Golden Triangle-Cardinal Virtues-Temperance

Temperance is a virtue akin to self-control. It is applied to all areas of life. St. Thomas calls it a “disposition of the mind which binds the passions”.


The four classic cardinal virtues in Christianity are temperance, prudence, courage, and justice. Christianity derives the three theological virtues of faith, hope and love (charity) from 1 Corinthians. Together these make up the seven virtues.

Temperance is defined as moderation or voluntary self-restraint. It is typically described in terms of what an individual voluntarily refrains from doing. This includes restraint from retaliation in the form of non-violence and forgiveness, restraint from arrogance in the form of humility and modesty, restraint from excesses such as extravagant luxury or splurging now in the form of prudence, and restraint from excessive anger or craving for something in the form of calmness and self-control.

It is generally characterized as the control over excess, and expressed through characteristics such as chastity, modesty, humility, self-regulation, hospitality, decorum, abstinence, forgiveness and mercy; each of these involves restraining an excess of some impulse, such as sexual desire, vanity, or anger.

Temperance is a virtue akin to self-control. It is applied to all areas of life.

St. Thomas calls it a “disposition of the mind which binds the passions”.

Consider the major improvement in our current society if we learned to apply the lesson of temperance and generally subdue our passions.



Morals and virtue

As Franklin explained, “As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” In other words, if we don’t govern ourselves, we have no choice but to be governed from above.


Virtue (Latin: virtus, Ancient Greek: ἀρετή “arete”) is moral excellence. A virtue is a trait or quality that is deemed to be morally good and thus is valued as a foundation of principle and good moral being. Personal virtues are characteristics valued as promoting collective and individual greatness. In other words, it is a behavior that shows high moral standards. Doing what is right and avoiding what is wrong.

The Founders Warned Us: With Loss of Virtue Comes Loss of Our Republic.

It is the secret at the heart of America’s founding—one that we have largely forgotten. Unlike other countries, America is not defined by a particular ethnic or religious group. Instead, our country was formed around an idea: liberty. But what does it take to maintain liberty?

Now, in order to find the answer to this question, we have to go back 229 years, to 1787. Having won the American Revolution, our founders went about creating a new form of government—one that would be strong, but not TOO strong; one that relied on self-government.

As their summer-long convention finished, a woman asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” He famously replied: “A republic, madam—if you can keep it!”

And what could cause us to lose the republic? Well, that’s simple: the loss of virtue.

John Adams wrote that “the only foundation of a free Constitution is pure virtue.” Have you heard that lately? Me neither.

What Franklin understood—and what modern crime statistics tragically bear out—is that if citizens do not voluntarily practice virtue, the authorities have no choice but to attempt to enforce it.

As Franklin explained, “As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” In other words, if we don’t govern ourselves, we have no choice but to be governed from above.

Beginning tomorrow I will be starting a series of blog posts outlining the Golden Triangle of Freedom. The argument boils down to this: Freedom requires virtue; virtue requires faith; and faith in turn requires freedom. Remove any one of the triangle’s sides, and the whole structure collapses. In the posts following I will begin outlining the first leg of the “Golden Triangle”, virtue.



Another one bites the dust

And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. -Mark 6:11

For Jews to shake dust off their feet was a sign that Gentile territory was unclean. In the New Testament this action indicates that those who have rejected the gospel have made themselves as Gentiles and must face the judgment of God. (See also Acts 13:51) To sprinkle dust on the head was a sign of mourning (Joshua 7:6), and to sit in dust denotes extreme affliction (Isaiah 47:1). “Dust” is used to denote the grave (Job 7:21). To lick the dust is a sign of abject submission (Psalms 72:9); and to throw dust at someone is a sign of abhorrence (2 Samuel 16:13; Acts 22:23). To bite the dust is to suffer a defeat. It became a common expression through its use in American movies about the early west.

Given the many B-feature cowboy movies in which the bad guys, or occasionally the pesky redskins, would ‘bite the dust’, we might expect this to be of American origin. It isn’t though. The same notion is expressed in the earlier phrase ‘lick the dust’, from the Bible, where there are several uses of it, including Psalms 72:9 “They that dwell in the wilderness shall bow before him; and his enemies shall lick the dust.”



