@PyotrVerkhovensky's banner p

PyotrVerkhovensky


				

				

				

					0 followers  

					follows 0 users  

					

					
joined 2023 February 04 14:30:54 UTC
				

				

				

				

				

				

					
				

				

				
				
				

				
User ID: 2154


				
				
				

			

		

	














	


		


			



	

		

			

			

				

					

						

							
						

						

							
							

								
PyotrVerkhovensky


								

								

								
								
								

								
							
					
 
				


				

				
				
				

				

					0 followers  

					follows 0 users  

					joined 2023 February 04 14:30:54 UTC
				


				
					

					
No bio...

				

				

				

				

				

					

					

					
					
					

					
User ID: 2154


					
					
					
				

			


					

						
					



		

	

 











			
			

			
			

			




	


		

			
‎

			

				
				

					Hour
					Day
					Week
					Month
					Year
					
				

			


			
‎

			

	
	

	 Hot Bump Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 11, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
God is outside time.  Time itself is created.


As for why he created, here is one of the first results in a Google search: https://ses.edu/why-did-god-create-anything/, which is a simplistic but cogent summary of the Christian perspective.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 11, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


And this immediately fails the "and why couldn't that apply to anything else like the universe itself?" question.




I'm not understanding the thrust of your question.  Are you suggesting the material world (or something in the material world) is eternal?




Every single thing is answered equally by "the Matrix creators want to fuck with us".




While I don't believe we are in a simulated universe, in this scenario the simulation's programmer would be, to us, indistinguishable from God.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 11, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I wrote this three years ago, as a non-rigorous quasi-tongue-in-cheek argument for why I'm not an atheist.  The TL;DR: the world I see is one that I would expect to see if God exists, which I consider (weak) Bayesian evidence for God.


Argument 1: Societal evolution and a stabilizing force


As societies evolve they adopt behaviors that benefit the society.  Ideas that are destructive are either discarded or are adopted but with subsequent decline in that society, leading to internal or external takeover.  Societal structures and frameworks arise from these behaviors and are likewise subject to the survivorship test.  Every continent evolved a formal religious structure to promote societal cohesion and to provide society with an ethical or moral framework.  The ubiquity of religion suggests that the instinct to religion is strongly embedded within the human psyche, and to remove the formality of religion is not to remove the instinct for religion.  In the mid 1800s, Darwin, Marx, and Kierkegaard identified scientific, societal, and mental frameworks that removed the need for a God. For the first time atheism had rigorous answers to questions of existence, societal cohesion, and spirituality.  Nietzsche summarized this nicely: "God is dead".  But the psychological need for religion did not go away: it was merely replaced by classism, nationalism, communism, fascism, humanism, and many other "ism"s that were either spiritually unfulfilling for the adherents or physically destructive to both adherents and non-adherents.  The brain is a physical part of the body and can evolve like any other physical part of the body.  Attempting to remove a deeply embedded religious instinct is like trying to remove a hand: both the hand and the instinct evolved for a purpose.


Digression 1: definition of Religion 1


What is religion?  It is a group of people gripped with singular purpose and convinced of their moral superiority.  This definition is also the definition of a mob.  In the Christian liturgical tradition, on Palm Sunday (the Sunday before Easter) the congregation participates in the reading of the triumphal entry into Jerusalem and shouts "Hosanna!"  The very next week the crowds in Jerusalem shouted "Crucify!" and in the reading the congregation participates in this cry as well; reminding the congregation that it was our sin that crucified Jesus.  But it does two other things as well: it forces us to look inwardly and realize that we ourselves are capable of great atrocities.  Probabilistically we would have been in the mob crucifying Jesus, convinced of our moral superiority.  How easy and almost pleasant it is for us to read Anne Frank and identify with her fear and suffering.  But if we were in Germany at the time it is far more likely that we would have been her tormentors.  The second thing shouting "Crucify" does is lets us glimpse the power of a mob in a setting in which no mob can actually form, and is thus an annual warning of the danger and power of untethered collective moral action.


Organized religion is a countervailing force to the mob.  It provides a structure and an outlet to the "religious instinct" without it devolving into mob brutality.


