My Stoic Journey

A few year ago now I stumbled across the idea of stoicism from fellow blogger Jeffery Brooks. It was mere chance that I saw a post he had done on the nature of stoic philosophy and down a rabbit hole I began to travel. It has been an exciting journey of self discovery I would love to share with you!

Stoicism is, in a nutshell, an ancient philosophy which teaches the value of self control through the practice of virtue. The idea is that if one practices virtue, you can become a clear and unbiased thinker. Practicing virtue leads to a better life, and focusing only on what you can control, your reaction to things, allows you to weather the blows of life better than simply giving in to base emotions. The power of the stoic philosophy is well put by one of its greatest thinkers Epictetus:

Philosophy does not promise to secure anything external for man, otherwise it would be admitting something that lies beyond its proper subject-matter. For as the material of the carpenter is wood, and that of statuary bronze, so the subject-matter of the art of living is each person's own life. (Discourses 1.15.2)

The stoic philosophy extolls the four cardinal virtues. These are; wisdom, justice, courage, and temperance. In the stoic mind the evils of the world follow from ignorance of these principles, or men acting out against their nature, or the innate logic of nature (the logos). Practicing and refining your life around these virtues then is a goal to be strived for and it is not merely a set of spiritual beliefs but something to be strived for. There is an art to stoic living, one that requires, like exercise, constant practice and refinement.

In order to better understand this refinement, the words of the Roman Emperor, Marcus Aurelius, can still be easily read in his accidental book of philosophy Meditations. The private thoughts of an emperor written down for personal consumption, they are the innermost reflections of one of the most powerful men in the world as he chides himself, tries to direct his energies to a more productive use, and reminds himself that he is mortal and fallible. Indeed, one can take some of his thoughts and reflect on it well every morning to cope with life's stresses:

“Say to yourself first thing in the morning: today I shall meet people who are meddling, ungrateful, aggressive, treacherous, malicious, unsocial. All this has afflicted them through their ignorance of true good and evil. But I have that the nature of good is what is right, and the nature of evil what is wrong; and I reflected that the nature of the offender himself is akin to my own -- not a kinship of blood or seed, but a sharing in the same mind, the same fragment of divinity. Therefore I cannot be harmed by any of them, as none will infect me with their wrong. Nor can I be angry with my kinsman or hate him. We were born for cooperation, like feet, like hands, like eyelids, like the rows of upper and lower teeth. So to work in opposition to one another is against nature: and anger or rejection is opposition.” (Meditations, Book II.I)

It was not with that great and venerable emperor philosopher I began my journey however, it was through the work of Massimo Pigliucci in his work How to be a Stoic. It is an easily accessible book, with diagrams and endless personal anecdotes on the stoic lifestyle, its challenges, and how to live by what the ancient philosophers said. His work is easy to read for a philosopher novice, and he draws heavily on the works of others and tries to break down their language so that it is more accessible to a 21st century reader. Through it all he succeeds admirably, and does a very concise job in showing you the path to living a stoic lifestyle.

I immediately followed this by reading Epictetus's Discourses. It is a good read, but one that is much better suited to someone who has studied philosophy before. Going onwards I immediately read Meditations, which has stood the test of nearly a thousand years! Edited into digestible chunks, it is merely the musings of Marcus Aurelius. Easy to read for many and something that should be read and appreciated!

From there I read a few of the works of Seneca and Cicero, both great writers and thinkers in their own ways. My most recent read however, was from a very modern source, Nancy Sherman's Stoic Wisdom: Ancient Lessons for Modern Resilience. 

Sherman writes in a very conversational style, only occasionally drawing on the exact words of the ancient writers and instead utilizing her own personal knowledge of stoicism to inform you on how to apply this ancient wisdom to your modern life. From hectic schedules, to cellphones, to the pandemic (which struck as she was writing it) she applies the different ideas of stoic virtues and ways of living/thinking which are so useful to stoics. I sincerely recommend this accessible read to anyone hoping to see how this ancient philosophy is very applicable to their modern lives!

For my own part, having accessed Pigliucci's work and then read through the stoics and managed to try my hand at the stoic way of living through the wisdom of these sages, and finally more recently through the work of Sherman, I am attempting to incorporate its practices into my everyday life. Whether it's Marcus Aurelius's admonishment for every morning, or simply remembering there is very little I can have physical control over in my life, I attempt to bring those ancient ideas forward.

What has been of some great comfort is that stoic practice has directly influenced modern cognitive behavioral therapy, which I also practice. I remind myself what I can control, what I can or should think about, and set concrete expectations on what I can do. It has been very helpful living in these trying times.

Stoic thought too has influenced Christianity, with the Apostle Paul using stoic arguments and metaphors in his epistles to the early churches. The stoic virtues and ideas of consistently refining yourself to the rigors of modern life and the world have resonated with Christian audiences, and can be very useful in guiding the Christian faith. At least I have found so anyways.

Stoicism is though, a powerful philosophy for the modern world. A series of ideas and practices which have withstood the test of time and are as applicable to life now as they were when the first stoic, Zeno, began to spell out his thoughts to his followers all those millennia ago! Hopefully these ideas have been instructive and offer a little glimpse of the philosophy I enjoy, and hopefully you can explore these resources and find out more for yourself as well!

The Revelations: My Apocalyptic Journey

Years ago now I was attending church, and doing what I usually did, poking my nose through the little Church library. I stumbled across books regarding the Book of Revelation and the foretold End of Days. They purported to tell me how I would know the world is coming to an end, how I as a Christian could see the signs, and what to expect as the End Times rolled nearer. I lapped these up, and then moved on to the controversial evangelical fiction series Left Behind.

Since then I've become a bit less convinced in these prophesies. 

I recently read a fascinating article from Current Affairs on 'Christian Horror and the end of the world' which tells the long story of attempts by the evangelical bent of Christianity to provoke a conversion experience by telling them of the horrors that await them in the Apocalypse. It also highlights the very troubling trend undertaken in making these more accessible for 'entertainment' to the public, the outright demonization of anyone who doesn't agree with these very narrow denominational views and an adherence to a very questionable idea of Biblical prophecy.

My own interactions with these ideas has also been uniquely American. For decades now there has been a cottage industry of American evangelists and theologians trying to reinterpret the Bible to, somehow, include the United States in prophecy or claim that the United States had a covenant with God. Neither of those things is true, but it hasn't stopped people from trying to claim it so. As such, whenever I read books about the End Times, the United States always loomed large in the authors thinking.

I can't say specifically what got me going down that path towards interest in the apocalypse, I was a pre-teen turning teenager when I began engaging with the ideas of the Christian End Times so perhaps my own changing life had something to do with it. However, I began reading about all the terrible things in the Book of Revelation, then reading Revelation itself. 

It's some pretty grim stuff, plagues, war, slaughter, and a one world government (if some of this sounds similar to contemporary conspiracy theory, take a few guesses about what has inspired some if it). Quite naturally, I began to be concerned. I read the Left Behind series next, wanting to soak in some - what I assumed - well informed fiction on the subject. The books aren't out and out awful, but they're not good either. If you're a teenager just getting into exploring your religion, this is probably not the best way to explore the End Times.

The fictional journey through the Book of Revelation is told primarily through two dimensional characters with some very lame attempts at Christian ideology or feel good conversion stories sprinkled throughout. Many of them come off as talking down to everyone else in the world. The cast is almost all American, and trips to the other parts of the world are inexpertly told and kinda troubling overall. It explores the years of the Tribulations, and the establishment of a one world government by the Antichrist and the eventual triumph of Jesus over the powers of evil. Yes, knowing the end does drain all the tension from the books.