Human Sacrifice

The Food and Drug Administration signed a contract on July 25 to obtain “fresh” human fetal tissue from aborted babies for the purpose of creating “humanized mice” with an operable “human immune system.”


Sacrifice was a common theme in the Aztec culture. In the Aztec “Legend of the Five Suns”, all the gods sacrificed themselves so that mankind could live. Some years after the Spanish conquest of Mexico, a body of Franciscans confronted the remaining Aztec priesthood and demanded, under threat of death, that they desist from this traditional practice. The Aztec priests defended themselves as follows:

Human sacrifice as shown in the Codex Magliabechiano, Folio 70. Heart-extraction was viewed as a means of liberating the Istli and reuniting it with the Sun: the victim’s transformed heart flies Sun-ward on a trail of blood.

Life is because of the gods; with their sacrifice, they gave us life. … They produce our sustenance … which nourishes life

The Food and Drug Administration signed a contract on July 25 to obtain “fresh” human fetal tissue from aborted babies for the purpose of creating “humanized mice” with an operable “human immune system.”
The FDA paid $15,900 to Advanced Bioscience Resources, a non-profit company near San Francisco Bay.
The contract will expire on July 25, 2019.
The Family Research Council called on the Housing Appropriations Committee to pass a bill that would prohibit the Department of Health and Human Services from paying for fetal tissue from aborted babies.
“It is difficult to imagine anything more shocking or upsetting than the U.S. government soliciting bids from traffickers in the remains of infant victims of abortion,” said Cathy Ruse, Family Research Council’s senior fellow for legal studies.
The fetal tissue contract is for ongoing research at the FDA.
“Fresh human tissues are required for implantation into severely immune-compromised mice to create chimeric animals that have a human immune system,” an FDA notice said.
The Congressional Research Service assured the public that fetal tissue was from “elective abortions.”
“The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is committed to ensuring that its research is conducted responsibly, conforms with all legal requirements, and meets the highest ethical standards,” the FDA said in a statement.
The FDA also made a similar argument to Planned Parenthood, saying “research involving human fetal tissue accounts for a very small fraction of the FDA’s total research.”
This is the eighth contract the FDA has signed with ABR.
Seven contracts explicitly discussed human fetal tissue.
“Every part of this transaction is a tragedy,” Ruse said. “A woman is driven to abort her baby, and there in the shadows is a government contractor waiting to tear apart the baby’s body to deliver pieces in exchange for payment.



The destruction of language (and common sense)

Are we actually expected to just accept the bastardization of language unquestioningly? Can you even hold a rational debate when words have either lost their meaning to taken on connotations in the general parlance without question?


How is it that so many words have become loaded with negative or positive sentiment without any real justification.

Are we actually expected to just accept the bastardization of language unquestioningly? Can you even hold a rational debate when words have either lost their meaning to taken on connotations in the general parlance without question?

For example; Isolationism = bad, no justification.

Diversity = diversity of color, race and sexual stuff, never diversity of ideas. Nationalism and the nation state = bad.

Patriotism = bad.

Capitalism = bad, even though there is no completely capitalist country in the world and there cannot be one, we can only move along a spectrum as we need a government to enforce market rules.

Ethnic = non white, as through whites don’t have an ethnicity.

Antisemitism = hatred of Jews even though the Iranians as Persians are a semitic people, as are other who speak semitic languages.

The list goes on and on.

How do we get past the hijacking of language when questioning it often requires having such a wide body of knowledge that it is outside the scope of the average uncritical person who doesn’t read widely? The answer; Small minds. Inability for abstract thinking. Zero forward thinking. Life just hits them in the face and dumbfounded they are amazed at the outcome.



Some common sense truths

Diversity isn’t a strength that makes us better, it’s a weakness that takes many special steps (emphasis on assimilation, patriotism, colorblindness, etc.) to overcome.


America is turning into such an intolerant, victim-centered, outrage-based, politically correct, that joke isn’t funny, how dare you hold an opposite opinion-centered culture, that a lot of people are afraid to tell you the truth anymore. It’s easier for people to sometimes just keep their heads down and hope that the outrage mob will pick another victim. But, unfortunately, when people become afraid to speak the truth, common sense can die in the darkness because everyone is caught up in saying what we’re “supposed to” believe instead. An America that encourages free speech, discourages censorship and believes in a free exchange of ideas will ALWAYS be superior to the ugly, backward “safe space” of a culture that so many people are trying to create today.

