Wednesday, October 07, 2015

Facial Aesthetics: Implications for Art.

Now a break from battling Natsoc entryists.

An important scientific paper with regard to aesthetics was published the other day which received widespread mainstream press.

Individual Aesthetic Preferences for Faces are Shaped Mostly by Environments, Not Genes.

The media spin put on this paper was to the effect that the perceptions of attraction were largely an effect of the environment and not genetics. I thought the paper interesting and managed to find a free copy of it from one of the authors' website which appears to be publicly available. It's a very well constructed study, and certainly don't want to argue with the data obtained, though I feel that the authors may have erred on interpretation of the data.

I've reproduced one of the tables below (On fair use grounds) and want to delve into the data presented a bit further.

If we look at B and C we see that there is a remarkable consistency between men and women with regard to rating the attractiveness of faces.  Women who are rated a "5" on the scale by men are very likely to rate a "5" on the scale by other women. This finding confirms previous research--(Google Scholar is your friend)--and strongly suggests that there is a genetic mechanism which rates facial attractiveness in part.

The study showed that 48% of our assessment of facial attractiveness is under genetic control, the remain 52% being attributable-by the authors--to environment.  The authors therefore conclude, on the basis of mathematical weighting that the environment is a more important determinant in the assessment of attractiveness. Logically, that is a perfectly sensible conclusion and yet it is not.

The really interesting data from this study are represented by the graphs D and E which show the individual variations in the assessment of facial attractiveness compared to the mean. What's interesting here, is that even your typical low agreement participant demonstrates a rating schema that is reasonably correlated with the mean ratings. Whist the variation is large the direction is still the same. Attractive faces as still more likely to be rated attractively than unattractive ones regardless of environment consideration. (Table E) In other words, that 48% is exerting a lot of influence.

What appears to be happening is that genetics seem to automatically rank faces in terms of attractiveness and that environment-or other factors-shift people in either direction from that ranking. In other words, that 48% determines where you sit on the rankings in the first place with other factors modifying that initial assessment.  A face that has a mean rating of "1" is not going to be turned into a "7" even though environment has a greater "mathematical" influence.

What I find fascinating is the fact that the mind has a "hard wired" aesthetic response to facial stimulus. In other words, ideals of facial beauty are already hard coded into our DNA. And it appears that there other aesthetic preferences hard coded as well. The point of this is that these current findings point us towards looking at the subject of aesthetics from an empirical perspective as opposed to a philosophical one. What is beautiful becomes not a question of philosophical speculation but rather observing what the brain does in response to a stimulus. Beauty becomes a stimulus which is capable of exciting the appropriate neural circuitry.

One of the reasons why this shift in approach is important is because a large amount of modern artistic and architectural rubbish is justified on the assumption that beauty is purely subjective. What modern neuroaesthetics is discovering is that there is a fair amount of hard wired responses to visual stimuli and that these responses are objective.  The ugliness of most modern art is not a subjective experience but an observable physiological response.  Judging art by this metric changes the grounds of debate and undercuts many of the principals of modernism and modern art.

Saturday, September 26, 2015


Long time readers of this blog will acknowledge that I have sparred with Zippy Catholic on the many theological issues that divide us. However I've got to commend him for two posts that he put up;

How "no enemies to the Right" perpetuates the mind trap.


HBD on its own really is Nazi.

Some explanatory comments, since many readers seem to engage in Serial Associative Cognition and impute to me positions that I don't hold.

Firstly,  It's a mistake to assume that ontological axis has, as it's opposite poles, right and left. It needs to be stressed that the ontological axis is ordered towards right and wrong and error can exist to the right and left of it and a man can stray of the narrow path in both directions.  The Master alludes to this when he says;

Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat.

If you're like me, and believe in the existence of the Devil then you'll realise he doesn't care if you enter Hell through the Liberal door on the left or the Nazi door on the right, the only thing that matters to him is that you get there, preferably without any warning.  Indeed, one of the best ways to ignore your own errors is to be so focused on the errors of your target that situational awareness becomes lost.