Conclusion to argument 1:


The above argument demonstrates the utility of organized religion but says nothing about the truth of organized religion.  Certainly not all religions can all be true, since they mutually contradict.  Can and should a society be built on a lie?  Plato's Republic answers affirmatively, and philosophers have debated this ever since.  I personally hold truth as a fundamental requirement for a "good" society; societal structures can only be as sound as its foundations.  Thus argument 1 does not hold much weight for me.  However, if the thrust of this argument is correct, the onus is on atheists to create a deep, meaningful, and sustainable philosophy that can replace organized religion.


Argument 2: The problem of evil and suffering


Few people would argue that suffering and evil exists in the world.  If there is no God, then there is no basis or criteria for categorizing anything as good or bad.  Our (almost universal) acknowledgement of injustice and suffering must then be an evolved mental condition which is either to be discarded (along with religion as a yoke of the past) or to be irrationally embraced (in which case why not also irrationally embrace religion!).  As most people, including atheists, do believe in concepts such as suffering and injustice, they implicitly behave as if God exists.  And thank God that they do!  Despite the perversion of our mental and physical world as a result of humanity's fall/sin God's common grace has put a restraint on our depravity.


Discussion 2: definition of Religion 2


If atheism is the null hypothesis, then there is not enough evidence to reject the null.  However, the above argument points to inconsistencies in atheist's behavior that would be accounted for if God exists.  Likewise, if theism is the null hypothesis, there is not enough evidence to reject the null.


Every logical statement begins with a set of a-priori assumptions or axioms.  Where do these axioms come from?  Are they truly self-evident or is there an element of the arbitrary or even mystic about these axioms?  Described in this manner, the set of axioms or principals by which we structure our reality can be considered, in some sense, a religious dogma. Religion, in this light, is the foundation on which every scientific, social, and physical structure is derived.


While this is an interesting thought experiment it is not all that convincing for my larger argument.  There is no line of argument that goes from "postulates are religious" to "religion X is correct".


Conclusion to argument 2:


If I posit the existence of a just and moral God (and indeed, God would define justice and morality), and if I additionally posit that mankind is made in God's image, then I would predict that even in a fallen state that mankind would exhibit tendencies to morality and justice; albeit tainted and obscured by our separation from God.  Indeed this is exactly what we see.


On the other hand, if there is no God I would predict that while there are certain evolved cooperative tendencies, that these evolved tendencies would be no stronger than that of "traditional" religion and could be just as easily cast aside.  However, we do not see this.


In my experience, the atheistic approach to ethics, morality, and justice feel like a "turtles all the way down" argument.  That said, I do acknowledge that just because a position is poorly defended does not make that position incorrect.


Argument 3: reductio ad absurdum


If I were an atheist, I would likely believe that we are living in a simulation. I believe that we ourselves may be capable (given another few hundred years) of creating an advanced simulation that could closely mirror our own; if we are capable what are the odds that we aren’t already in a simulation. There would be only one “reality” but millions of simulations. And that is only assuming that humans are all there are: it could easily be that just as our current video games have characters that are mere shadows of their human programmers, that we are mere shadows of a higher race that has created the simulation.


Someone (a programmer?) has created the simulation. The programmer has created the universe from nothing. The programmer has defined the physical rules and constraints of the simulation. In a very real sense, this programmer is god to the simulated universe. The programmer would want to track progress of the simulation by having the simulated “agents” communicate back. In our simulation we call this “prayer”. If the programmer reads the logs and sees that the simulation is giving some feedback, the programmer could intervene in the simulation to correct some of the parameters. It is also very possible that the programmer didn’t just set physical constraints but also gave instructions for how agents should engage with each other (religion). The programmer may also have added random amounts of “aberrant” behavior in each agent (sin). The aberrant behavior caused divergence from the original set of instructions and led to multiple religions.


Thus if I were an atheist, I would be forced to acknowledge the high likelihood of a god existing. I would need to divine the will of the programmer and would be forced to carefully assess the major religions for glimpses into the original instructions. In short, I would be very religious.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 11, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
WandererintheWilderness hit the last one well, so I'll hit the first one.