1) All lives matter.

2) People wearing MAGA hats are risking far more to advance free speech and tolerance than most college professors do today.

3) Racism still exists, but it isn’t a serious impediment to anyone’s success in America like it used to be several decades ago.

4) Women make less money than men because they prefer less stressful work and take much more time off to raise kids.

5) You can’t be a good American if you don’t speak English.

6) The false accusations, the demonization of men, and the poisoning of relations between the sexes encouraged by the #MeToo movement have done more harm than the good done by the relatively tiny number of sexual abusers that were exposed because of it.

7) Even Nazis shouldn’t be censored or punched for their beliefs.

8) Allowing gay scoutmasters to take teen scouts into the woods will obviously lead to more sexual abuse of scouts.

9) Any attempt for the government to confiscate all firearms would signal an end to our Republic and should be resisted at all costs, including violently if necessary.

10) If we are going to force the police to deal with the most mentally ill, dangerous, and violent people in our country on a daily basis, some people are going to deservedly be killed and there are also going to be some mistakes made. That is unavoidable and the people pretending otherwise are being unrealistic.

11) No one who immigrates to the United States should be eligible for any kind of welfare program.

12) It shouldn’t be considered ethical for psychologists to go along with the false idea that you can change genders and it shouldn’t be legal for doctors to do surgery or give hormones to a mentally ill person trying to become the other sex.

13) Most adults that are rich or poor deserve to be.

14) Just because a white person criticizes or gets into a conflict with a minority doesn’t mean it has anything to do with race. In fact, the vast majority of the time it doesn’t.

15) Drag queens are deviants and shouldn’t be allowed near children, much less allowed to be part of story times for kids.

16) There are only two genders.

17) If America were oppressive for minorities, they’d be leaving the country, not coming here in droves.

18) There isn’t enough proof that we’re experiencing global warming and that man is responsible for it to make radical changes designed to “fix it.”

19) 99 times out of a 100, a single mom can’t even come close to raising a child as well as a mother and father can.

20) It is okay to be white just like it’s okay to be every other race.

21) Anyone that brings their child with them as they break the law by crossing into America illegally is a bad parent and at fault, if they are separated from their child.

22) Diversity isn’t a strength that makes us better, it’s a weakness that takes many special steps (emphasis on assimilation, patriotism, colorblindness, etc.) to overcome.  

23) The more mass shootings there are, the more of a reason there is for law-abiding people to arm themselves, not for them to disarm. 

24) The proper remedy for speech isn’t censorship, it’s more speech.

25) Slavery was a universal phenomenon and Americans should be prouder that we, along with Great Britain, did the most of any nations in history to end the practice than ashamed that our nation had slaves, just like everybody else.

Staying out of jail is as easy as following 3 rules in life taught to me by my grandmother:

1. Be where you are supposed to be.

2. Do what you are supposed to be doing.

3. Associate with decent law abiding people.



How we ended up going to hell in a handbasket

Liberals are much more vocal about their wants and desires, conservatives are not. We are happy just being left alone to live our lives, liberals want everyone to live by how they live. They openly scream and protest for what they want.


The more liberal folks go on about what they like or don’t like. What they consider appropriate or not appropriate. The more conservatives among us let them do or say what they like. We believe in the constitution in that they have that right to say/do as they please. They ‘get their way’ on most issues as conservatives do not oppose them. They do not affect us or our way of life. An example would be “gay rights”. Sure, let them have whatever they like, I do not care as it does not affect me.

So they get bolder and start ‘demanding’ more. We WANT this or we WANT that. Again, conservative do not oppose them, it is their right to want whatever the heck they want.

At first, most of these things did not affect us. They do not want something, we do, we do it, they don’t do it. All is well.

Liberals are much more vocal about their wants and desires, conservatives are not. We are happy just being left alone to live our lives, liberals want everyone to live by how they live. They openly scream and protest for what they want. Conservatives do not fight back, at first, because they have a right to scream and protest all they like. Still, what the liberals scream about and do does not affect us.

