last book doesn’t have the same emotional pull as killing off a character in the middle.

And I can’t care about the owl, because she was never anything more than a prop. At no point did we see Harry play with her or use her for any magical purposes beyond delivering mail.

In the same way, having a bunch of backstory on Professor X post mortem hinders the reader from feeling the heaviness of the loss.

Four chapters so far, and it’s just dripping with smug nostalgia over the last six books. (I have a certain hatred of nostalgia.) This might actually be worse than the fourth book.


Scenes in Harry Potter 7 at the Borough. Now that Rowling has the reader committed, she can inject more bits of catty feminism. Ginny has a poster of an all-female soccer team that plays in the same league as the men. She also initiates the kiss with Harry, though we could chalk that up to the social nervousness of the average reader. (Most teenage boys only approach girls if they know the girl is already interested.) And she upsets her bigoted conservative aunt by wearing a low-cut dress.

Charlie says you know a dragon is female because they are much more vicious. I guess the male dragon is just a breeder drone, like the Muslim women Rowling adores so much.

Do you find it odd that there’s such an emphasis on souls in an otherwise secularized book? Rowling almost makes a kind of theology out of it. But then the wedding is officiated by a wizard who seems to be neither priest nor judge (since neither exist in this world). So what is he? If there is no religion, then who declares this a marriage? Why have a wedding at all? To whom are said vows made, and why must they be done in a public forum? Often in non-Christian societies, the girl just goes home with you and you call yourself married.

If there is no religion, then what is a soul? It seems to be something more than just chemicals from evolution.

Then Harry overhears all this dirt about Gandalf and is shocked to learn he was never told. Uh, yeah. Teachers usually aren’t best friends and close confidants with their students. It would be inappropriate for Gandalf to tell him all this history. But Harry is narcissistic enough to feel betrayed.

Then the antifa show up at the wedding and Luke, Han, and Leia have to disapperate into the heterosexual world. The straight men yell sexual come-ons at Hermoine, because they have no respect for lesbian exclusivism.

It makes no sense that Harry didn’t slit the throats of the three antifa he captured. If they are leaving the cafe, then it doesn’t make a difference that they are leaving a trace. This is just pandering to the reader’s soft emotionality.


Some 8 hours into Harry Potter 7. I’m just trying to get it out of the way. Luke, Han, and Leia are wandering around the death star disguised as storm troopers trying to find the locket that two people died in vain for solely because Harry and friends were too careless. Harry seems to get a lot of people killed, and his remorse never lasts very long.

This book has all the cliches. Impossible love between two people destined to be together (Harry and Ginny). Nazi youth camps (Hogwarts). Learning about your mentor’s secret past.

Does the polyjuice potion seem horribly unethical to you? Even if you use it for noble reasons, you could seriously ruin someone’s life. Much how Ron is about to have a woman killed because he took the form of a desperate man whom Hermoine made sick.

I looked up the name Hermoine. It comes from Greek mythology. So it’s like Ariel. A beautiful name forever ruined by a stupid children’s movie.


So Harry and Friends retrieve The One Ring from the Ministry and intend to destroy it. Why not just feed it to a dementor? Or call a priest? Meanwhile they feel it tugging on them, desperate to return to its master. Or something like that.

Then they steal some food and rationalize it by leaving money behind.

There seems to be a lot of “necessary evil” in these books. However, it is almost never addressed. A Series Of Unfortunate Events, in contrast, made it the central theme of the last half. If you grant that it may be necessary to bend morality slightly for the greater good, where do you draw that line? Because usually you fall into that pit very quickly.

I can’t figure out if “You Know Who” is bad grammar. I want to say it should be “You Know Whom”, but the relative pronoun takes the position of the subordinate clause.