God isn't material in the way that the cosmos is material.  There is a creator, and there is creation.  God didn't come from nothing, he was everything.  We, as the creation, are finite and restricted by the constraints that God put into the created cosmos.  God has no such constraints.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Friday Fun Thread for May 15, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Yup.  Most Christians (myself included!) are "functional atheists".   The current milieu is one of agnosticism rather than spiritualism, and it is easy for professing Christians to fall into that cultural rut.  Of course, most atheists in 1600-1700s Europe were "functional Christians" when the surrounding culture was "Christian".


I do disagree with your claim that Christians should be doing every action possible to save themselves from Hell.  Reformed/Protestant Christianity says that outside the work of the Holy Spirit even our good deeds contribute to our damnation (they are done out of alignment with God's desire).  It is only through Christ's atoning work that we can be reconciled to God ("made alive in him").  Salvation comes from acceptance of this reality (or predestined selection for this reality, if you are TULIP inclined), not from any work/action that we can do.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Baby Don't Fear the Reaper
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
"If the only thing keeping a person decent is the expectation of divine reward, then, brother, that person is a piece of shit"


To which I would retort, "thank goodness we have the expectation of divine rewards!".  I'd much rather live in a world where extrinsic pressure constrains intrinsic depravity, especially if that extrinsic pressure comes "for free" (vs, eg, a heavy police state).




The infernalist position tends to correlate with extremely dogmatic, rigorist, and frankly spiteful believers who are often extremely difficult to have open and productive conversations with.




I resemble that remark!




Universalist: Holds that all will ultimately be saved


Infernalist: Holds that some face eternal punishment from God




I think defining the frame in this way is too constraining.  Will there be universal reconciliation (that is, every soul reconciled with his Creator)?  Unlikely: only those who come to faith and repentance through Jesus will be reconciled to the triune God.  Will those not reconciled be faced with eternal torment?  The Bible doesn't definitively state that either.  Certain particularly evil creatures are destined for the lake of fire, but it is possible that the vast majority of humans who reject Christ will simply be eternally separated from their Creator (which would certainly be a regretful and sorrowful condition, one that might be characterized as an outer darkness with weeping and gnashing of teeth).


While I don't see much evidence for the Universalist position in the Bible(1), that doesn't mean that I don't hope for it. My church regularly prays for "the salvation of all" while believing in limited salvation (and many believing in limited atonement).




I’ll also admit up front that even before I did this research, moral intuition insisted that eternal hell is not a true teaching. I can’t conceive of a good and loving God who creates a universe in which legions and legions of His creations, made in His image, are tortured brutally for all eternity. It simply makes no sense whatsoever.




One of Man's most pernicious and perpetual tendencies it to make God in our own image.  When severe corporeal punishment was synonymous with justice, God's judgment was emphasized.  Now that complacency and comfort are idolized, God's love and forgiveness is emphasized.  Christians I otherwise respect, including C.S. Lewis and Bishop Barron, fall into this trap.  Modern man is in love with his own mind(2) and thinks that God can be constrained or limited by our own (created!) minds, and fits him neatly into a box of our own making.




Eternity, forever, infinite, etc. are complicated concepts, and it makes sense as to why people wouldn’t really grok it or be able to reason about it well.




I don't think anyone has a definitive answer to what the afterlife or the new heavens and the new earth will be like.  The Bible gives us glimpses, as if seen through a glass darkly, but I don't think it is for any human this side of eternity to have a clear frame (or, in our finitude, to even partially grasp) what that future may be like.  Scripture is inspired and God-breathed, but God chose to impart only a partial peek into the eternal mysteries through Scripture.  What I do know is that God is good (and would be so even/especially if non-believers are eternally tormented).


(1) Even John, the apostle most given to poetic imagery and speaks the most of love, has the most vivid descriptions of the punishment and doom waiting those who resist God.


