Over at Thermidor, Nick B. Steves and PT Carlo sit down “to discuss the economic and social difficulties of family formation and patriarchy in the modern West.” Guess how much time is spent on actual problems couples with multiple young children encounter and win a prize.
If you guessed zero minutes and zero seconds, congratulations. You win a sense of dull resignation to the fact that these people just aren’t serious.
“Do you believe in soul mates?”
“No, only stupid people believe in soul mates.”
It was at that exact moment, dear reader, that I realized that within the bell curve of potential wives, she was several standard deviations above the mean. I proposed immediately.
Your hostess here at The Practical Conservative has likened belief in endlessly available IT jobs to the Native American Ghost Dance movement. Taking the metaphor a step further, Cloud Computing is the Hotchkiss Gun and the IT Ghost Dancers are about to experience their very own massacre at Wounded Knee.
Companies are moving to Google Cloud, Amazon Web Services and Microsoft Azure at a breakneck pace and they’re doing it to avoid having to spend money on IT operations. Americans with computer janitor jobs like sysadmin, DBA and network administrator are in the same place the Warsaw Pact’s teachers of Marxist-Leninism were in 1985. It may seem like a great field now, but give it a few years.
To repeat one of the themes of this site, a way of life isn’t sustainable unless your grandchildren will be both willing and able to live it.
Hrolf, whose name means wolf, believed in fairness. So did his boat crew. That’s why they were stroking their axes and glaring at the crews of Sven the long bearded and Ivar blood-hair. The plunder of the smoking monastery sat in a small pile between the three groups of men, and each seemed convinced that the others meant to cheat them. No one wanted to make the first move though, as that meant losing valuable men and no sane man wants to take to the sea in a half-crewed boat.
At length Hrolf spoke, “Sven will divide the spoil and put in in three bags. Ivar and I will choose a bag. Since Sven does not know which bag we will choose, he will divide it equally.”
Ambitious Goths were often named Theodoric, which means ruler of the people, and Theodoric was no exception. He watched the Roman army file slowly past the trees where his men were concealed with undisguised contempt. “The Romans drown in laws and schemes,” he thought, “their generals are politicians. But out here, we judge men on merit. We prove ourselves in battle and the best men rise.” He blew his horn and his steppe-warriors launched themselves at the unsuspecting Romans.
Centuries have passed. The name Hrolf became Rolf and eventually Rawls, who wrote about using a veil of ignorance to distribute goods fairly. Theodoric became Dietrich and then Thiel, who preaches meritocracy and funds enterprising men who disrupt the established order with the latest technology.
The Norse-Germanic peoples were not civilized before the arrival of Christianity, but knowledge of God’s law allowed us to impersonate civilized men with exceptional results. But now that most Norse-Germanic people are either unbelievers or antinomian, we’re seeing the instincts of the breed come back to the fore. Breeding tells in humans, just as it does in animals.
What are those instincts? A crude egalitarianism and sense of fairness that allowed hundreds of boat crews to form a great heathen army to plunder Wessex. A fondness for making laws combined with a discomfort at the use of the civil power to punish lawbreakers. A contempt for established social order and a willingness to upset it for a handful of coin.
Why is Sweden the rape capital of Europe? Why does England bristle with both security cameras and crime? Why are ancient communities being flooded with foreigners? What do you expect from Barbarians who have rejected the only civilizing force they have ever known.
I was sitting there, minding my own business when my wife, your hostess here at The Practical Conservative, said to me, “White Oppressor, we need to help people make more babies on the Internet.”
Amusing misunderstandings ensued, but eventually it became clear that she was talking about advocating pro-natalist policies. This seems like a noble goal, so here I am. Multiply and replenish the earth y’all.
A book review from
The White Oppressor T.W.O.
It was June 5th 1989, less than thirty-six hours after the historic “Beijing massacre”, when the People’s Army complied with the Chinese government’s order to roll the tanks down the Avenue of Eternal Peace and through Tiananmen Square, to clear all debris from the nation’s political heart, whatever the cost. I was in the student canteen at Hong Kong Baptist College, picking at my rice box, sitting across from one of my students. Mee Mee had just struggled through a final exam on a day when many of the students, still in shock, had stayed home, unable to think about schoolwork when their homeland’s future was hanging in the balance. We were discussing whether or not the college should postpone the remaining exams until the political crisis cooled.
About six weeks earlier, near the beginning of the forty-nine day student protest that ended in tragedy, four well-meaning students had come to my office trying to persuade me to cancel my classes in support of the democracy movement in China. They were quite surprised at my rather unorthodox response, and went away perplexed at the idea that there should be a Westerner, a U.S. citizen no less, and a teacher of religion and philosophy, who actually claimed not to believe in democracy! Until then, I had normally kept to myself the political ideas which had been brewing in my mind over the past ten or twelve years, since voicing them usually met with just such reactions of offence and disbelief.
But here was Mee Mee, her heart torn in two over the recent events in China, not knowing whom to support. Her parents thought the Chinese government was in the right; she disagreed, yet found it hard to accept the equally extreme belief of the recent tendency in Hong Kong to view democracy as the final answer to mankind’s political quest. I bared my heart to her, telling her how I have always been the sort of person who is naturally inclined to grasp his rights in the name of freedom and justice, and yet, how the results of such grasping rarely satisfy me. For if my struggle to defend my rights succeeds, I am often left with a strange sense of emptiness or guilt; and if it fails, I am left with bitterness at having been treated unfairly. As our conversation developed, I realized that what she was so interested in discussing, others might also find challenging in this time of crisis.
Thus begins Biblical Theocracy, the most important book on politics and Christianity since Augustine’s City of God. (You can read it online for free in poorly formatted HTML.)
This is my favorite passage:
If we wish to adopt a form of Christianity consistent with the Bible, then we must seriously consider whether or not we are perhaps being deceived by our society and culture-and perhaps also by our own human selfishness-when we preach democracy as the panacea for all political problems. Aside from offering the citizen certain legal rights, most versions of democracy tell us we have the power and authority to claim for ourselves certain “inalienable rights”, such as “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. Yet this is one of the greatest political lies ever told! Christianity is a religion of the cross, a religion whose founder taught that true life comes only to those who are willing to die [see e.g., Mat. 10:38-39; 16:24; cf. 1 Cor. 15:31]. Among other things, this means Christians are called to give up all rights: not just the basic right to “life”, but also rights such as “liberty” and “the pursuit of happiness”. For the Bible repeatedly says Christians are to be “slaves of Christ” [e.g., Eph. 6:6; Rom. 6:22] and are to endure all manner of suffering for the sake of a future glory [see e.g., Rom. 8:18; 1 Pet. 2:18-4:19; and Chapter Six below]. How, then, can a Christian defend a political system which encourages its citizens to stand up and defend their “basic human rights”?
How indeed? If you are wondering in what sense this is practical:
And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.
1 Samuel 8:18