They want to ‘help’ Somali’s and others and import them to somewhere? Sure, conservatives are all for helping folks out. No problems or complaints from conservatives. So they ‘import’ more and more of them. Conservatives were not paying enough attention.

We are coming to the point where this ‘power creep’ from the Liberal side is starting to affect the more conservative side of America.

Conservatives have been quiet too long now, we were not paying close enough attention to what was happening. We gave them too many of the freedoms we so love that they are starting to come back to bite us. Our love of our Constitutional freedoms were being taken advantage of. The liberals took advantage of all or Constitutional freedoms. Conservatives were not paying attention.



Intolerance

You were either born with a penis or a vagina. You were either born as a man or a woman, there is no choice to make.


“Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone’s lifestyle, you must fear or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don’t have to compromise convictions to be compassionate.” -Rick Warren

Why is being straight considered the norm?

It is not considered the norm.

It is the norm.

If something is the norm or not says nothing about if it is better, worse, preferable, horrible, or anything else like that.

It is just something that is so statistically probable that it is the expected in a situation where one does not know the details beforehand.

The norm is to have ten fingers, but of course there are those with more or fewer. The norm is to worry about finances sometime, even though it would be nice to never have to. The norm is to try to cut your hair once in a while, but you do not have to. And so on. Norms can be great, and some norms can be downright silly. Some things are norms by expectation and hope, and some are norms by biology/physics. The term is kinda wide.

For why being straight is norm is a complex question, and I assume that it has lots of little parts, from procreation statistics to social points. If many individuals have straight sex then many new individuals are created and all biological life seems to really want the show to to on. *shrug*

I do some very normative things and some things that are very non-normative. Usually it is best not to focus on norms too much, and just be what you are and do whatever you do to be happy while helping others be as happy.

Some norms can be rather useful for you even if you do not fit them.

The problem is really NOT about your sexual orientation as it applies to you. The problem is expecting others who do not share that orientation to conform to your expectation of how they should think and act.

This is currently being played out in the “choose your gender” silliness currently being manifested in our society.

In an ironic way this has manifested itself as a problem for the “gay press”.

The gay press may have had a purpose in the 1970s and ‘80s. It even had a self-described purpose in the 1990s, (gay marriage).

But in our current society what remains of it is a pointless, shriveled and sad appendage. A demonstration of that unerring law about charities: which is that if a charity is set up to deal with a disease it will continue to operate even if that disease is cured.

Because people’s jobs and pension packages are at stake. Many of those involved will have no other competency, and nothing else to do.

In the same way the gay press has staggered on, mainly online, long after it should have shut up shop. It ekes out an existence, with hardly any readers, paying its contributors nothing or almost nothing, trying to whip up the gays over niche issues of trans rights, and maintaining a skeleton staff paid in pitiful stipends and free items sent to them for review.

Naturally they have become organs of the identity-politics movements: ridiculous, ill-thinking, ‘inter-sectional’ publications which, because the gay rights battle, (in the mind of the “mainline” gay community), is basically won, try to whip their readers up into a rage about political issues that have nothing to do with gays.”

You were either born with a penis or a vagina. You were either born as a man or a woman, there is no choice to make.

If you want to pretend you’re something you’re not that’s up to you. Self deception has become the norm. Just get used to lying to yourself and other’s your whole life. Just please stop trying to tell us that your fantasy is mainstream. Stop urinating on our leg and trying to convince us that it is raining.



Jesus Wasn’t a Socialist.

Jesus routinely refused any kind of forced redistribution of wealth under the guise of charity.
For instance, when Judas lobbied to take Mary’s gift and
redistribute it to the poor, Jesus rebuked him: “Let her alone, so
that she may keep it for the day of My burial. For you always have the poor with you, but you do not always have Me.” (John 12:5-8 NASB).


Throughout the Bible physical realities are used to teach spiritual lessons and vice versa. In fact, Jesus Himself often reveals the way the heavenly world works through analogies to earthly things. Believers can therefore draw practical and political guidance from the lessons of Christ’s ministry but must always recall that these things are correctly interpreted only if they bring truth that sets people free (John 8:32), which was Jesus’ ultimate objective.