(2) And, gnostically, hates his own body.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Converting to Catholicism
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
There is a chasm between "get people to act in ways that benefit society (and themselves)" and "there is a transcendental/objective morality".  The first is certainly explainable through natural means.  My point is that many atheists speak and act as if we live in a universe with the second.  I can think of three explanations for this behavior:


    

  • Living in ignorance (an unexamined metaphysic)
    • 

  • Cynically adapting to a culture that speaks in moral language thus adopting a noble lie.  While this certainly is not outside the bounds if there is no objective morality, it does lead to inconsistency (the worst sin!) for at least the set of atheists committed to rationalism and truth.
    • 

  • Genuine belief in objective morality with the awareness of their philosophical inconsistency.
    • 



				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Converting to Catholicism
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Making a formal dogmatic declaration is significant. I heard someone speculate that the timing existed to preserve veneration of Mary against a Protestant world that was increasingly dismissive of her. Meaning, without these formal dogmatic declarations, Protestants might have converted into Catholicism without gaining respect for her, bringing in their own "the mother of our Lord is just a woman," attitudes and eventually reducing Catholic devotion to her.




Indeed, what I would have been like would I have become Catholic in the 1800s :).




There are no external constraints on God. I think you are assuming here that Logic and God are different essences, and God's being is constrained by Logic. But instead, Logic is God's unchanging will. Logic is what it is because of God's Being being what it is.




Pretty sure I said the exact opposite (and in agreement with you)?


"Barron seems to be hinting that God could not "make a triangle a square", that is, that God is constrained by logical impossibilities. But this is such a small view of God. God creates our minds and universe. Our minds invent or discover things like logic, or define things like squares or circles. Whether spawned by our intellect or embedded in the structure of the cosmos, these concepts (including logic!) are part of Creation itself. God created the conditions under which we can model physical reality with math, structure, and logic. Logic is a model. Logos is Truth. Logic is created. Logos is the Creator."


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Converting to Catholicism
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I don't think there was a single reason.  She felt led towards it.  The closer she got to Catholicism the closer she felt to God.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Converting to Catholicism
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
There could be an atheistic/evolutionary explanation for why we have disgust at certain outcomes or behaviors.  But I don't think the atheist could self-consistently apply moral weight or language to that disgust. Yet we still see (many) atheists use the language of justice and morality and often reveal a belief in it through their behavior.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Converting to Catholicism
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Reformed theology is going to have a very different emphasis on predestination.




I think those outside Reformed theology put more emphasis on Reformed theology's supposed preoccupation with predestination than Calvinist's do :) (Many such cases).


I have extended family that go beyond "mere" five-point Calvinism and say that there is no point in evangelism due to predestination...and even they rarely bring it up.  They certainly act in this world as if they had agency!




A list of books by Pope Benedict XVI might be a starting point as well.




Thank you, I'll take a look at these.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Converting to Catholicism
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


If anything I hope it’s true. If it isn’t, I lose nothing, if it is, I gain everything; if nothing else, it’s a good ideal to live toward.




On the contrary, "And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable."


I'm also reminded of Shatov in Dostoevsky's Demons:


"I believe in Russia. ... I believe in her orthodoxy. ... I believe in the body of Christ. ... ".


"And in God? In God?"


"I … I will believe in God!"


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Converting to Catholicism
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Khaled Anatolios is, I believe, Orthodox :).  There is much to like about Orthodoxy.  I like how slow it is to move (if at all!) and I like the national flavor of the Orthodox churches, which I think is a much better practical model than the Roman model.  However, while both Catholicism and Protestantism have rich histories of missionary work in obedience to the Great Commission, I feel like the Orthodox church has become insular and introspective rather than evangelistic.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Converting to Catholicism
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


The problem of evil is a thorn in the side of modern Christianity. A benevolent God would never allow something like childhood brain cancer; there are obviously better ways to test the sons of men than to inflict a random child with maximum pain before they have the cognitive capacity to understand what’s going on.




"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the Lord. "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts."


"Naked I came from my mother’s womb, And naked shall I return there. The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; Blessed be the name of the Lord."




Jesus affirms the accuracy of human moral intuition. His parables compare the reasoning of God to the reasoning of man. His sayings are based on a sensible person’s intuition.




I don't consider the human desire for justice to be wrong in and of itself, but it certainly has been fouled and corrupted.  Our intuitions may be emotionally "correct" without the object of that emotion being "correct".  Eros is not sinful, but Eros outside of Man and Woman united before God is.