Finishing the series by about the time I was sixteen, I began to wonder about all the prophesies. Was I living in the End Times? It certainly seemed that way! Wars, rumors of war, economic collapse, chronic fear of "the other" after 9/11, and not really having a firm grasp in Christian theology or the context in which Revelation was written made me fearful. Conversations with fellow Christians became worried about, is the end near, are we doing enough?

However, as time wore on, I became a little less worried. Partially thanks to Matthew 24:36 and Mark 13:32, as touchstones for how misguided the evangelicals warning of the imminent end times were.

With that though, I also realized many of the more firm predictions for how the end of the world would come about were a bit dated. One book I read was certain that Saddam Hussein was the Antichrist who was rebuilding Babylon to bring about the end times and described his time in power as the result of 'Satanic protection' from harm. Considering he was overthrown and executed only a few years before I began my journey into the End Times readings, I was understandably skeptical of further assurances from this writer.

If you go back far enough, many of the assurances or predictions from people seeking to capitalize on the End Times do depend on the enemy of the day. The Russians were fated to bring about the End Times, Gorbachev was the Antichrist, Al Qaeda and Islam would birth the Antichrist, ect. It's a lot of the here and now trying to be shoehorned into Biblical eschatology. Even the contemporary QAnon cult draws on much of the language and prophetic visions we see in Christian eschatology.

By the time I reached twenty there were other weird end of the world theories running around. The Mayan calendar and the 2012 end of the world date was one, and the zombie apocalypse infecting the whole post-apocalyptic fiction genre was also weighing heavily on peoples minds. The end of the world was trendy, and I was beginning to think that the evangelical view of the End Times was less than accurate.

Now I no longer believe in the literal End Times. I believe Jesus is coming back, but I don't quite think the apocalyptic visions promised by Left Behind or may other Christian apocalyptic visionaries are true or accurate. I've moved on from that fear, and I think it isn't a good fear for Christians to engage in. With very real issues facing the Earth like climate change, peak oil, and the horrible potential for nuclear war, we have much bigger things on our plates. The end of the world as we know it can be fun to explore or write about, but is not a theological or evangelical pursuit worth chasing. There are better messages to spread.

Guest Post: Sermon for St. Peters, March 22nd 2020

Though it isn't extremely common for me to post on the subject of my faith here, I'm today doing a small favor for my brother by hosting the words of his sermon online as his congregation cannot presently meet due to the need to self isolate. If you aren't religious and if you are, you may take some comfort in his well written words and the knowledge we are in this together!

------

Good morning everyone! Once again what a pleasure it is to be preaching the word of our Lord with you. I was also going to say a pleasure not to be preaching about doom and gloom, but given the circumstances, I think maybe I have been foiled by the spirit of the times right now.

Now, today there is only a small part of the reading from our Gospel selection, as it is part of a much larger story. The full text is John 9, the story where Jesus heals a man blind from birth. Now in the story, this is a man blind from birth whom Jesus heals, but he heals him on the Sabbath, the day of rest. Doing so causes some ruffled feathers among the Pharisees who, despite seeing a genuine miracle before them, are bothered by the man being healed, so they throw him to the street. This prompts Jesus to speak with them, and they ask “are you saying we’re blind?”

What an uncomfortable question. But in the wake of the current illness sweeping our world, what a good question. For a while there wasn’t too much known about this illness, as it was something that the Chinese government kept firmly locked up behind their wall of silence. Now, it is everywhere, with new updates, warnings, and even closed borders. The world media only sparsely examined it as it spread in the city of Wuhan. It was something we have all seen before. First there was AIDS, then there was SARS and Bird Flu, Swine Flu, Trudea Mania 2.0, and Trump Fever. All diseases that came and went in the blink of an eye. I myself was very dismissive of this illness, thinking it was one more thing the media was going to talk about which barely darkened our shores. Well friends, there was my blindness, both spiritual and real. I feel like God may ask me, were you blind? And what else did you not see?

Illness like this is one of those things I think our modern mind has a difficult time wrapping itself around. We live in a generally healthy world after all! What is there to worry about with our modern medical centers and skilled scientists? Yet as soon as this respiratory illness arises, suddenly there is no more toilet paper and no more masks! Despite the fact experts have said “wash your hands, and you should be just fine”. It is literally told to us as that simple. So I remind you all, wash your hands. Since we do not have access to the baptismal font think of this as your reminder of baptism that you are washed by the Grace of God. We are baptised communally so we show that shared baptism communally.

It also takes us to our verses today. Jesus told the blind man after he had placed clay in his eyes to go wash in the pool of Siloam, the pool of the sent it is translated as in some versions. Then when he is thrown out Jesus says that he came to make those who see blind, in response to the Temple’s unwillingness to accept what has happened. Paul says too, we should live our lives in the light. Rise from the dead and go! The Psalm says, the Lord is our shepherd. I only leave these little snippets because as we cannot come together and read together, so I implore you come together at home and read the verses with your families and friends, listen to what they are saying. Come out of darkness. See and trust. We have been so blessed and so graced to live on our part of the world, so how are we using our blessings right now? How do we trust that God is looking out for us? How are we seeing what is directly in front of us?

Right now, many of us are living blind because we are stuck at home, or working from home, places to go are closed, travel is hard, and there is an uncertainty in the air. How then shall we cope? Will we stay in darkness behind our doors, will we turn a blind eye to what is happening? For this community I know the answer already, it is no! The question I suppose is how we shall make things seen? I know there will be people out volunteering on Friday and Saturday, I am sure many of you are making calls to friends and loved ones, but let us also make calls to each other in church. Who is the most isolated among us? Who needs a helping hand right now? Let us not turn a blind eye to neighbours' needs. Let us wash ourselves in the pool of the sent so that we see what needs to be done with healthy hearts and healthy eyes. Now that this illness has brought many things out into the open, let us use the sight we have to see what needs to be done.

In the time of the Black Death, some of the highest casualties were among priests and active lay people. They went and buried the dead, they offered prayers and hope to the afflicted despite the risk to themselves. Sweeping changes were made so that more people could serve the needs of others. Why, they even had women accepting confessions and offering up forgiveness. Now, unless you work in the health industry, don’t jump into the jaw of illness, but from this historical fact let us see how faith has made people brave in the face of illness. I hope and pray none of us are affected by this illness, but I pray we have the courage to do what needs to be done for those in need. Let us let our faith make us strong and show us the way.

May we spend this week and the coming weeks with our eyes open to danger, but in the knowledge the Lord is our shepherd and our salvation.

Retro Review: The Ten Commandments

Personally, I am an old movie buff. Even though old movies acting and effects are nowhere near what we can put on the screen today, they still tell excellent stories and gives a glimpse into the world as it was way back then. This is part of the reason I tend to appreciate them so much as compared to some modern films which don't do the era they are set in justice I think.

Recently, I was able to watch the 1956 classic The Ten Commandments on Netflix.

That film is epic, which tells not only its own innovative story of the Exodus, but is epic in scope and scale of story telling regarding the life of Moses, Pharaoh, and the Israelites. It also draws influence from novels like Dorothy Clark Wilson's Prince of Egypt, Joseph Ingraham's Pillar of Fire, and On Eagle's Wings by Arthur Eustace Southton. Not only that, it draws on historical sources like Philo's Life of Moses and the works of Josephus. This provides a rich background to draw characters and inspiration from in order to craft a grand narrative to tell a new story of Moses. Largely filling in the 'forgotten years' between Moses exile and return to Egypt.

The casting though, is spot on.

