Or, what I learned from G.K. Chesterton
There has been a great deal of discussion had in recent times over the role of the sexes. Outlining the origins of this modern phenomenon, and even giving a brief review of its history would fill volumes, and is not the purpose for which I write today. I write instead, to reply to one particular critique of the progressive view of sexuality commonly voiced by the traditionalist position. The claim is as follows: that mankind is, of necessity, sexual, and patriarchal; that violation of this natural law is inevitably a cursed and historically unsuccessful enterprise. Appeal to nature and reason has been the echo of conservative thought throughout free societies, from the earliest Greeks to the AM radio hosts of the last decades. It is a perfectly unassailable position, and I will not for a moment suggest that it is anything but factual, and logical. However, it does not address the problem at hand.
What we face, in the present debate, is not the role of men and women, or the mutability of sex, or the existence of an ephemeral ‘gender’ outside of biology. These are all red herrings to the core issue, exceptionally distracting enticements to lure the champion of reason away from his true foe. It is the case, that one must do away with humanity itself if one is to do away with patriarchy, but this does not end the debate in the slightest, it merely sets the stage for it. It is not the goal of the progressive humanists to merely settle some political or social debate over how to treat certain classes, or to erect the weighty pyramid of an egalitarian state over the heads of all mankind to execute their moral vision and all who dissent (although this they would be perfectly happy with as a start). Rather, what they seek is exactly phrased in that former criticism. They desire to leave humanity behind, with all of it’s ugly sorrows, tears, torments, and limitation. They are suicidal in this way, seeking to eradicate life itself, but desirous of keeping all it’s pleasures, and a million more not yet imagined. They were offered the Divine breath, and blew it out, left to choke on the aftertaste. The authors of science fiction have foreseen this particular mind virus as one of the end-states of consciousness itself. Conscience is a weighty, and troublesome organ. I don’t place much weight in the capability of mere Darwinism to perform addition, but it most certainly is ruthlessly efficient at subtraction. The hydra, not a bad ‘spirit animal’ for the progressive, is I think the most progressive of all animal species. It digests it’s own brain when it is no longer required for locomotion. It can, within the course not of generations, but its own short lifetime, perform a feat of evolution that would make the most ardent revolutionary blush in it’s efficiency to ‘dismantle’ the old system that commanded it’s motor cells to move in ways in which they had no vote!
It is my position, that the project of the post-moderns is the digestion of the human soul! - as an organ not needed (and quite pesky) for the pleasures of sedentary hedonism. And this is not a new project. It has been a central theme in the human plot-line since the Tower of Babel, well understood already by the authors of that sacred tale. To borrow from medieval wisdom, the devil corrupted man in the first place to build a stairway back to heaven, and it seems his chief project since that time has been first the erection of a stairway to hell...
A man’s spirit may come from God, but his soul, that he gets from his mother. Society may be patriarchal, but the home, in it’s essence, is feminine. I do not believe that a conscious conspiracy has been mounted in the last two centuries to exhale the breath of life, no human project could be as efficient in so doing as the progressives have been. Rather it seems that those who clamor for change are likely to get it, but the metamorphosis will be strangely savage, brutal, and cruel. A little mermaid may grow legs and walk on land, but will lose her voice, and still never be human. Chesterton had it right, that fairy tales are the most savory truth. Merely supplying energy to the wheels of Darwin produces not forward progress, but ugly and multitudinous mutation. If dinosaurs thrived in the Jurassic Age, it seems the chief mutation that thrives in the Soft and Pointless Age is the nettling nasal whine of a man-hating professor of this or that made-up-ology. It has been my prime goal to demonstrate to the reader however, than the content of this whine does not illustrate the aim of the mutation. It exists to distract potential adversaries from noticing it’s existence, like a stick bug stealthily moving along a branch directly under the toes of a hungry swallow. Every day spent debating the physical definition of the metaphysical concept of ‘woman’ is a day in the pocket of those who insist on the nonexistence of the metaphysical! Just as fundamentalist Creationism did more to help the materialists than Darwinism ever did, by surrendering the issue of the primacy of the empirical world to debate which empirical world was primary, so too the defenders of ‘scientific’ definition of the sexes miss the entire point that the scientific world is mutable! True, today we may only have aesthetic transitions available for one who wishes to change sex, but this is a fact of technology, not science. We have already demonstrated entirely artificial biology, in the form of biological robots. Artificial wombs do not yet exist, not because they can never exist, but because we have not yet figured out how to make them. But we will. We have not yet managed to manufacture fully functional genitals for implantation. But we will. We have not yet eliminated scarcity from the world. But we will. We will do all of these things, not by perfecting humans, but through replacing them. The god of Convenience is the cruelest of gods because he demands the dearest of sacrifices, but little children are inconvenient anyway…
I shall close this brief rant with instructions on what to do, as crying does no good in ameliorating a hard fall if we do not stand back to our feet. Firstly, the primary issue being one of human life vs. machine; the true enemy of anti-human humanism is not the man who spends his days reading and writing for machines (and I realize the irony of this statement for my own sake), consumed in the debate over this or that idiot-ology, but the man who plants his own two feet on grass covered earth; bears the pain and discomfort of real life, rather than avoiding it with medications, addictions, and amusements; and lastly, but most important of all, prays to God to save his soul every day from the Man-hating monster of comfort, convenience, and satiety. It is the woman, who chooses not to live a life working for the machine of corporation, progress, and industry; but instead, gives the gift of a human soul to her children; teaches them what only a woman can, to love; leads their stumbling feet on the path to goodness, and picks them up when they fall. The simple truth is simple. Monosyllabic - not requiring training or pedagogy - that God is in heaven, and you are on the earth. Suicide of the modern kind serves not to make this world heaven, but to sever it forever from the universe in which there is a heaven, hoping to avoid the pit of hell. But what is hell, but a place outside all that can be good? Severed forever from the beating heart of nature and nature’s God? Free to have any pleasure that can be thought by the most imaginative mind ever to exist, so long as it cannot be felt by a human heart…
Комментарии