I'm quite worried that this is happening to NRx at the moment. NRx is, quite rightly, hostile to the ideas of the multiculturalism, but it I don't think it has taken a critical enough stance with regard to the entryist racial supremacists who have assumed greater prominence and who hide under the moniker of HBD and identitarianism. In its battle against the left, at least on the issue of multiculturalism NRx seems to think that there are no enemies to the right.

I differ from Zippy in that I think that HBD, on its own, is morally neutral. But just as the Left engage in the semantic shifting of words, some of the more malignant Right do the same, and when they use HBD it comes with associated  metaphysical baggage as well.

Words are meant to convey a particular semantic meaning. This is recognised by the intelligent but amongst cognitive misers they words trigger an association response, much like the ringing of Pavlov's bell, and term HBD amongst this latter class of individuals is an implicit association of ideas which are linked by the focal point of race. Amongst the idiotic left, the word race triggers associations of concentration camps, discrimination and evil white men. Amongst the idiotic right, it triggers ideas of  Nordicism, racial purity, supremacism and the Darwinian struggle.

The fact that words can be used in this bimodal manner gives the Darwinian Supremacists the opportunity for plausible deniability and thus quasi respectability. When challenged about their racial supremacist stance the word is used in its semantically specific manner but when used amongst friends it is used in its associative manner.*

As I said before, HBD when used in its specific sense is metaphysically neutral and therefore not a problem for NRx. It's not even a problem, when used in this sense, for Christianity. Christianity has long acknowledged the difference between peoples whilst maintaining that they are all "one in Christ". It's current promotion of multiculturalism is due to an almost criminal lack of prudence, not a desire to eliminate differences.

Until the arrival of these entryists NRx seemed fairly agnostic on the subject of religion. However, with their arrival there's been a definite shift which I feel is going to precipitate a split. The real problem for NRx is the metaphysical one, it's about how NRx understands reality, and the entryists have shifted the balance in favour of the Modernists Darwinians. The beast now lodges in our home and NRx is being undermined from the inside.

I want to stress again that the problem is not in the recognition of the differences between races rather the associated metaphysical baggage they bring.

The problem is that metaphysics of Darwin are incompatible with the metaphysics of Christianity.  Darwinian metaphysics views man simply in material terms whilst Christian metaphysics is rooted in the hyelomorphic conception of man. The problem of Evil in Darwinian metaphysics is a material one, in Christianity a spiritual one.   From these two views come different solutions to societal problems and how to best tackle them. Zippy spells it out.
The fact that there are basic and intractable differences between the races is as obvious as it is politically incorrect.  One only has to look at the ethnic makeup of a professional sports team and a successful technology company to get the point.  The notion that these differences only exist because of oppression by evil white racists, and that the terrible affront of substantive racial differences can be remedied if we get even more aggressive with even more comprehensive programs of mandatory tolerance, is well past its sell-by date.

Liberalism only functions at all because it implicitly divides humanity into the ├╝bermensch and the ├╝ntermensch: the free and equal superman, self-created through reason and will, and the subhuman oppressor that is interfering with the emergence of the free and equal new man.  The free and equal new man is supposed to be politically emancipated from the chains of history, tradition, aristocracy, hierarchy, unchosen obligations, nature, and nature’s God.  But things keep getting in his way, and that requires a Solution.

If you take liberalism and force it to acknowledge the truth that racial differences are real and intractable, the Solution necessarily takes on a racial dimension.  It has to be a eugenic Solution; a Final Solution.
Anybody who has studied the Third Reich will see that the Germans did not start out wanting to liquidate the Jews, simply to rid themselves of them,  but the metaphysics of the Darwin and circumstances, forced a "logic onto them" which led to the inevitable conclusion. Behind all the smoke and mirrors class enemies and the untermensch are really just the same thing and the material concept of man leads to the same conclusion.  These entryists, whilst clothed in the language of the Right are advocating the metaphysics of Leftism.  They are nothing more than Stalin in drag.