A younger Charlton Heston (with pectoral muscles which could put eyes out) captures a young, outgoing, and brash image of Moses who has been raised by Egyptians. His performance as the film rolls on and he undergoes a transformation from honorable, but driven and intriguing prince, to a devout holy man with a mission to free his people. His penchant for chewing the scenery is fantastic in my opinion and he can be perfectly over the top as necessary.

The second character I noticed was Vincent Price as Baka, an Egyptian overseer who goes from faithful assistant to Moses, to card carrying villain. The man whose voice I remember from The 13 Ghosts of Scooby-Doo as a kid, plays an excellent and sinister character on screen. Though admittedly this is a tiny role, it fills me with great amusement.

Bigger roles of course are those of Rameses (Yul Brynner), Nefritiri (Anne Baxter), Joshua (John Derek), Aaron (John Carradine), Lilia (Debra Paget), Yochabel (Martha Scott) and Bithia (Nina Foch). Each of these actors is well cast to their parts, and the female leads are all amazing in their performances.

I think that for a 1950s film, the agency and drama it grants to women is admirable. The roles of Nina Foch as Bithia and Martha Scott as Yochabel both are allowed to shape and drive Moses while holding some agency of their own. Though this is primarily in the form of protecting and nurturing their biological and adoptive son, it is a good role regardless. Nefritiri, whose scheming and agency drives much of the plot is a fantastic character, for both her tragic backstory and her desire for vengeance. Unfortunately, the character Lila falls into the "damsel in distress" category as Joshua's love interest.

While the film would soundly and swiftly fail a modern Betchel Test, it is fair for its day in the 1950s in giving its female characters more voice.

The Biblical epic though, unfolds roughly similar to the original story in the Book of Exodus. Pharaoh, fearing that the people of Judah will become too populous, orders the massacre of every firstborn males of the Hebrews. Yochabel, seeking to protect her son, sets him adrift in the river. He is saved and adopted by Bithia, daughter of Pharaoh.

Years pass, the Hebrews suffer, but Moses (named so by Bithia) is raised in luxury. Prince Moses quickly becomes the favorite of Pharaoh Sethi, to the jealously of his son Prince Rameses. This kicks off the plot as Rameses is charged to build a great city to honor Sethi, but his cruelty slows production. Meanwhile, Moses has won a great victory over Ethiopia, earning acclaim. However, he covets Pharaoh's daughter Nefritiri, who Rameses also covets. When Moses is sent to build Sethi's great city, Rameses schemes against him. Moses however, sees the plight of the Hebrews, and tries to aid them. In the process, he learns of his Hebrew parentage and has a crisis of conscience. In doing so he decides to forgo his Egyptian heritage and live among the slaves.

Here is where part of the film felt contrived for me. In the Book of Exodus, (and the great adaptation, The Prince of Egypt) Moses kills an Egyptian overseer, so he must flee. Here, the same thing happens but in a far more contrived way. Despite being told repeatedly that only Pharaoh may free slaves, and with his path to becoming Pharaoh secure, Moses decides to forgo power and live amongst the Hebrews to know his heritage. Instead of using the path laid out for him to free his people and become an enlightened ruler, he decides to take the hard and stupid way. Moses from this movie doesn't seem too bright in this moment.

It gets worse when because of this bad decision he is captured and accused of being "the Deliverer" whom the Hebrews speak of taking them out of bondage. Rameses has him exiled, showing a great deal of bad judgement himself, and Moses wanders the desert until he comes to the tribe of Jethro, and meets his daughter Sephora.

From here the narrative leaves the contrivance train and we get to the big symbols of the burning bush, Moses receiving his staff and getting all woolly haired and wild eyed, and his return to Egypt.

In is at this point that the movie begins playing to its strengths. While the acting and story telling in the first half of the movie is superb (save for Moses being something of an idiot) the narrative shines forth to tell the story of the exodus from Egypt quite well.

The plagues are carried out as well as can be expected with 50s special effects, which is to say remarkably well at points. They manage to show the turning of the Nile to blood, the flaming hail, and a truly creepy rendition of the Angel of Death coming into Egypt. That last scene is tense, disturbing, and truly enjoyable.

The special effects too, are stunning for the time. Showing off the great accomplishments in Egypt, the crossing of the Red Sea, the tempest of God as a pillar of fire, and the burning bush. There was a reason this was, at the time, the most expensive movie ever made.

When one considers that by and large this was accomplished through practical effects and with large groups of extras, the coordination is even more impressive. In the penultimate scene where Rameses chases the Jews to the Red Sea, the armies of Pharaoh are actually being played by the Egyptian Army! Which is pretty great in my humble opinion.

At the time this was one of the most expensive movies ever produced. When one considers the budgets many movies get now and the results that delivers, it should be obvious that directors could learn a thing or two from old movies.

The film is of course something of a morality tale. Nefritiri is something of a "Vamp" who uses her feminine wiles to confuse and misguide the men in her life, and is influenced by first her lust, then hatred for Moses. That the story is from the Book of Exodus is fitting since it is the triumph of the Christian God over the gods of Egypt. Moses more questionable decisions come from a clear intent of following an honor code.

Definitely old fashioned in its message, The Ten Commandments is a spectacle that shouldn't be missed, however. The films scenes of Biblical epics and amazing effects for the 50s stand true today. The acting is grand, the story holds up as timeless, and the film itself is a deserved epic. If the long view time puts you off, it comes with a natural intermission to pause at for a little while if you're not up for seeing the whole thing in one sitting.

Well worth seeing as an excellent Retro Film. Personally, I'm looking forward to recommending many more for you!

Why I Prefer AD vs. CE

Well recently in one of my Christianity classes we got into the topic of what BCE and CE means, and contrary to some, no it does not mean 'Christian Era' instead it is a 'neutral' term meaning 'Common Era' which is supposed to define the commonly used dating system in the modern era. Now understand this, the debate over the use of Common Era (or BCE/CE vs. BC/AD) is not a modern phenomenon, in fact the use of CE goes back nearly 400 years with the first use of CE appearing in Latin in 1615 and English in 1708 showing that, despite what some would think, we are not unique in attempting to change the dating system.

Now here's the thing, most arguments against the use of BC/AD are those who are attempting to pursue an idea of 'religious tolerance' or pluralism and inclusiveness in the dating system adopted by the world in an attempt to be more neutral to the global community. Never mind that this in and of itself is absurd since the Gregorian Calendar was foisted on the globe through the imposition of European ideas on local cultures completely upending their own way of time telling and was imposed by force. Nor does it take into account already existing counter calendar systems which are explicitly religiously based (such as the Muslim calendar or the Japanese Imperial calendar which measures the year from when the first emperor sat on the throne). It also ignores the fact that the Gregorian Calendar currently has religious ties to ancient religions built into it (the months and days being named after gods). The most important thing is that, for all intents and purposes, the global community uses this calendar for convenience sake.

However, what grinds my gears about the idea is that rather than attempt to remove any connection to previous time keeping or cultural strata they simply adapt the 'Christian' calendar making the change completely cosmetic and utterly pointless. In that same vein I sincerely doubt that most people, even of other religions, strenuously object to the use of this type of Calendar or really notice it at all to begin with.

Now for the plainly reactionary part of my little essay here. Functionally and culturally there is absolutely no need to change the dating system effectively in use for hundreds of years (well in the Western world at least) and reasons for changing it because it might 'offend' are laughable since it was through Western cultural hegemony which the current dating system became 'common'.

Though as a little aside, let me just offer up one suggestion to those who wish to make a 'neutral' dating system. Rather than simply trying to rewrite the current calender in a pointless PC exercise, how about just starting a new dating system? I know it's harder than just cosmetically altering the one we currently have, but at least it's more intellectually honest.

