From Ann B I read an Ol’ Remus piece over at AmericanDigest.org which was originally posted at dear friend o’ the blog from way back, Fran Poretto’s place, Liberty’s Torch. The piece is written as an open letter to blacks, and the Remus prose is incomparable, as usual, but I find myself in stern disagreement with the premise. The premise is summed up here in the final paragraph:
"So here’s the deal. If you want to know what we really think of you, the answer is we don’t, unless you’re making yourself unavoidable or we’re cleaning up your latest mess. We can safely rely on you to make astonishingly irresponsible choices and blame us for the consequences. And you’ll demand we make good on them for you. We won’t take a chance on your sincerity ever again. Take it somewhere else, you have no credibility left with us. You’re a net liability, predictable to the point of surety. So we attend to our own lives and our own problems. It’s as it should be. We recommend it. As for you, frankly my dear, we don’t give a damn."
Oh, it sounds so deliciously tempting, doesn’t it? But the terrifying truth is summed up in one of the top-5 scariest things Our Lord said in the gospels: to whom much is given, much will be required. You see, people of intelligence and morality are supposed to step up and provide leadership in society, a very large component of which is the application of justice and medicinal punishment. Do you remember just a few decades ago when the local judge was considered to be a leader in the community, a man of intelligence and MORALITY? And he was one of the highest-paid men in town, but he deserved it not only because he was highly educated in the law, but also because he held the lives of other men, and by extension the community as a whole, in his hands, and that heavy burden was worthy of a high wage.
One of the rotten, stinking fruits of this post-modern, post-Christian culture is the near-total suppression of the sense of duty. This is a result of two things, first the satanic inversion of Christianity into a pagan cult revolving around the antipode of charity: indifference. Indifference utterly eliminates any sense of duty, much less the love of it, because duty, by definition, looks outside of the self. The utterly self-absorbed man rejects all notions of duty to anyone and anything except his own worldly pleasure. We see this on the macro level, as articulated by Ol’ Remus above, and on the micro level when black men, as an example, dispense themselves of any duty toward their women and children. Why do black men abandon their own women and children? Bluntly, because they do not love them, more specifically they are completely indifferent to them. All they care about is their own sexual pleasure.
The man devoid of charity convinces himself that his indifference is itself virtuous, and thus not only is his dereliction of duty towards others, from the broad society all the way down to his friends and family, not only NOT sinful, it is a proof set of his moral superiority. To wit, Remus above.
It can be summed up as, “My treatment of others is only sinful if I care. So long as I don’t care about the other person or people, I cannot sin against them, nor do I have any duty toward them.”
The second reason that the sense of duty has been suppressed is another post-Christian, post-modern phenomenon, anti-intellectualism. Those of us who are riding the Bell Curve multiple standard deviations forward have been shamed into not just silence, but a suicidal desire to cede our duties of leadership in society to the very people that require our leadership. Did you just cringe when you read the first clause in the last sentence? Did you just cringe when I said, using the first person plural, “Those of us who are riding the Bell Curve multiple standard deviations forward…” I’ll bet most of you did. Why? Because it has been drilled into all of us that we must bow to the lie that we are all “equal”, most especially in terms of intellect, and thus one may NEVER, EVER acknowledge that one is of above-average intelligence, most especially if it is true.
Humility – TRUE humility, not the false Pope Francis perversion of the concept – is honesty about one’s self, BOTH in terms of what we are, and what we are not. Those of us who have been given much, as Our Lord said, have proportionally greater societal duty, and we are expected to discern this. Now Pope Francis and his ilk, being Marxists, nincompoops, and moral cripples, take these words as purely material, twisting them to falsely justify progressive taxation schemes and forced wealth redistribution, but the material sense is at the bottom of the list. Closer to the top of the list are the intellectual gifts that God has bestowed upon us very, very unequally.
The point of this is that unless and until the intelligent, wise, morally upright people on this earth stop cowering in shame before psychopaths, imbeciles and moral degenerates, and face up to the fact that they must reassert themselves and reclaim their place in society WHICH IS THEIR DUTY, there is no non-supernatural remedy to any of this, and it will continue to spiral into hell.
I agree with Ann we have a duty to lead and fix this. Only I agree with Remus - I will not shoulder the ferals (of any color) as my responsibility or my burden, and I will treat them like the vermin they are. If I have any leadership role to play in their lives, it will be in participating in their extermination as the petulance they are.
Ann may tell me they have souls, but quite frankly, I think the universe ran out of souls and that is why we have these relentlessly vile and conspicuously conscienceless individuals walking about. I don't think they have souls to save. I wouldn't go so far as to say I can't sin against them, and ignoring them may very well be a sin. But I have done my seven times seventy with them, and the swine will get no more of my pearls until I see repentance in their hearts and shame in their faces. Ann is right - the opposite of love is indifference, and I really don't care what happens to the ferals.