I am also partial to my explanation because it elevates evil to a near-Godlike power, which… it is. Why else would Christ be waging a war in the heavenly realms unless it was? Why would his death be needed unless it was? Why else would He call it the ruler of the world? And I think our era needs to see evil as an insanely powerful ruler over the world — this is also conducive to wellbeing.




I appreciate your conception of Evil as being a true/near-equal antagonist (though I don't agree with it).  I do think (as hopefully can be seen from my other comments) that we need to take Evil/Satan/Sin more seriously.




The endless speculation and articulating just empties the Cross of its power.




Up to a point, I agree. "Knowledge makes arrogant, but love edifies".


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Converting to Catholicism
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Thank you for your thoughtful response, it gives me more to think about.


I agree that the History in general (and the Biblical narrative in particular) is part of a cosmic drama.  I think Reformed types can often get lost in the "logic" of religion rather than appreciating the beauty of the story.  If Jesus was "Calvinist" (in method if not theology) he wouldn't have spent much time on parables!  God sharing in suffering humanity is part of this beautiful story, though as you mention there is a tendency among liberal theologians to make this "identification" the means of atonement (God understands us, and thus forgives us...a very narrow view of God's omnipotence and a very low view of sin).


As an aside, I've never heard any Protestant of any denomination say that Michael is Christ; it is certainly not the understanding that I grew up with.  However, I did grow up in an environment where Satan rarely mentioned, and if he was it was almost in embarrassment.  He played his part in the temptation of Adam and the mirror in the temptation of Jesus (and pre-millennial, pre-trib, dispensationalist types believed that Satan would be unleashed in the end times), but otherwise holds little place in the story.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Faith & Doubt During Holy Week
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Thank you for sharing this.


The post-enlightenment condition is one of lost credulity and child-like faith.  It is almost a second fall: a loss of innocence that can never be regained.  Modernist man can't easily believe in anything outside himself.  Post-modern man can't even believe in himself.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
There are certainly great scenes.


Taken as a standalone movie, there is uneven pacing, a terrible addition of a Warg battle that eats into runtime with no purpose, and a cringy elf-reinforcement.


But the Two Tower's biggest flaw is how it fails to set up the Return of the King.  Very little happens in the movie.  By the end of the book, Gandalf and Pippen were on their way to Minas Tirith.  Frodo had gotten through Shelob's lair.  In the movie Frodo has gone maybe 20 miles and is no closer to Mordor than when the movie started.  Isengard is defeated but it was a comparative gadfly next to Mordor.


An inordinate amount of screentime was spent on Rohan and it's plight.  We had the sub-plot with the two kids riding to Edoras.  We had the Warg battle.  We have the "10K Uruk hai are going to destroy the world of men" resulting in an (admittedly epic) battle that feels disproportionate relative to the weight of Sauron's forces in the next movie.  We even have Aragorn telling a kid that there is always hope.


In ROTK we don't feel as strongly for Gondor as we do for Rohan. Gondor is not given as much room to breath.  There are no sub-plots.  Pippen doesn't meet Beregond's son, which would have given us characters to invest in.  The activities after Shelob's lair are rushed, with Gondor's army teleporting to the Black Gate and Frodo and Sam covering 50 miles of Mordor in a couple of scenes.  Aragorn is never seen speaking to anyone from Gondor in the entire ROTK...because all the time for such conversations was monopolized by TTT.


The trilogy would have been much stronger had the Two Towers been more competently managed.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
That is not how it reads:


"Of course, it is likely enough, my friends," he said slowly, "likely enough that we are going to our doom: the last march of the Ents. But if we stayed home and did nothing, doom would find us anyway, sooner or later. That thought has long been growing in our hearts; and that is why we are marching now. It was not a hasty resolve. Now at least the last march of the Ents may be worth a song."