Off topic, but I need to give credit where due. Rowling’s description of elves is unique and seems to hearken back to their Nordic mythological origins. Most fantasy writers just make the mythical creatures into a slight adaptation of Tolkien’s use. And Rowling’s invention of the elves’ morality is really interesting (a kind of radical Gilligan’s “ethics of care”). So kudos to Rowling for doing something original.


Harry Potter 7, still. Ron finally does us all a favor and disappears. Hermoine is weepy about it, but deep down she’s glad that the two adults in the group can finally get to work without Ron constantly whining and doing nothing. And for like three chapters it was perfect.

But then Ron comes back at the perfect wrong time and almost ruins everything. I really wish Rowling had killed him off in the first book. The series would have been far more tolerable. Harry is overly aggressive and Hermoine is overly cautious, so they balance really well. What does Ron contribute? I suppose his equivalent in A Series Of Unfortunate Events would be Mr Poe. But this is Harry Potter, and all that matters is your heart and not what you actually do.

When has Ron ever done anything right? Harry should trade him for that Neville kid. And really, this book would be far more interesting if Ginny ran away from Hogwarts and joined them.

One definite plus of this book is that Draco isn’t around to do annoying inconsequential things in a snarky tone.

Also, I saw a picture of Luna Lovegood from the movies. Not at all how I pictured her. I agree with the internet; Harry should have hooked up with her instead of the Asian girl.

And finally we find out that the invisibility cloak is more than a cheap plot device his dad bought. It’s more than magical. It’s divine and supernatural. So of course Gandalf entrusted it to an 11 year old.

Didn’t Harry have any grandparents or cousins hanging around who can explain this? It’s pretty rare for a family to entirely die out, as keeps happening in this book. Maybe that’s Rowling’s refugee-friendly death wish for Britain.

You’re telling me the deathly hallows is a collection of trinkets and not a gladiatorial arena in an abandoned field? Lame.


Harry Potter 7. Ron gets the radio working, and there’s a show called Potter Watch. The series’s moral universe has gone full narcissist. They even say that Harry’s instincts are usually correct.

The radio says “Keep faith.” Faith in what? Do you mean hope that things will get better? Or faith that Harry really is the Messiah?

Rowling needs to progress the plot, so she has Harry summon the storm troopers for no reason at all. Yeah, plunge the world into a thousand years of eternal darkness just so that you can have a teenage hissy fit. Realistically, I’m sure the three main characters won’t come to any harm.

For some reason the Malfoy Manor scene was really annoying and I had to keep running it back. Like almost physically painful. Maybe it’s just part of being at work after a very long weekend. Maybe it’s just the stupidity of the scene. Obviously we won’t have the big wizard duel until Harry collects all the trinkets. The scene just feels like an interruption, like all Draco scenes.

Didn’t I say in book two that Dobby would save Harry in a stupid deus ex machina twist? Anyway, so he dies in an act of forced emotions on Rowling’s part. And we have to cry over him for a chapter even though his character was defined by being annoying and stupid.


Rowling’s description of (((goblins))) sounds like an alt right meme. They’ve even got beady little eyes.

A wholly different race who has a history of being opposed to white people even though they lived in the same country. Griphook has a perverse, cruel sense of humor. The whites freely admit that sometimes in the past they didn’t treat the goblins right, but they still don’t trust them. Goblins are obsessed with treasure, run the banks, and have dubious merchant practices.

Yeah, nothing anti-Semitic about that. At least it’s less offensive than her description of elves as happy, loyal house niggers.


Scene in Harry Potter and The Meandering Plot where they break into the bank. The moral issues with all of that aren’t worth commenting on beyond just that they happened. If someone got killed because of the way he deceived people (or let a dragon go free), then the books might have a little more integrity. However, you’re going to break a few eggs when you’re punching Nazis.

As always, the plot is super disjointed. Wasn’t there a whole thing where they were living in the Black Mansion and learned to appreciate the house elf? I felt like Creature’s character was really becoming interesting. Sympathetic, even. He’s like Snape; every time Rowling starts to show a little depth in her writing, she immediately nips it in the bud because her fans like easy, first-grade level stories about Captain America and Red Skull.