Here's a thought, how about we celebrate one of man's crowning achievements as the new more neutral dating system? Let us hypothesize that we can start if from October 4th 1957, when Sputnik was placed in orbit and man finally had access to the high frontier. We can say that starting that day is a new era (or hell just starting on the new year of 1958 for convenience sake) and every year after (we can say that the time from October 4th to December 31st is the 'year zero') becomes a year of the new Cosmic Era (CE). That would make today September 14th 56 CE. Rejoice for one of the greatest moments of mankind's history!

Now that may seem just silly, but it's a hell of a lot more honest than just trying to tie in a 'correct' idea to the existing dating system. It has worked without popular complaint for the last hundred years (or I suppose technically since we started the Gregorian calendar). To me though, it is just as silly to implement a cosmetic change which no one really cares about, and no great majority is asking for.

This is one of those traditions I will gladly stick too.

Freedom from religion? Or freedom from opposing ideas?

Hello my fair readers. I begin today's article by saying that I am unashamedly Christian and that I don't mind if that turns some readers away. Frankly it's my blog and I will occasionally post things that others find opposite to their ideoligcal or personal views. That being said I continue on with today's topic.

I often get into debates with agnostics or atheists regarding Christianity, why I do so is still somewhat of a mystery to me as it is rarely productive. True I make no secret of my religious beliefs, which has made me a target of anger and criticism in the past, but I should hopefully know better at this point than to engage in pointless debates with people who just sincerely don't want to hear my point of view on the matter. Which of course brings me to today's subject.

In a recent, more friendly chat I had with an atheist acquaintance he told me he supported both the seperation of church and state, and the campaign for a freedom from religion. This is a term I had heard of before, but wasn't quite sure of what it meant so I asked him to clarify. He explained the term meant that he supported the view that the discussion of religion and faith should be removed from the public sphere and regulated into the private one and into a person's household.

This of course shocked me to no end. I asked whether that he meant for atheism to disappear from the public forum as well, and to his credit he answered 'No I'd just rather all religious debate disappeared so we wouldn't have to hear about it anymore, but I'd still insist there's no God."

Now none of what he'd said there is bad at all, but the very idea of simply removing a point of topic from the public sphere is one that strikes me as totalitarian in nature.

I of course should clarify something here. I am a rabid opponent of racism, hate speech, revisionist history, and the greatest sin of all, Holocaust denial. Any of those items are hateful, usually carry violent undertones, and are meant only to provoke hostility in a crowd. These things are in my opinion not defended under free speech, just like inciting violence or panic isn't. None of these things are appropriate or acceptable in civil discourse, just as copious name calling or profanity is considered impolite and obscene to public debate.

The idea that religion can be used to incite similar hate speech or intolerance is not false, but that goes against the thousands of other religious or faith based initiatives to do exactly the opposite such as promoting peace, justice, care for the poor, and forgiveness in society. So to be clear, attempting to ban religious discourse in public based on that category falls flat.

Now to return to the matter at hand, the term 'freedom from religion' implies that a person who is not a believer would be able to go about their daily life and never have to encounter a religious message or slogan (presumably unless they pass a church or mosque ect). That implies I would hope that a religious person could go about their daily life and never have to encounter an atheist banner or slogan.

I somehow though doubt that is the sincere wish of the atheist who promotes the idea.

Consider this, an atheist does not regard himself as religious, nor would his own banner or slogan be considered religious under the law. So I must presume that 'freedom from religion' does not include 'freedom from atheism'.

Now I can understand some out there asking 'Yeah, so what?' well in rebuttal let me put it this way. If society is 'free from religion' but not free from atheism then a religious or faithful person will most likely have to endure slogans, banners, chants and other atheist items without complaint while being unable to mount a rebuttal in the public forum themselves. I regard this as totalitarian in nature. It merely silences an idea that an atheist finds disqueting, is this idea hateful, bigoted, aiming to incite violence, or provoke people? No, the simple belief in God does not do that. While it will of course sometimes spark heated debate it is not meant to be used as a message to spread hate, bigotry, and ignorance (anyone who claims otherwise is deluded or no true servant of the Lord and merely a self-centered bigot).

So for someone to claim they want 'freedom from religion' I hear echoes of 'I want to silence the opposing view point'. While this may not be forefront on the minds of many who adhere to this idea, I am quite certain that most of its ardent defenders clearly want a society where they are free to preach their own spiritually dead message, while using the power of the state to silence any view point which would contest them and regulate the worshippers to their homes and churches rendering any response they might have mute.

Not only is that abhorent and un-democratic, but it flies in the very face of what most atheists would believe. They believe they have reason and logic on their side, well silencing the other end of the debate is not reason or logic. It is naked brutality masked as concern for society. I don't agree with anyone who supports this idea and I would encourage others to chastise the holders of it. It is not an idea which people who live in a democratic society should hold to, nor is it one which anyone who believes in logic and reason should want to see undertaken.

I am sometimes criticized for my belief in 'censoring' holocaust denial, or hate speech. Well what does someone who wants 'freedom from religion' preach? Civil discourse? No. They preach no discourse at all and merely wish to dictate to us what we can and cannot hear. That is the exact opposite of what I stand for in society.

I like to believe that we live in a free and open society which doesn't allow for bigotry and hate speech to run rampant. If we close one door of civil public discourse, how many more can be closed to satisfy people?

I finish with this, 'freedom from religion' is no freedom at all, but merely totalitarian urges masked behind lofty idealism. If you don't agree with a view debate it, if you don't wish to participate in said debate ignore it. What one cannot do is silence any opposing view point in a debate! If one cannot speak their mind than how can civil disocourse in society exist at all?

The Last Pilgrims: By Micheal Bunker, A Review

Recently readers I have finished an entirely new book. It is a book from my favorite genre, the post-apocalyptic sort. It revolves around an interesting post-apocalyptic premise and has a unique view on the post-apocalyptic situation. This week I bring you, The Last Pilgrims by Micheal Bunker.

This book I picked up after seeing it advertised on other sites and having visited the book's website and the author's blog. The book and author presents a unique view point on life and a post-apocalyptic scenario in general. It could count among science-fiction, but the only real science fiction element I would say it has is the quickness of the collapse in the beggining (two-weeks or so) which firmly sets it out of that genre and into the regular post-apocalyptic camp.

I've heard many comparisons of thie book to the Hunger Games, or the new TV show Revolution. To which I say, well there are a few comparisons to be made yes. One of the main characters (Ruth) does use and bow like Katniss, and yes like Revolution it is a world where there really is no modern technology and most people don't use electricity as it is unavailable. Otherwise this book stands out as something completely different in its own right, in a good way!

The story itself centers around an area in West Texas and the community of the Vallenses, an Amish-like plain people who are a thriving religious community in a fallen world. Their model of prosperity however sincerely irritates their large and powerful neighbour, the King of Aztlan, who wants this land for himself. A free independant people of course cannot be tolerated.

The story is really a retelling of the struggles of the ancient Waldensians a group of Evangelical Christians who defied the might of the Catholic Church and suffered horrendous persecution at the hands of its agents before the survivors fled to the New World.

The Good:

Micheal Bunker establishes right off the bat the kind of world we are seeing. His prlogue gives us an excellent synopsis (if not the outright cause) of the collapse and its extremely quick escalation from mere economic downturn, to minor nuclear war. Thus American (nay world) society as we know it is thrust five hundred years into the past with petty kings and lords taking up claims and projecting their power through armies of thugs. This would go ill for the pacifist Vallensian people were it not for the emergence of the Ghost Militia who are dedicated to fighting Aztlan and by extention protecting the Vallenses.