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Hard disagree.  Evil keeps coming back because the Elves give up on Middle Earth. But even as evil comes back it is less potent: Morgoth was the true baddy, Sauron is but a servant.  Saruman becomes a lesser version of his former greatness when he turns to evil, and even his voice fails him.  He becomes a mean beggar by the end.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I could definitely have been more clear on this point :).  In the books they are essentially Vikings on horses who have "settled down" in recent decades but still have an ornery pillaging streak.  In the movies they are made to seem more passive, though not pacifist.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Finding a like-minded community that is in my same socio-economic class, age, and willingness to be "apart" from the world is difficult, especially since my wife is more liberal than I.  I like what https://becomingnoble.substack.com/ and https://blog.exitgroup.us/ are trying to do, but I think those are too "right-wing" coded for my family.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
The Two Towers


It is trivial, with the current "very online right" and with the benefit of a (relatively recent) era that didn’t require "diversity", to impose a reactionary reading on the movie trilogy the Lord of the Rings. Having just finished watching the (otherwise pedestrian, at least in relation to the sublime Fellowship of the Ring) Two Towers, the analogies are almost too on the nose. We have a technocratic leader ("a mind of metal and wheels") who leads a rabid horde of third-worlders in a takeover of a 100% white, peaceful, free nation. In the books, the technocratic leader’s "new" cloak is literally rainbow hued. The free nation just wants to be left alone, but is eventually forced into battle. The leaders pine for a simpler, easier time; where valor, honor, and renown were attainable.


Of course, so do all who live to see such times. The folk in the old tales had lots of chances of turning back, only they didn’t. One of Tolkien’s motifs is how easy evil is to defeat: all good has to do is stand up to it. The Ents think that they go to their doom, before utterly decimating Isengard. The Hobbits cower initially during the scouring of the Shire, then win an almost trivial victory. One of my favorite lines from the book is when Theoden decides to go into battle himself, at which Aragorn proclaims, "Then even the defeat of Rohan will be glorious in song!". This is echoed in the movie during the "Forth Eorlingas" last charge. Yet the only thing in the Lord of the Rings that risks genuine defeat is passivity. Ultimately, Theoden’s death in Return of the King is one through which he does win lasting glory: the great Witch king is forever destroyed. Not only will he have no shame in the halls of his fathers, he has a prominent position in their company.


My grandfather served in WWII but never fought. If it wasn’t for the dropping of the Atom bombs in Japan, he would have been in the invading ground force. Given the casualty estimates of a ground invasion, there is a solid chance that his 5 children, his 20+ grandchildren, and his 40+ great-grandchildren would never have been born. He felt some pride in his service, but also regret and shame. Others fought and died. He didn’t.


Two generations removed from WWII, the very thought of storming Iwo Jima or Normandy is unthinkable; both at the national level as well as the individual level. Watch Saving Private Ryan and try to imagine yourself in that scene. My grandfather felt shame, but I can’t even muster that emotion. When I imagine myself in those boats approaching the beach, the only emotion I feel is terror. I am a product of my time, where even the "good" guys lack ambition and will. The world’s richest man trolls on X. The world’s most powerful man trolls on Truth Social.


Another great movie, the Dark Knight, features the iconic (and ironic) line "You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain". As I stare at the beige walls of my cubicle, were that those were my options! We live in an age where everything is flattened. There is great evil but without an obvious source. There are many who live upright lives, but without valor or victory. Our present evil is the insidious slow drip of poison that seeps into us through our surrounding milieu.


The great project of the "online right" is to identify this evil, to name it, and to then fight it. Yet this evil remains amorphous and elusive. Each "influencer" thinks they have the "correct" answer. These answers are typically mutually contradictory. In the face of this hydra, some have returned to recommending the basics: reproduce, guard your family, stay in shape, weather the storm. This is sound advice. But as long as the evil permeates are society, our children and our spouses risk defecting. The halls of power rot even as their power becomes more entrenched, threatening lives and livelihood. What can men do against such reckless hate? The one option that is certainly not available to us moderns is to ride out and meet it.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Our current establishment is terrible.  They are feckless.  They are weak.  In a very real sense, they've lost.


I don't think we should smile and nod.  I think creating strong families is actually one of the great ways to fight back.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Agreed, Trump is not a fascist.  But there are "barbaric" inclinations in the MAGA right, and we need a more pro-civilization (though still right-wing) counter to this barbaric instinct.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
If Chesterton is correct about Barbarism, one of the key attributes is a lack of introspection.  Yes, there is barbarism in the far left.  But that is my out-group. It takes no introspection, or indeed effort, for me to enumerate the sins of the left.  And I would be tempted to do so, but I only have 500,000 characters at my disposal.