NRx is compromised.

*Stanovich's book IS important.

Saturday, September 19, 2015

Brown noses and Brownshirts.

I've noted that that the racist right has been cheering Victor Orban and his actions in stopping the Muslim invasion of Europe. It's true, Viktor Orban is  the Right's man of the moment and his closing of the borders is to be lauded.  His assertion and defence of both an ethnic Hungarian identity and European one is at odds with that of the Euro-weenies of Brussels who have given Orban the predictable sobriquet of racist.  It's no surprise then that the cognitive misers of the Right, looking for  a legitimate champion of "white identity" would choose to see him as their a fellow traveler in spirit.  However,  it must of been a bit of a surprise to these intellectual giants that when they chose to have a conference on his turf he banned them on the grounds that they were racists. You see, Orban is a proud Hungarian Nationalist but he is not one of them. The racialists had committed an intellectual error. They assumed that just because Orban was implementing the same policies they were advocating, Orban was doing it for the same reasons they were doing so.  They were wrong.

Where Orban and the racialists is differ is with respect to their metaphysics. Orban is a Christian and his worldview is made from this perspective.  Unlike the materialistic HBD crowd, there is only one class of human beings and membership of it is not contingent on genetic rank.  Membership of the human race is recognised as being of the fact that man is the image of God. This being an article of faith. From this flows the notion that all men should be treated with dignity and humanity.

Christianity does not deny the existence of races, or of their differences, rather it insists that human dignity--and the duties thereby owed--is not contingent upon genetic structure or phenotype. This differs from the racialists who infer the quality of man is based upon his genetic structure. Whiteness is not just a marker of identity for these men but is also a marker of "distinguishing quality". Furthermore, many of the racialists embrace a materialistic metaphysic which reduces man to a simple material substance.

One of the real world problems with the strictly biological understandings of the human person is that the dangers of racial supremacism and Darwinian competition are always lurking to rear their ugly head. The manifestly obvious fact, of the association between "Whiteness" and technological and cultural achievement,  puts forth a justifiably assertive claim for the superiority of the White people over all the other races. The argument for the superiority of Whites is so easily made and so easily grasped that it's only a small, and cognitively easy step, to start thinking in terms of Unter and Ubermensch and of "practical" solutions to intractable social problems.

This is why racialists have always been hostile to Christianity, since it puts a brake on this these final steps.  Asserting, contrary to apparent fact, that no matter how savage, offensive or ignorant a man is, of whatever race,  he is still to be treated like a equal human being. It's this insistence of treating the other as human that stops a Christian from turning into an arsehole. Christianity asserts that there are certain minimal standards we owe everybody. Orban belongs to this view and rejects the notion that some men are better than others because of their genetics.

What surprises me is just how many Christians--especially in NRx--have given a sympathetic ear to the racialists when the their underlying metaphysic is hostile to Christianity itself. It's a sort of pact with the Devil which a bit of sober reflection shows will not end well. The last time Christians formally did this they got right and royally screwed.  But then again that's the nature of the Christian Right, it's pretty dumb.

Perhaps one of the reasons why the Christian right is so easily seduced by racialists is because Christianity itself lacks a "theology of the flesh".  I've argued before on this blog, that the "decarnalisation" of the human person has led to cultural fault lines which have been exploited by different kinds of diabolical error. Chivalric love is a love without reference to Eros, and the current embrace of multiculturalism is an attempt to build society without reference to human homphily. The Christian conception of man seems to be one without reference to his flesh.

The Christian Left, on the other hand, seems to operate with the blessing of the Church, at least with regard to mutliculturalism since it's theology is in many ways in synch with Marxist ideology which teaches that race,  (i.e. flesh) does not matter.