Sadly, some today are trying to improperly politicize Christ’s life to justify their own political talking points through blatantly false misrepresentations. For example, at the Democratic National Committee’s summer meeting, Reverend William Barber claimed the Bible advocates socialism:

“When we embrace moral language, we must ask, Does our policy care for ‘the least of these’?—Does it lift up those who are most marginalized and dejected in our society? —Does it establish justice? That is the moral question…If someone calls it socialism, then we must compel them to acknowledge that the Bible must then promote socialism, because Jesus offered free health care to everyone, and he never charged a leper a co-pay.”

First of all, we would endlessly rejoice if God miraculously healed anyone—or everyone—who might be hurt, sick, or dying. However, it seems ridiculously naïve for a pastor to suggest that we legislatively demand “Jesus-care” in accordance with a human sense of justice. It also reveals a stunning ignorance of both history and Scripture to compare a failed economic system responsible for the death of millions throughout history to the loving acts of restoration performed by our Savior.

Jesus didn’t come to institute a free healthcare policy for the Roman empire but rather to use His miracles to reveal the more important purpose of healing the spiritual man. As He affirmed:

“Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven’; or to say, ‘Get up, and pick up your pallet and walk’? But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—He said to the paralytic, ‘I say to you, get up, pick up your pallet and go home’” (Mark 2:9-11 NASB).

There were even times when, in order to demonstrate a higher purpose, Jesus refused to heal someone. Just ask Lazarus. He wasn’t healed from his sickness; He died from it—only to be raised from the dead specifically to reveal “the glory of God” (John 11:40).

There were also times when, even though there were people in need of physical help, Christ placed the emphasis of His ministry on other things, saying:

“Let us go somewhere else to the towns nearby, so that I may preach there also; for that is what I came for” (Mark 1:38 NASB, emphasis added).

Jesus’s “socialistic” heath care plan didn’t even carry coverage for His own physical crucifixion—nor was the apostle Paul spared from his thorn in the flesh (2 Corinthians 12:7-19). Jesus clearly did not come to provide free healthcare without a co-pay for all.

Expanding further, Jesus routinely refused any kind of forced redistribution of wealth under the guise of charity. For instance, when Judas lobbied to take Mary’s gift and redistribute it to the poor, Jesus rebuked him:

“Let her alone, so that she may keep it for the day of My burial. For you always have the poor with you, but you do not always have Me.” (John 12:5-8 NASB).

Jesus wasn’t a socialist. (See especially His teachings in Matthew 25 on the talents, and in Luke 19 about the minas.) And we must never forget that the spiritual healing He provided for us was not free: He paid for it with His own life, and then made it available to us through our own individual repentance, not through equal redistribution.

As believers, we are certainly called to help the “least of these” (Matthew 25:40). But that’s not socialism. That’s Christian ministry by individuals.



Gender reality is not an option

There isn’t the slightest evidence that illiterate third-worlders or a tattoo-defaced generation of the sexually confused are inclined to be either tolerant or productive citizens.


Recently, my local morning news channel aired a story about a body discovered in a city park. Sadly, that’s not especially unusual. I was still a little bleary from having just gotten out of bed, so I don’t recall many details. I think they said the body was aged thirty or so, but I remember very clearly that they said it was the body of a man. I remember this because, being of a cynical turn of mind whenever I am conscious at all, I thought to myself — “How do they know it was a man?”

So, I put it to you: In a world in which gender is a characteristic entirely at the whim of the individual – how does one determine the gender of a corpse?

Does a corpse have the gender it thought it did when it was alive, or does it cease to have a gender when it ceases to have the power to choose one for itself? To echo the old philosophical wheeze about the anonymous tree falling in the anonymous forest, if a person dies in a park and no one is there to recognize and celebrate (its) gender identity – does it even have one?

Progressives have choked the Western world nearly to death with just this sort ontological bullshit.

Let us suppose we see a statistic that claims that women make less money than men for the same work. Since the state of being male or female is purely at the discretion of the individual, then it would appear to the logical mind that discrimination by gender must also be, in a way, at the pleasure of the victim.