Then we get the Hogwarts scene. More untimely villains. More ally nostalgia. Even Percy shows up. I suppose if my parents named me Percy, I’d think they were idiots too.

Apparently the ministry is openly pro-Voldemort now instead of just covertly. How the mechanics of the British wizarding government works, Rowling never explains. This series is a good explanation of why women shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

It’s odd how they’ve never used transfiguration spells outside class. I guess that’s the Algebra of wizard school. A worthless subject taught by a frumpy old woman who could never find a man.

On this snarky comment, it’s worth commenting on the weird anti-family theme throughout. Almost nobody in this story breeds. Families die out. Significant lines are usually traced through the mother’s side. People feel an ancestral connection to the founder of their Hogwarts house. The only family that meets the replacement rate is the Weasleys, who are dirt broke. They need to import some Muslims. A genie would be a cool magical creature.

And finally the Hogwarts battle. In other words, a school shooting. Who wants to bet Rowling supports gun control? Or should I say, fun control?

Ron speaking a word of parcel tongue is the absolute dumbest plot hack in the series so far (I’m sure the ending will be worse). Even dumber than in #3 when Harry sneaks to the village and no one recognizes him because it’s so crowded.

Anyway, somehow I knew it wouldn’t matter if they lost the sword. Consequences don’t matter in this world. It was still crappy of Harry to give it away so casually, but he’s gotten everything for free so far, so of course he doesn’t know the value of things.


The scene where Harry looks into Snape’s memory was all kinds of retarded.

The weird outcast geek gets friendzoned by the hot popular girl who later marries the vapid athlete. Nothing Rowling’s fans can’t relate to. And of course Snape is so painfully beta that he devotes his life to protecting the kid she had with his bully. I’ve lost all sympathy for this character. I absolutely HATE males like this far more than I hate any woman.

Then it’s revealed that — Surprise! — Dumbledore asked Snape to euthanize him. Another stupid twist, but at this point I’m more angry at Rowling’s fans than I am at her. I’m also angry at all my friends who told me I can’t judge these books until I sit through 119 hours of it.

Here’s what wrong with this (and the other) twists. It’s not clues along the way that make you realize it was true all along, like a mystery novel. It’s just a step short of going back and changing what actually happened, George Lucas style. It feels like the writer is lying to us. Or that she wrote herself into a corner. Or that it could have turned out several ways.

Overall, it feels like a soap opera. A big reveal out of left field that we didn’t need. It’s a cheap way to get the reader emotionally connected. And you lot fell for it and bought all her stupid jelly beans and movies and Halloween costumes. You made her into this generation’s Shakespeare. She should have faded into obscurity after the third book, but you kept buying them because you were so dissatisfied with your lives that you need to escape into the fantasy world. You never learned to be satisfied with what you got in this world here and now, and you taught your kids to do the same.

I’ve got another two hours or so. Harry has just started walking to his death. Another soap opera emotional hack that shouldn’t have been written. And you can just feel the Jesus overtones. It’ll probably relate to the “Where your heart is, there your treasure will be also” quoted earlier so out of context it was blasphemous. Anglicans…

bad storytelling


Finally finished with Harry Potter. Well, that was garbage. I suppose I need to write something about the ending before giving my concluding thoughts.

Having an anti-climactic ending where the hero nobly walks to his death can work in the right story, but we’ve had seven books of build-up about the final battle, culminating in the dark wizard getting an unbeatable wand. While sacrifice is a constant theme in the books, this is a reversal of character. Like Quirrell melting in the first book, Rowling has written her character in the corner and needed a way to get him out. Harry is supposed to be a gifted wizard, yet he uses none of those skills in defeating Voldemort. Dumbledore’s and Harry’s explanations at the end is confusing as always, but I’m sure there’s a logical consistency if I were to take long enough to think about it. I ended out going on Wikipedia. Did Voldemort know Harry was a horcrux? It also undercuts all the previous times Harry was in mortal danger.