The thing for the intelligent Christian is that he has to walk a fine line between those who think that the flesh doesn't matter and those who think it is all that there is. He has to walk a fine line between the brown-noses and the brown shirts.

Friday, September 11, 2015

Cucks and C..nt's

Recent events, and their commentary, have caused me some concern and I must admit that the direction Neoreaction has been taking in the past few months has left me profoundly depressed.

On one hand, one of the most positive developments in the Neoreaction has been the rise of the Cuckservative meme as it quite accurately monikers a certain type of the "Right" who has led it to defeat throughout the 20th Century,  However, the success of this meme has come with a more depressing development, namely the co-opting of it by the other element of the pseudo-right, particularly those of a crypto- Nazi disposition.  For this second group, the axis by which all things are judged is according to their position on the purity of race.

It's also strange to note that the Left  has played into this frame promoting a  definition of cuckservative which synchs with the racial emphasis that the Natsoc types wish it to have. Strange bedfellows, No?

What we're seeing is the entryist invasion of Neoreaction with a attempt to semantically shift the meme.  Other bloggers have noticed this as well.  For the sake of distinction I call these entryists Cuntservatives, and just like cucks they're not the real thing.

The success of these entryists has come about because the Right has always valued Identity, whether it be in the individual or groups. Identity taking into account matters such family, kin, nation and race. But the right has understood that identity is not the sole defining feature of man. Indeed, the Right has always though that identities are subsets of an overall humanity which in turn was subordinate to the Law of God. It's interesting to see that racially motivated politics became an issue with the rise of democracies and a collapse of the faith. The subsequent cognitive simplification that came about as a result of these developments mad it a perfect ideology for the cognitive miser: Mass-man.

Race is a reality, but it is a reality which needs to be seen in the context of other realities, however the racial supremacists elevate it as the ultimate standard but this conceptualisation ultimately puts it at odds with Christian civilisation. One of the things these genetic Calvinists fail to take account of is that Western Civilisation until recently was a Christian one and it's whiteness was coincidental. Europe is the Faith and the Faith is Europe, as Belloc said, and their hostile attitude to Christianity means that their ideology is just is another variant anti-Christianity and therefore outside the European tradition.

Some of them, acknowledging their hostility to Christianity grope about for inspiration in Ancient Greece or Rome. But what these dumb bastards fail to recognise is that Rome and Athens were failing cultures which Christianity supplanted, ensuring that the best traditions of the past were kept alive.  By the way, despite the intellectually feeble attempts at Aryanist revisionism,  it was the latin wogs that produced these cultures.

By reducing everything to the racial axis they are theologically set against the foundation stone of European culture which is Christianity. This blog is premised on the truth of Christianity. Christ died for the sins of all men, that includes niggers, kikes, slopes, gumleaves, wops, dagos, chimps and slitty eyed gooks. They are all the children of God, and therefore conferred with a certain God given dignity.  Hence, there are certain minimum standards we owe the rest of humanity by virtue of the Christian ethos irrespective of our natural repugnance towards them. In the eyes of God no race assumes a superiority and a Right that defines itself primarily along racial lines is a Right that is outside of the European tradition. It's simply not Conservative.

However, given the human dignity that is conferred by Christ on all men, it does not mean that because every man is my brother in Christ he gets to live in my house, or gets a place in the lifeboat. Or that he has the right to enter my country. Furthermore, if he is a risk to the stabilty of my country or has duties at home he should be performing I have a duty in Charity not to let him in. Christianity compels me to love but it does not compel me to be stupid.  The virtue of Prudence, not racial superiority, is enough. As for being Catholic, Papal comments on immigration are beyond his brief.

The whole racial superiority angle serves to divide conservatives in other cultures from ourselves, multiplying our enemies and keeping our house divided.   Now who do you think would benefit from that?

Furthermore, racial supremicism seems to attract a certain type of arsehole. A few days ago, in my Twitter feed, I got an image of the young drowned Syrian boy, captioned "One Down".