We get a clear look at the local political situation (the world one being understandably sketchy) and see just why the Vallenses are so persecuted. The king of Aztlan hates them as they are a large successful nation who are a) opposed to his rule b) setting a successful example for rebels from his own lands to follow and c) follow a faith that diverges markedly from the corrupt political Church in New Rome. Indeed he rightly fears his people taking this example and rebelling against him. The only reason he has avoided outright war thus far is internal problems, and the dogged persistance of the Ghost Militia killing his raiding parties.

Now though twenty years after the collapse, he is turning his attention to stamping them out completely. Thus our story opens with Jonathan Wall, respected leader of the Vallenses, sending a plea for help to the King of the South States. Unfortunately this is interrupted when a would be assassin just misses his target. Here we greet Phillip, the leader of the Ghost Militia as he saves Wall and brings in the assassin, Gareth, who has a ulterior motive of his own...

Then on we follow a colorful cast of characters, Jonathan's daughter Ruth, a militia rider named Timothy, a Aztlani knight named English, and Jonathan's son David.

Each character brings something unique of their own to the story, Ruth in her growing up experience, and David's internal conflict between his faith's pacifistic nature, and the brutal reality of the war creeping down upon them.

The dialogue is good, well written, but often slightly to mild mannered for my taste. Though it does serve to show how society has fallen down with the disapearence of so much of the modern slang that we know, verses a more eloquent and Biblically reflective speech that would come from a deeply religious society. This is though contrasted with the speech of those from Aztlan and beyond.

The war itself is put in very brutal terms, with heartwrenching atrocities and brutal battles. Though we clearly see that Aztlan is the evil agressor and the Vallensians a normal people caught in the middle of a territorial and religious conflict. The battle scenes though, are spectacular. You feel as though you are right in the middle and Bunker's keen eye for these details gives you an impressive mind's eye view of every fight and each tactic undertaken by the combatants.

The moral, and philisophical issues brought up by the many characters will leave you asking deep questions yourself about how prepared you are in your own life, and of course in your spiritual life.

Micheal Bunker is also something of a philosopher, practioner and writer in the world of prepardness (and if you visit his blog you will see he has a refreshing habit of practicing what he preaches) thus there is a great element of prepardness and self-sufficiency in the novel with some unique and interesting ideas that readers interested in such things may find interesting. There are also a number of health facts and tips that are pleasantly surprising (organic beer anyone?).

We also get lovingly beautiful descriptions of Texas and the landscape. The blue skies, the wonderful countryside, the deadly desert, and of course the Wall ranch which is given loving detail and sounds like a truly wonderful place to live. In fact the author has made me sincerely want to go visit this beautiful area sometime in the future.

The author has an expert way of reeling you into the story and making you care about the troubles of the Vallenses and the epilogue left me feeling both heartbroken, hopeful, and intrigued.

The Bad:

Unfortunately like all novels I read it does not get a complete pass.

Most of my issues with the book were minor, a lack of comprehensive detail and timing is one. The lack of comprehensive detail left me fuzzy on certain aspects of what was going on or how certain characters looked, I was extremely confused as to David's appearance for some time actually, and I found The Mountain was given a mean lack of characterization early on in the novel, which would have saved considerable trouble later on. The major characters, such as John, Phillip, Ruth, Gareth, and Timothy, all recieved adequate page-time for me to epmhasize with them and get an understanding for their motivations and troubles. Characters like The Mountain, and Piggy needed better characterization earlier on so we could get a better view for what they did later in the novel. That and I didn't find a good timeline of when these events started, and when they finally ended.

Also the Duke of El Paso. This is merely a personal pet peeve of mine but he did not make a good villain. Described a short, wearing boots that make him look taller, child like in appearence with a high picthed voice and ridiculous accent, he was a caricature. Thus he made for an extremely irritating character whose redeeming feature was we did not have to see him much. He exuded no sense of menace or threat which made me heave a heavy sigh and wonder what the King of Aztlan, who sounded much more sinister, was up to. It wasn't until we met Sir Jarius Whiteside, Chancellor of Aztlan, that I felt much real respect for the villains themselves. Sure they had clever plots but the offscreen nature of them left me feeling a little underwhelmed by their impact initially until we got about half way through the book.

Then of course there was a minor bit of consistency between the beggining and end of the novel. I found the low tech, and scavenger society of this world fascinating. But earlier on we are told that guns are heavy, difficult to use, and ammo is hard to come by. Then near  the end we have gun battles taking place on the large scale! It was something of a continuity error that left me scratching my head after but if one can put it aside it doesn't harm the book at all.

My one final nit-pick is that I found it to short! Not a criticism per-say but I am hoping for more by Mr. Bunker and hope that as he gets his writing legs under him he will begin writing longer works so I can keep reading longer!

The Verdict:

Overall this book is a wonderful read full of rich characters, an exciting world, excellent survival tips, and a sense of the holy and pure as well, which is immesely refreshing.

I have been impressed by Mr. Bunker's writing thus far and I eagerly await the upcoming sequel Cold Harbor and its continuation of the tale of the Vallenses.

The Last Pilgrims has been an enjoying read which kept me guessing for most of the novel. It was also a very happily unique post-apocalyptic fiction with some (thanfully) tasteful morals and a good message throughout. I would be happy to read it again and certainly will. I encourage readers who are interested in post-apocalyptic fiction to pick it up and read it, you will not be disappointed. I am glad to advertise for Mr. Bunker and let people know about his wonderful and original work.

4 out of 5 stars for this piece of wonderful literature.

Brought to you by Satan

Now before I post this article I suppose I should clear this up that I personally am a Christian who believes in the Lord Jesus Christ and that he died for my sins and along with the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost will lead me to eternal salvation.

In light of my beliefs I am usually surprised by both the virtrol and the stupidity of people when it comes to understanding my faith (or any other peoples belief for that matter) in regards to both theology, practices, and what constitutes the sacred. In my time I've dealt with those who are of  the militant atheist stripe in both real life and on the internet (I'm thankful to say that I remain friends with the atheists in my life despite some lively debates on the subject). I usually come across the regular anti-religious pomp and bigotry on the internet and I'm never really surprised by it. The ignorant who like to flout their 'knowledge' of the subject of Christianity really astound me, especially those who claim to have been Christians before turning to atheism. In my many conversations with them I rarely found them to have an even basic grasp of the Gospel or even the words of Jesus Himself! So I always have to question their so called 'knowledge'.

But recently on Facebook I found this little goody that made me laugh.

I'll give readers a moment to browse the flow chart. For those of you who have pondered the question before absorb it. For those of you who have seen this question multiple times and always had faith laugh with me now as I go on to explain the folly found within.

The flowchart (posted by a user with the name satan, hence our title) proclaims itself 'the quick and easy guide to God' and is anything but! Instead it asks some relatively simple questions after the statement of fact evil exists. I'll say to readers right now, yes evil does exist. Whether the corrupt politician lining his pockets with ill begotten money, the pimp abusing women as sex slaves, or the terrorist preparing to detonate himself to blow up a bus full of school children evil in the human heart surrounds us as a part of the human condition.

The chart then proceeds with a number of questions such as 'Can God prevent evil?" or 'Does God know about all the evil?" and with each 'no' answer one is directed to the conclusion that God is either not all powerful, knowing, or loving. Mind you of course that each time no is answered that is in direct contradiction to the Scripture, and since one must use the Scripture to get to know God and His divine nature it is fairly obvious that the no answers are really baits early on until we get to the final assertion 'Could God have created the universe without these?' in which case the logic goes that if he could we have two answers as to why He didn't create the universe without evil because a) free will or b) He wished to test us.