Did at any point Harry do a super powerful spell? Did Harry ever use his ability to talk to snakes or fly on a broom in meaningful way? No, he just stumbled into several happy accidents and overly convoluted traps. In some sense, this story is more about Voldemort than it is about Harry, at least in the last few books. Harry more and more just seems like an innocent bystander.

As I said before, this is not a story about magic or high school. It’s a story about a boy coming to terms with the loss of a childhood, and defeating the dark wizard is the setting. Well, he didn’t defeat the dark wizard. He just walked in like Aslan twice in a kind of weird double ending.

This story could have ended an hour earlier when Dumbledore meets Harry in the afterlife (when I wrote most of this post), and very little would have changed. Perhaps if Harry would have stayed dead, it would have reinforced that doing the right thing always has a cost. Instead, Harry comes back to life through good luck and several carefully placed impossible contingencies.

But also, this doesn’t bring him to accept the loss of his family and a wish to create a new one. Instead, it solidifies that for the rest of ever he will be defined by that childhood loss. Going to his death is a stoic action for the unnamed masses, not something done for those whom he loves. As he’s walking there, he doesn’t think, “I’m doing this so that the Weasleys can have a peaceful life.” Even in sacrifice, he’s thinking about himself. Noble, yes, but still self-focused.

As for the effect on the reader, it teaches kids that you can be impulsive and stubborn and everything will work out fine anyway. It teaches that virtue is something inherent and not something that has to be worked hard for. It teaches that morality is simple and that you should follow your intuition. Good and Bad are teams and not actions or attitudes. The most powerful force in the world isn’t faith or patience or kindness, but a generic animalistic love, which seems to be defined as loyalty to your friends. It is a worldly definition of love. Harry doesn’t seem to have any love or patience for his uncle’s family or Draco or Snape, and the reader isn’t expected to either. Bellatrix loves Voldemort though and even died for him.

Above all, it teaches that the reward for virtue is the applause and adoration of the masses, instead of virtue being the reward itself.

The world of Harry Potter is a Christ-less Christianity. There is an afterlife, and there is love and sacrifice and virtue. But the end of it all is friendship, not glorifying your Creator and becoming that which you were created to be. A heaven without God is hell. Rowling neglected to write in an Aslan.


Book One and Introduction; Book Two; Book Three; Book Four; Book Five; Book Six; Book Seven

The Future Will Judge Us, And I Will Be Innocent

It’s easy to look back on history and ask why our heroes were so complacent. Why did Washington and Jefferson own slaves despite condemning the practice? Why did the God-Emperor Franklin Roosevelt concentrate the Japanese into camps? Why did Lyndon Johnson drag us into Vietnam despite being such a supporter of civil rights?

You cannot transpose your trendy ideology in fashion for the first time in human existence onto history, as though it’s fan fiction or, worse, hagiography. Your historical heroes are not comic book characters. None of us are independent thinkers. We are all products of our time, and believe it or not, St John Chrysostom was a racist.

While it’s difficult to understand how hard it is for power figures to enforce what is right, it is also true that only future generations can judge us. Why did we let our birth rate collapse through birth control and make-work careers? Why did we import the fecal runoff of the third world and ostracize anyone who is hesitant about it? Why did we oppose Trump because he gave us a vague, unidentifiable feeling of heartlessness? Why did we give credibility to the Jewish media and academia while also claiming both had been entirely corrupted?

They will grill us with these questions in the same way we demand why our ancestors did not oppose slavery and segregation and scrip-wage mining towns and that prison in Auburn, New York. They will ask us why those in upstate New York enslaved themselves to those in downstate and why so many parents coerced their kids into debt slavery through the college system and how we could claim to be rebellious while also following everything the mainstream media told us to believe.