Now, I can understand the revulsion by all of pseudo refugees claiming asylum in countries which they are culturally opposed to,  but it's one thing to argue against the uncontrolled influx of economic migrants, quite another to cheer the death of a child who was not responsible for the circumstances he was found in. The mainstream left may be guilty of malign stupidity, but these Cuntservatives are psychopathic. There is something profoundly wrong in a man if he can't feel pity even for the most helpless simply because the other person is of a different race. And this psychopathy is profoundly repugnant to potential converts who are intelling to the reactionary right. Yet the current political debate in the West driven by the heartless and the bleeding hearts. It's a tug of war between dumb and nasty.

It's my opinion that these entryists are the greatest threat to Neoreaction at the moment, and if left unchecked will take it down.

Thursday, September 03, 2015

Picture du jour.

Courtesy of the Daily Mail (via Reuters), a photograph showing "refugees" illegally coming to Europe to flee fighting in the Middle East.

Awful lot of military aged men there. Wonder why ISIL is winning?

Just saying.

Saturday, August 29, 2015

G.K. Chesterton: Men and the Gentleman.

In my last post I left a remark to commentator Mark Citadel with regard to what I think is one of the problems of modern Christian masculinity.

I think among the "cultivated Right" Trumps crassness and boorishness is a huge turn off and they would rather a polite but politically correct candidate than a boorish man. It's an interesting reflection on the hierarchy of their values. It's just occurred to me that Chersterton has an interesting essay on the subject I'll try and hunt it up for my next post.

Well, its not exactly an essay but an extract from G.K. Chesterton's Autobiography (1936), recanting an unexpected meeting between Henry James and Hilaire Belloc.; we are halted at the moment when Mr. Henry James heard of our arrival in Rye and proceeded (after exactly the correct interval) to pay his call in state.

Needless to say, it was a very stately call of state; and James seemed to fill worthily the formal frock-coat of those far-off days...He brought his brother William with him, the famous American philosopher; and though William James was breezier than his brother when you knew him, there was something finally ceremonial about this idea of the whole family on the march. We talked about the best literature of the day; James a little tactfully, myself a little nervously. I found he was more strict than I had imagined about the rules of artistic arrangement; he deplored rather than depreciated Bernard Shaw, because plays like Getting Married were practically formless. He said something complimentary about something of mine; but represented himself as respectfully wondering how I wrote all I did. I suspected him of meaning why rather than how. We then proceeded to consider gravely the work of Hugh Walpole, with many delicate degrees of appreciation and doubt; when I heard from the front-garden a loud bellowing noise resembling that of an impatient foghorn. I knew, however, that it was not a fog-horn; because it was roaring out, "Gilbert! Gilbert!" and was like only one voice in the world...

I knew it was Belloc, probably shouting for bacon and beer; but even I had no notion of the form or guise under which he would present himself.

I had every reason to believe that he was a hundred miles away in France. And so, apparently, he had been; walking with a friend of his in the Foreign Office, a co-religionist of one of the old Catholic families; and by some miscalculation they had found themselves in the middle of their travels entirely without money. Belloc is legitimately proud of having on occasion lived, and being able to live, the life of the poor. One of the Ballades of the Eye-Witness, which was never published, described tramping abroad in this fashion:

To sleep and smell the incense of the tar,
To wake and watch Italian dawns aglow
And underneath the branch a single star,
Good Lord, how little wealthy people know.

In this spirit they started to get home practically without money. Their clothes collapsed and they managed to get into some workmen's slops. They had no razors and could not afford a shave. They must have saved their last penny to recross the sea; and then they started walking from Dover to Rye; where they knew their nearest friend for the moment resided. They arrived, roaring for food and drink and derisively accusing each other of having secretly washed, in violation of an implied contract between tramps. In this fashion they burst in upon the balanced tea-cup and tentative sentence of Mr. Henry James.