Now the chart responds that if a) Could God have created the universe with free will but without evil? Now here I have to step in because when we go from here the reasoning gets rather cloudy. Let me ask this, if all that is good and just stems from the Lord and he gave us the free will to chose otherwise what is logically all that is the opposite of what He loves? That would be what you call evil correct? Of course it would for "Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows." (James 1:17). That which is just is pleasing to the Lord. Everything else such as perversion, theft, and debauchery is a sin. So if God created the universe without evil then he would created it full of everything pure and holy and mankind would either not be in it, or unthinking robots who had no choice but to praise God and would rob Him of the very beings He created to inhabit his Garden. Now is seems even the chart recognizes this problem so it comes at us with choice b for what I suppose the creator figures is his coup-de-grace.

Choice b) is that God wished to test us and have faith in times of need to see who is worthy of salvation. Now the answer always to the idea of being tested is 'if God is all knowing He would know what we would do if we were tested and therefore would have no need to test us' this has two problems. One it commits the infinitely hilarious fallacy of saying that 'God must' or 'God would' as though the writing of the author and his opinions have any real reflection on how the creator of the universe is going to behave. The second problem is that it tries to undermine that God is all knowing by saying He would know how we would react when we are tested and therefore have no need to test us. Now those of you who understand why we have faith in Christianity should already be shaking your heads and saying how foolish this is, those who are scratching their heads and saying 'this makes perfect sense' allow me to disabuse you of that notion.

God is all knowing and 'the very hairs on your head are numbered'  as God knows all about all of us and all about each of our actions. When we sin it is plain to God what we have done, yet he forgives us in his infinite glory and wisdom. However, despite the fact that God is all knowing and all powerful He gives us the choice in how we are to react before Him or accept his forgiveness and He knows what to send against us and whether we can muster to the challenge or not. This we must do on faith. Take for example Job, whom God allowed to be tested beyond the reasonable limits of any man in order to prove that he was a good and faithful man. Satan took away his sons and daughters, his lands, his health and his dignity, but Job stood by his God knowing that even though he would suffer he would be rewarded in the next life. Again the choice lies in human hands as to whether they will accept His forgiveness just as the choice as to whether we would sin in the beggining lay in Adam and Eve's hands, despite knowing we had the option of choosing evil God allowed us to go ahead and do as we willed. Like Job he tests us to show us that no matter what is sent against us He will be there in the end and that we should accept Him regardless of what comes. As to knowing how we would react, this assigns a sort of human logic to God that by knowing the outcome he wouldn't do it again putting this silly notion that God must function according to the authors will rather than His own mysterious ways.

Now as a note in regard to the great tempter himself we have Satan whome all evil and rebellion stems from. Satan is a fallen angel who was regarded high in God's court and deciding that he was the most beautiful and powerful that he deserved to be God's equal. He was cast out with all his followers. Now he goes around tempting people and attempting to turn them away from God in an act of petty spite, while he knows his days are numbered and that in the end he will lose to the Most High. The chart says that 'An all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, God could and would destroy Satan, sigh, that silly notion again. As the Bible says, Satan will be destroyed and sent forth into the lake of eternal fire. There is simply a time for that and it is coming. In the meantime Satan will continue a campaign of petty spite to try and overthrow God by destroying we who are precious to Him. In the end Satan will fall and the world will be saved.

Now I know full well that those of you who do not wish to believe will certainly not after I have trashed this sore chart and its assumptions. Then again those who do believe will be reafirmed in your faith and sing his praises with me. Then of course there are those of you who have had a seed planted in you and are on the road to accepting Him. Maybe I have put you one step closer to having faith in Him, perhaps I haven't. He alone knows these things. We on the other hand must have faith in Him, as after all if these things were certain and we knew the infinite nature of God what we do would not be called faith now would it?

Remembering D-Day

Though published late today I would ask readers to remember that on this day in 1944 many of our fathers and grandfathers undertook the Great Crusade to crush the Nazi menace in Europe and end the threat of facism posed to the free world. I wish to honor their sacrifice and pray for those who fought and died in that conflict on both sides. May we never forget the sacrifice and valor of our forefathers and the awesome actions they undertook to ensure our freedom.

May their sacrifice not have been in vain.

The Pagans!

Now aside from the slightly inflamatory title this is not a hate piece, but rather a short opinion piece regarding my views on the subject. You see in a recent browsing of the internet I came upon a few pagan sites, as well as discussions in which Christians quite ruthlessly bashed pagans for being 'devil worshipers' and 'idolitors' which I found extremely disapointing. So here I intend to set the record straight on 1) my own view of paganism 2) why the 'Christians' here were acting unacceptable and 3) what Christians should do in these kind of situations.

Now to begin Neopaganism (or contemporary paganism) is in essence a recreation of old pre-Christian religious traditions by modern groups. This is really an umbrella term as it can describe anything from Wiccanism, Adonism, or Radical Faeries. These are diverse movements that can encompass almost any form of pre-Christian belief, generally trying to capture the old timey feel of the pagan religion from before the time of Christianity in pre-modern Europe. So pinning down the movement for any one defining feature is difficult at best, and like trying to give a cat a bath at worst. Though they do share some elements such as polytheism, animism, and pantheism. So one could end up in a group which believed that Zues was the king of the gods and his brother Thor wished to stoke our warrior spirits to gain energy for the gods or something like that. Mind you most groups do have a definate theology and a series of complex and traditional rituals. This means that unlike some would like to think these groups are very well organized and have a fully functioning system and a solid set of beliefs. The set ideas will inevitably vary wildly from group to group though so one should not be surprised if they go to one Wiccan group that has one set of ideas about morality then to another which has entirely different ones.

With that I begin to offer my own view on the subject. Being originally a country boy from a very small conservative community I admittedly have had little to do with any large pagan groups nor have I seen much in the way of practicing paganism. Though growing up I did meet many teenagers who were *ahem* 'practicing pagans' which meant anything from belief in animal spirits to asking Thor for guidance, as well as one kid who believed he was a vampire. Now this was interesting (though in some cases hilarious since it was evident these kids had no idea what they were talking about), but really had nothing to offer on the subject. Now I have met some true practicing pagans and they really are quite nice people and very agreeable to be around. Can't really say anything bad about them, nor did they seem to bear me any ill will for being a Christian, nor did I really bear them any ill will for being pagans. On my own I am generally disinterested in the subject and mostly regard it as interesting and beyond looking into it out of curiosity have never felt that there is much interesting in the movement outside of sociological study and historical trends.

The 'ressurected' forms of long dead polytheistic religions dreamed up by the spiritualists of the early 20th century does have a fascinating significance as a social movement though. The spiritualists themselves were men disenchanted with the normal religious values of the time and  thought that a greater 'spirit world' was out there. The movement was extremely large in the aftermath of WW1 and gained great following well into the 30's and 40's of the last century. Though it largely ceased to fascinate the public thanks to many members of the movement being exposed as petty con artists (those of the crystal ball variety, remember that) many actually went on to write about interactions with Hectate, Odin, and what have you. This did gain some popularity and as evident by this article has survived as a fringe movement to today. It is one of the very interesting, if overlooked, effects of the Great War in that Western Culture was so shocked by its barbarity and furiosity that so many different religious and political movements evolved from those crazy times. I think that it was one of the more interesting (and far less bloody) items to pop up.

Now I think anyone who has read anything by Micheal Z Williamson or S.M. Stirling will no doubt have had some fictional Wiccans  shoved in front of them, I think that as literary characters they are perfectly wonderful and offer some variety. Though some of their 'values' (considering that each of the above authors likes to focus on the sexually loose idea of Wiccans for some reason) are jarring to me personally, they are quite fun.