After all, if you’re a woman you are entirely a woman by choice – your mere physiology having nothing to do with it. To avoid discrimination, why can’t one just self-identify as a man during working hours, and be a woman, or whatever fantastic gender one prefers, in one’s spare time?

If the left has its way, and all the white people in America are made to pay reparations for the chattel slavery of bygone days, will Rachael Dolezal, who pretends to be black, pay her share – or will she reap the benefits of her self-defined identity? Can one “feel like” a black person for tax purposes alone? Can one self-identify as handicapped for the convenient parking spaces? It is fortunate that one’s self-identification as either competent or incompetent has not yet achieved the much-coveted protected status. I dread the day when I will be treated by a physician who simply “feels like” a doctor.

All sarcasm aside, I have little doubt that the current fad of ignoring brute realities in the name of fairness and “social justice” is nearing the end of its road. Realities are strong creatures with a way of reasserting themselves — often rather brutally.

The beginning of our present course certainly looked innocent enough. It began with a naïve, hopeful, desperate assumption that all of us are absolutely equal. Or, to reach only a little further back, it began with a tragedy.

It began when the advancing Allied armies exposed the Nazi death camps at the end World War II, and everyone across the West rightfully recoiled in horror. People concluded that we had better not let a thing like that happen again — which was a laudable sentiment. Liberals (and yes, I do mean liberals — not today’s degenerate progressives) decided that, to avert the possibility of future genocide, we had to throw out any evidence that any person might have a genetic edge over any other.

This was no minor adjustment. Before the war, almost everyone understood that different peoples, races, and cultures were just that — different.

They understood that genders were binary — and different. People were allowed to see what they actually saw.

The people of the rest of the world, from South America to Africa, from the Middle East to the Far East — still understand perfectly well that all people are neither the same nor compatible with one another. It is only we in the West who have had this counterintuitive and utterly false idea pounded into our heads.

No one should think our ancestors all so narrow-minded that they didn’t realize individuals from other groups might break the mold from time to time. England had a prime minister of Jewish descent in the 19th century. Even in the antebellum South there were black slaveholders among the millions of black slaves. There were successful women long before the women’s liberation movement came along. The belief, at its strongest in America, that the individual should be judged on his or her own merits is the rational remedy for blind group hatred. Making everybody equal every which way by mere wishful thinking isn’t.

As soon as people started to believe that everybody isn’t merely equal before the law, but that all groups of people must be equal every which way, we made enemies with an ocean of inconvenient facts.

Instead of the slow, methodical practice of ferreting reality from nature (we used to call this science) people began to tie their beliefs to what they thought would be nice.

It would, of course, be nice if homosexual men didn’t engage in pedophilia at an alarming rate compared to heterosexual men — but they do. It would also be quite nice if blacks had, on average, about the same IQ scores as whites or Asians — but they don’t. It would certainly warm our hearts if Islam really were the religion of peace — but fifteen hundred years of history and the uncounted dead of virtually every culture that has ever come in contact with Islam say otherwise.

When people detach themselves from hard, unpleasant realities they get very good at creating and maintaining flexible narratives. When facts are banished, reality just is what you want believe. Or what you’ve been told to believe.

Today’s white male who doesn’t want to be harassed for “whiteness” or “toxic masculinity” can become some miserable facsimile of a female because it is now a widespread taboo to say he can’t.

The bitter irony produced by all this this fanciful cognitive gibberish is that, in a world in which people are in a constant state of competition for official pity, all that was good at the beginning of the liberal project has been wrecked or overturned. What is “equality before the law” when some people are entitled to extra protections under hate crime laws? What is “basic human decency” when, to be a victim, one must identify a group of people as oppressors and revile them publicly as a class?

Slavery, the Holocaust, and all the other tragedies of the human past were never a just reason to plunge ourselves into this suicidal faux-egalitarian nightmare.

There isn’t the slightest evidence that illiterate third-worlders or a tattoo-defaced generation of the sexually confused are inclined to be either tolerant or productive citizens.

There is plenty of evidence that many of these disorderly creatures have good old-fashioned tribal axes to grind. If we are really going to save the West, we need not resort to simple-minded bigotry — but we had better relearn the principle of simple realism.