Henry James had a name for being subtle; but I think that situation was too subtle for him. I doubt to this day whether he, of all men, did not miss the irony of the best comedy in which he ever played a part. He had left America because he loved Europe, and all that was meant by England or France; the gentry, the gallantry, the traditions of lineage and locality, the life that had been lived beneath old portraits in oak-panelled rooms. And there, on the other side of the tea-table, was Europe, was the old thing that made France and England, the posterity of the English squires and the French soldiers; ragged, unshaven, shouting for beer, shameless above all shades of poverty and wealth; sprawling, indifferent, secure. And what looked across at it was still the Puritan refinement of Boston; and the space it looked across was wider than the Atlantic.[ED]
The operative term here is "the Puritan refinement of Boston". I think the reader should not mistake that Chesterton was critiquing Jame's Americanism, rather his aesthetic puritanism which which led him to prefer the "the oak paneled rooms" of England to the relatively uncouth life of the U.S.

In Chesterton's eyes James was a type of Aesthete, Belloc was a man, and I think it is important to remember the point. 

Belloc was famously belligerent in debate, praised the crusades and preached a from of Christianity that was muscular and unapologetic. He was also a bit of a poet;

The world is full of double beds
And most delightful maidenheads,
Which being so, there’s no excuse
For sodomy of self-abuse.
Henry James remained celibate all his life.

Tuesday, August 25, 2015

The Black Knight.

Roissy today put up an interesting post with regard to the matter of Donald Trump. What's been interesting to see, at least from this side of the bigger pond, is just how much opprobrium Trump is getting from other "rightists" and from the Cathedral.  The supposedly Mordoch *"right wing" Fox News Network has been pretty hostile to him and  its actions confirm my view that it is a false flag operation of the Left, designed to provide prolefeed to the cognitive misers of the Right.

I'm not a big fan of Mr Trump for a variety of reasons which are not necessary for the purposes of this post, however, I admire him for his charisma, personality and his "alphatude", something the other runners are completely absent of.

Pious Christian types seem critical of his moral behaviour but what these types fail to recognise is that moral goodness and the skill of governance are independent variables.  The clearest example of the fallacy of this conflation came with Jimmy Carter, who was by the standards of politicians a morally upright man though a hopeless president. The problem for Christian critics of Trump is that there is no alternative to him who is both morally good and politically competent. Sometimes you have to chose the best from a bad bunch.

The heat that Trump gets from his other GOP hopefuls is another matter all together. As far as I can see, their main line of attack is to label him as not a nice man with regard to minorities. The operative word here being "nice".  Niceness, apparently, being a principle virtue desired amongst presidents whereas competence seems to be a secondary issue. As I've said on this blog before, it's important not to conflate the good with the nice.

This virtue of "niceness" is something that seems particular to Anglo-Saxon cultures. As someone who has straddled several European cultures it's been my observation that niceness is a higher virtue than goodness in countries with a predominantly Protestant Anglo-Saxon culture. Likewise, disagreeableness or offensiveness is seen as one of the greater vices in this sphere as well.  It's no surprise then that political correctness holds such power in this domain, for  the effectiveness of political correctness lays in its ability to co-opt preexisting social norms to further political ends.

For political correctness to work there must be two elements;

1) Firstly, a political body which claims personal injury through offence every time some point is put forward which they disagree with.
2) Secondly, a culture which values non-offensiveness above all else.

I want to dwell on this second point. In the Anglosphere particularly, modes and norms of behaviour were copied from the English, who until the mid 20th Century were the pre-eminent economic, military and cultural power on this Earth. The ideals of the English Aristocracy were aped by all who strived to achieve a higher social standing. So the morals and manners of England became the standard by which all others were judged and it was ideal which was highly emulated in other non-Anglo cultures as well.