But I digress and continue to the reason for this post. I stumbled across an online discussion where members of certain evangelical Christian sects were quite happily insulting the beliefs of some Neopagans for a contrived reason (having to do with military religious rites) and saying such lovely things as 'suffer not a witch to live' or 'devil worshipers burn in hell' and other such intellectually vacant remarks. While the 'suffer not a witch to live' is a direct Biblical quote it misses the point that 'witch' in that context is basically one of thise crystal ball hoaxers who tricks people out of money or attempts to curse someone with magic. Hence why a 'curse' earned a death sentence in the Old Testament. Applying this to modern pagan groups is, well, erroneous at best, and completely ignorant at worst.

Now the Christians here were saying that military service members who were worshiping pagans should not be allowed to use the military chapel as they weren't really religious apparently. Now I personally am indifferent to what a pagan group does or where they worship (unless it's in my basement) and feel that the argument is absurd here. A military chapel is available to all service members regardless of belief. Though the majority may be Christian this does not mean they get a monopoly on the use of a government installation, which is what a military chapel is. The name calling and insulting were completely uncalled for and patently ridiculous. There was no reason for those actions. As Christians they were 100% in the wrong. Christ never suggested we go out and harrass those of other beliefs. He suggested that we love our neighbors regardless of creed or belief and instead focus on spreading the Word. In this case words were exchanged and they were absolutely the wrong ones. I don't care if these people are Wiccans, atheists or practicing Satanists, they deserve the use of that chapel as it was not a private facility and was set up so members of all faiths could have time to worship. This is not exclusively the right of Christians in the military.

Mind you, this issue was going on in the US so as  Canadian I am a 100% outside observer. I have respect for military veterans and servicemen and seeing members of the military insulted and looked down on for simply not having the right religious ideas is something which makes my blood boil. They are serving their nation and being insulted and belittled just because they are not among the majority is ridiculous! We as Christians are supposed to be tolerant of one another and accept each other despite our faults and disagreements! Not go on some petty vendetta because you feel that they are 'devil worshipers'. The actions of these so called 'Christians' here left me disgusted and appaled.

Here is what a Christian should do in this sort of situation. Firstly realise that a) this is a government run facility and that the country is not a theocracy where one religion has a monopoly so you can't say that the 'devil worshipers' are not allowed to use the chapel, b) BE TOLERANT, Christ did no go around belittling those who did not believe or held different ideas to him. In fact those He did belittle were the religious authorities of the time and those who had seen miracles yet still did not believe c) we as Christians have to love our neighbors regardless of who they may be. Yes I said have to, in fact it is what the Lord commands us to do. Sermon on the Mount anyone? If we don't act tolerant, loving and caring towards those who believe differently how are we to emulate Christ or show people the way? Christ didn't make converts by attacking people, He made them by caring for them. d) when interacting with pagans or those of other faiths be polite, repectfully disagree with their views, discuss your own, and of course wish them well! It is what you should hope for after all.

I encourage Christians out there to remember this! If you wish to spread the Word remember why you are spreading it! John 3:16 people, that's why.

A Speculative Look Ahead

This is a post I summed up in a few minutes in response to a discussion on the alternate history dot com discussion board under 'Future History' and the topic was 'What will the world look like in the year 2100?' and being the opinionated person I am, I chimed in. This is a brief over view of how certain nations and regions will fare in the future in my opinion:

-Canada remains a parliamentary government with close ties to the UK. Despite a general population decline in the early 2030's to 2060's immigration from China and India has taken some of the slump while the remaining Anglo population is mainly conservative joined by a vocal Muslim population. Economically the country is still successful and the provinces have once again managed to wrench much control from the central government in Ottawa but the New Democratic Party is once again trying to wrest control back into the hands of the Federal Government.

-The US is not the nation it once was. Wracked by fresh economic troubles and violent policital activism. The transhumanist movement has run up against both a vocal gay rights community and the Christian-Revanchists who harken back to the 'glory days' of the US. The never ending rights battles and violent activism cast an ominous shadow on national politics. Puerto Rico has become the 51st state and the entrance of a 52nd seems imminent. Racial tensions, supposedly a relic of the 2050's continue and have reared their ugly head again with the controversial transhumanism movement. Political murders are disturbingly common and Maryland resembles a military base more than a political center. Checkpoints and military patrols across certain states that are known to be hotbeds of political activism. After the relative peace of the 2070's the economic troubles of the 2090's have cast the nations future in deep uncertainty. The standard of living varies between first and second world conditions depending on the state.

-Mexico has become a stable country, for the most part. Democracy is thriving and fair and honest elections have become the norm and education has improved. Economically it has grown but continues to have problems with the United States as border issues are a constant diplomatic tension and relations are somewhat strained.

-Europe is the new second world. The Mediterannian areas remain economically central to the development as the regions around the Baltic and North sea become stagnant. Disease as in North America is once again becoming annoyingly common after the early 2000s disease resistant to many modern drugs and are relatively useless against new strands of disease. The great population shifts from Asia to Europe brought more than immigrants. New plagues served to wipeout an estimated 10% of the European population from 2030 to 2050. So Europe has become increasingly less relevant bar places like England and Switzerland who each host the Commonwealth and UN capitol respectively.

-South America is defined by economic competition between Brazil Argentina and Chile respectively. First world living standards are across the board and these three countries are the prime destination of immigration from around the world from Europe to Asia. The most cosmopolitan cities in the world are located here. Peace is almost completely known across the continent and the nations (Argentina in particular) regularly supply peace keepers around the world especially in Central Africa and Central America. The economies are proud and thriving but continuous uncertainty in the US and Europe investment is centered mainly in South East Asia and West Africa.

-Africa has become a continent of both rapid progress and stunning decline. Central Africa has been devastated by warfare after limited economic development and tribal nationalism with many micro states emerging inside national borders (sort of like Somalia OTL) while the UN and African Union attempts to mediate between the many different factions war remains almost a central part of life in reaction to famine and plague. East Africa is much the same. West Africa however has become the modern miracle, with a booming free market (mind one heavily regulated) and flourishing democracies. First world standards of living are prevalent.

-China has collapsed into separate constitute countries after years of overt warfare and internal revolution. In the wake of economic issues earlier in the century the nation was forced to take harsh measures in order to not risk democratic reform. The PCP has collapsed and democratic infighting has generally taken over the countryside. Reform is slow and it is estimated that it will again take decades to rebuild after war and economic stagnation. Russia has primarily replaced China as the boogy man of the West again as it defeated China in the border wars. Economically it has expanded to Eastern Europe and South America.

-The Middle East has liberalized and the Saudi Monarchy has been unravelled as economic prosperity from the oil fields has dried up. Ethnic rivalries and religiously motivated politicians dominate the political field however. People wish to harken back to their cultural roots and despite the religiously charged atmosphere of the 2050's 50 years on have become milder in the face of ethnically motivated groups and pan nationalist ideals.

-India has become one of the world’s great powers. Being one of the nations that defeated China it is viewed with respect and fear by the world and its neighbors. It has a major material economy and an exporter of labour. It is the world’s most populous country. Though democracy has become freer the past century has also seen a real crushing reduction of corruption for the first time in history. Though many social problems remain and natural disasters cause significant problems yearly the country can afford to rebuild.

-The biggest social issues in the world are transhumanism and many false-Nietzshean ideaologies have emerged around it proclaiming the 'new species' who are mainly the wealthy upper class which can afford the treatments. But the movement is opposed by both governments and the religious movements around the world. Religion has not died out as some expected rather it has become introvertive and the majority of missionaries travel to Europe and Asia from South America and West Africa preaching. In the US the religious right thought it has become less political is still a significant cultural part of the nation.