Perhaps I’ll die in a ditch like Ira Hayes, but I’ll be able to tell these hypothetical future generations that I did my best. I always shamed sluts, fat people, and “””Christians””” who use the term “Judeo-Christian values”. I didn’t let empty scare words like “racist” intimidate me. I did my best to model masculine behavior for the world to observe. I let the world know that single mothers are trash. I made fun of liberals instead of taking them seriously. Anyone who said I sounded like a Nazi, I accused them of voting for Hillary Clinton. I did my best. I kept my integrity. And that’s worth more than all the positive affirmation that the sycophants at the street corner megachurch can offer.

The catty liberals and academics in Los Angeles and Manhattan (ie, Sodom and Gomorrah) will think middle America are inbred racist deplorables no matter what, so we might as well refuse to play their game and not defend against whatever terms they throw at us. I don’t recognize the categories of “racism” or “fascism” (beyond 1920s-1940s Italy) or “bigotry”, so I don’t bother explaining whether or not I fall into them.

And then wave the REBEL flag to antagonize them further. The best method of revenge is using their own delicate sensibilities to torture them. And that’s the true meaning of Donald Trump, like a Charlie Brown holiday special.

One day our children will ask how we could have let the blacks and the browns terrorize and outbreed us into either a hot race war or just voting us out of existence. And then we won’t look so progressive and enlightened anymore than secular-progressive Thomas Jefferson did with his mulatto children he disowned.

The good news, however, is that atheists and liberals take birth control like it’s the Eucharist, so they won’t be around much longer.

Deus vult.

Charlie Brown Halloween; Hating Teenagers at the Mall

I saw the Halloween Charlie Brown special for the first time. I really wish cartoons still had that kind of animation and music.

As always, Lucy and Linus van Pelt exemplify the worst traits of the Germanic race. Narcissistic and idealistic without direction. They are convinced they are special and absolutely right and try to recruit everyone else to their way of thinking with emotional manipulation. Though I suppose one could make the same statement about me…

So I went to the mall to look at the Charlie Brown Halloween stuff at Hallmark. Normally Hallmark epitomizes whatever season it is, and I’ve always wanted to work there. This year, however, they have skipped right over Thanksgiving and are already to Christmas. Not a Great Pumpkin in sight.

Walking through the mall, I was struck by how young and beautiful the teenagers are. I hate them. More out of petty jealousy than anything. I have to remind myself how truly miserable teenagers actually are.

To quote Bojack Horseman, “He’s so stupid he doesn’t know how miserable he should be. I envy that.”

I’m not even 30. How did I get so old? I was never even young.

Reformation Sunday

Today is Reformation Sunday, which commemorates the beginning of church history. And this year is the 500th anniversary of the Germans’ first experiment at burning down Europe. In the process, literacy reached the proletariat and the Bible was made available in mass market paperback. So far no one has ever read the thing.

Supposedly Jesus’s best friends were the kind of people who would offer your kids drugs, and God only gets angry at the kind of people you don’t like. The Protestant Reformation was clearly a success.

Instead of having sex with children like celibate Catholic priests, protestant pastors are allowed to get married and have an affair with the church secretary. Anything beautiful or requiring careful reflection was replaced with tavern music. The church fathers were replaced with Martin Luther’s actions (though never his actual beliefs) and the Westminster Confession, and these are treated almost infallible in themselves. Repentance is more about admitting you are guilty than actually, like, repenting, and you shouldn’t expect to have any social consequences for what you did. As long as you made an emotional impulsive decision as a child, you will go to heaven even if you don’t want to. Jesus only declares you righteous, so there’s no need to actually live righteously.

In their quest to discover the true meaning of the Bible, the reformers glossed over what Jesus said about casting out one demon and replacing it with seven, because it’s not in Romans. Protestantism is just Catholic theology with corn syrup instead of refined sugar.