Cardinal Newman*, a High Church Anglican intellectual of Oxford,  who eventually converted to Catholicism, gave perhaps the best description of what it meant to be a gentleman.
It is almost a definition of a gentleman to say he is one who never inflicts pain. [ED] This description is both refined and, as far as it goes, accurate. He is mainly occupied in merely removing the obstacles which hinder the free and unembarrassed action of those about him; and he concurs with their movements rather than takes the initiative himself. His benefits may be considered as parallel to what are called comforts or conveniences in arrangements of a personal nature: like an easy chair or a good fire, which do their part in dispelling cold and fatigue, though nature provides both means of rest and animal heat without them. The true gentleman in like manner carefully avoids whatever may cause a jar or a jolt in the minds of those with whom he is cast; — all clashing of opinion, or collision of feeling, all restraint, or suspicion, or gloom, or resentment; his great concern being to make every one at their ease and at home. He has his eyes on all his company; he is tender towards the bashful, gentle towards the distant, and merciful towards the absurd; he can recollect to whom he is speaking; he guards against unseasonable allusions, or topics which may irritate; he is seldom prominent in conversation, and never wearisome. He makes light of favours while he does them, and seems to be receiving when he is conferring. He never speaks of himself except when compelled, never defends himself by a mere retort, he has no ears for slander or gossip, is scrupulous in imputing motives to those who interfere with him, and interprets every thing for the best. He is never mean or little in his disputes, never takes unfair advantage, never mistakes personalities or sharp sayings for arguments, or insinuates evil which he dare not say out. From a long-sighted prudence, he observes the maxim of the ancient sage, that we should ever conduct ourselves towards our enemy as if he were one day to be our friend. He has too much good sense to be affronted at insults, he is too well employed to remember injuries, and too indolent to bear malice. He is patient, forbearing, and resigned, on philosophical principles; he submits to pain, because it is inevitable, to bereavement, because it is irreparable, and to death, because it is his destiny. [ED]If he engages in controversy of any kind, his disciplined intellect preserves him from the blunder.
This gentlemanly ideal has a lot to recommend to it but in essence it boils down to one of cultivated passivity and service to others. Fair enough, but how compatible is this idea with Christianity, especially a Christianity that has to preach the Gospel amongst umbelievers, some of whom would be mightily offended? Is he a Gentleman first or a Christian second? What is a gentleman's duty to the Truth when it offends? Because by definition the Gentleman never offends, he withdraws.

Because as I see it, many Christians, especially those of the right wing variety are gentlemen first and Christians second. To them, offending a minority or a woman is more  of a sin than keeping silent about the truth lest ones behaviour be called uncouth.

The Mangina defence of MegYn Kelly is a case in point. Trump's put down of the the fair maiden was more vile than the fair maiden's abuse of her position as a journalist amongst many, particularly of the religious right.  Kelly, disabused her position as a journalist by trying to trap Trump in a "gotcha" moment, yet this is percieved amongst our religious wowsers as exusuable whereas a wude word is not? Christ's disciples, eh?

The primary duty of a Christian is to live the Gospel and proclaim the truth, no matter how offensive it is.  Sure, tact should be used when prudence calls for it but keeping silent simply by the principle that one should never offend effectively stops it expression. Hence, we arrive at the current situation where there are huge cultural problems which we cannot deal with out of fear of causing offense.  Furthermore, the Right self polices through unthinking adherence to the gentlemanly ideal being co-opted, allowing the Left to solely determine what is offensive or not.

As Christians, I think in many ways we need to revise the ideal of the knight. Of the man who could put on the hurt when he needs to but otherwise strive to be a man of peace. I'm no big fan of Trump, but from this perspective, he is more of a knight than a gentleman.

I don't know if Trump will become president or not but his greatest legacy may well be to reinvigorate the Right and ushering in a new age of assertiveness, finally ridding us of the "gentlemen" who would never offend anybody.

* Yes, I know it's Murdoch but Mordoch seems more appropriate.
* Newman may have his faults but he was also a superb intellect when it came to matters with regard to conscience.