-Famine is now something known in almost all parts of the world as even North America has experienced periods of shortages and natural disaster decreasing food products. Weather has become more wild and destructive with hurricanes and monsoons regularly devastating coastline

Now this is a very vague and general outline that I have predicted. It is neither dystopian or utopian (contrary to some of the weird insanely utopian 2100 predicted by many technology lovers on that board) and is something that fits in with general trends as they are going, with a few trends being noticably reversed.

For instance I do not predict the oil wealth of Saudi Arabia will last into the next century, nor will it be able to maintain its strict control over the population. The leaders of the nation are becoming old and frail and there is a disturbing possibility of infighting and civil unrest in even the near future. I see that balance of power is most likely going to be shifting away from the elder elite as the younger population begins to liberalize and seek out alternatives to the monarchy, their power to buy their way out will certainly dry up with the oil wealth as well, and with no strategic reasons for the US to support them, they may be left blowing in the wind. Of course it could also be a gradual economic decline mixed with liberal tendancies taking over, but I don't see an overly optimistic future for the Sauds at this point.

I also can't see the Chinese system lasting beyond 2050. With their main chumps trading partners in the US experiencing economic decline and most likely a few nationalist tendancies the Chinese will be forced to take harsh measures to keep their economy competetive, especially if they can't continue to pull the country along. If people become disillusioned with the neo-facist system they have in place then the last card they have to play is the nationalist card. That my friends will be a bad day.

Similarily the United States will be hard pressed to hang on to super power status in the 22nd century. The world is becoming mutli-polar and America has proven that she cannot over extend herself nor continue to prop up her allies as she once did. I believe that the American system is due for an overhaul and in the coming century we may just see that overhaul come to pass. The rigid and inflexible system which now caters to the elite more than anyone is starting to crack at the seams in ways similar to China's. The government is floundering under an increasingly hopeless situation of debt which could send shockwaves around the world. The bloated military budget is seeing backlash and the war of words is heating up to a shocking degree whether in the public sphere on on the blogosphere. I see the next century as a rocky road for the US and one that will give the nation an interesting test of character.

India and Brazil are poised to become the other two great powers in the world. India will most certainly be wary with her Chinese and Pakistani neighbors both being sullenly courteous at best and coldly hostile at worst. The region is rife with flashpoints for conflict and with China flexing her muscles in the Pacific it won't be long until they are looking at the Indian Ocean as well. Brazil is working its way up from the disastrous miltiary regime that overtook it in the late 80s so we have great potential for the golden age to continue in South America while the West falters behind. This centruy may be the Chinese century as some predict, but I believe that the 22nd Century belongs to the Latins.

Two big issues which I see changing are the decline of religion in Europe and the weather getting wilder. I think that small scale disasters will become the norm and hurricanes will be much more likely to ravage coastlines and create Katrina-esque situations in many nations as governents are either caught off guard or unprepared to deal with the consequences of large scale disasters. Similarily with things changing in Europe I see religion making a comeback as the continent begins to lose either its sense of cultural identity, or as a simple backlash against the percieved notions of secularisms failures in the future. America is a deeply religious country and even with current trends I don't see that changing.

Another issue which I tenatively put in to this guess work is transhumanism. I do not believe that transhumanism will become a movement that is widely available (or safe) until into the 22nd century. Even then it will be a rich mans pleasure and will create all sorts of societal, religious, political, and economic questions which will have to answered. I can see it now, some neo-Marxist preaching how the class struggle has changed to a racial one as the rich bourgeoisie have become s seperate species! Even though I find that notion laughable it is one that if it becomes a reality must be stopped. The potential for abuse, racist ideologie and outright genocide is to great. I have seen some people who totally believe it is a better thing, and even those who feel that they will be the better species when they become the H+ (advanced humans, hence transhumans). This smacks of the fictional Draka, and the chillingly real Nazi ideologies of Hitler's Germany. Abusing Nietzshes ubermensch theories is something that has been done before and can easily be done again. I shudder at the thought.

I did not include technology in my predictions as it is not my expertise and my grasp of many new technological insights is woefully insufficient to even begin describing how they would work. In fact if a record of this blog survives future historians may look back and laugh at my predictions for being too gloomy (or worse, too optimistic!!!) while they rummage through my laptop and murmer at how quaint (or the future equivalent thereof, shiny perhaps?) the technology I am using was. There are those better suited to that kind of topic. The only thing I can predict for certain is that we will still find more creative ways to kill each other!

Now again I must say that this prediction of the future depends on some trends remaining the same (all trends will eventually change though in some fashion) and some changing. There are millions of tiny variations which could make my view of the future extremely wrong. For instance technology could advance at a rate I cannot even imagine (something that as of now does seem very real) or it could stagnate due to socioeconomic impedements. Whatever the future holds we are in for an interesting century!

The Grey: A Review

Recently I saw the film "The Grey". This film was promoted as a film about survival, and was also said to have a surprisng philosophical message. I call the promoters liars on both counts because of that. I am not saying the film was bad, far from it, I merely call the promoters liars. It is a good film and overall I enjoyed it.

To get this review started I will simply give a rough recap of the plot. A man employed by an oil company to protect workers from wolves in a remote drilling camp in Alaska and struggling over his seperation from his wife, is caught up in a disastrous plane crash while flying back to Anchorage and stranded in the wilderness with a number of other survivors and they are forced to survive on their wits and not much else.

This is the so called survival element. Though the film does show some interesting elements and very accurate ideas about surviving in such a harsh wilderness, the film plays more like a slasher movie.

Like any slasher movie it prays off our fears of something, in this case being eaten to death by wolves. It establishes from the start that the wolves are to be the films main antagonists and I'm surprised at just how much screen time they get in comparison to natures other perils, especially frostbite.

As wolves fufill the survival element and make the film a slasher by picking off our fairly dim protagonists we get a deep look into the ideological view of both narcisism and atheism.

The films philisophical tune is essentially harsh post-modernist nihilistic thought mized with passive atheism. The nihilistic thought creeps in as we see the characters struggling and continuing to fail despite any hope spots that might seem evident and consistently portrays the struggle against nature as hopeless and futile. This lends to a meta idea that struggle for reform or absolution is useless and that all we can do in life is fight and hope our deaths are not too meaningless. The atheistic element involves a camp fire discussion where one character asks about faith, another dismisses it as a fairy tale while a third says he wishes to believe its true but he can't. This directly leads to another scene where the principal character has just lost all hope and looks skyward and pleads with a higher power to do something saying "...fuck faith! Earn it! Do something!" in response we see an empty and uncarring sky looking back at him. A hope spot could have been inserted here but the writers chose for a long drawn out sequence to emphasise that there wasn't one. This reinforced the sense of passive atheism but gave the film a tone of ranting against nature and how unfair live could be.

I found that the setting for its post-modern views was uniquely thought out but by extension was self-fullfilling. Rather than a rant of how unfair life could be it showcased the deep uncaring ways of Earth and nature around us and seemed to mock the use of prayer. But by its very setting it merely proves the point of an uncarring Earth and not any sort of uncaring God, rather the writers knew this and decided to add the long sequence of empty sky in order to make that point. That and ensure that they kill the obviously religious members of the cast in rather cruel ways. Clever, but hardly proving the point. Instead of making an atheistic point it relies on old arguments of "why would God let this happen?" one which, mixed with many of the characters attitudes and various ineptitudes is rather uncompelling.

Though somewhat depressing due to its subject matter and portrayal I found the movie interesting but couldn't help be irritated once it abandoned its interesting survival premise and became a more predictable slasher film harping on an irritating ideological agenda. I reccomend it for those who enjoy slashers, not any sort of deeper ideological experience.

All in all I'll be generous and give it two and a half stars.