John C. Wright's Journal

Hat tip to Carbonel, who brought this to my attention. 

In 1945, George Orwell wrote an introduction to ANIMAL FARM.  It was not printed, and remained unknown until 1972. 

Comments below in square brackets are the editor’s. 

The Freedom of the Press

Jagi, here. Quick question. Were you watching One Piece in Japanese or English?

I must admit I uttered a chuckle at this.

My latest book is number one in Science Fiction History & Criticism for today. Sort of like winning a participation trophy for being the best at participation! But it told me I had sold at least a book or two.

It may be a small accomplishment in the grand scheme of things, but my gratitude toward my beloved patrons is not small.

Just in case our commenter Jack Rippa did not see the notice, I post it here again prominently.

The column here is titled “Not Tired of Winning Yet LXXXVII” and, without any editorial comment whatsoever, repeats the word of the president announcing the grisly death of an enemy of this nation and of all mankind.

JackRippa quipped: “Rejoicing in the death of an enemy? How un-Christian. You ought to be praying for him.”

I asked him, politely at first, and then with increasing impatience on what grounds he accuses me of not having had prayed for this man. I am not claiming the accusation is right or wrong, since it is not a Christian habit to boast about one’s prayer life. I just wanted to know the basis of the accusation.

Jack Rippa replied by saying I had edited something or other. I am not sure what this means, but the original column, which is the only thing he read of mine before making the accusation, has not been edited.

He replied by saying the title is triumphant, as if I were expressing victory.

But I did not ask him whether or not the title of this column expressed triumph or victory. So this is not an answer. It is not on-topic.

I address the following to him alone:

You accused me of breaking the command to pray for one’s enemies. What is your basis for this accusation? What is your evidence that I did not pray?

Either
(1) repeat to me what the evidence was, or
(2) admit you had none and therefore the accusation was groundless, or
(3) get banned.

You have exhausted my patience and my courtesy to you. I have asked you two and three and four times to answer this question, or else to admit manfully that you have no answer, and that the accusation is groundless.

Concerning the JOKER movie, it was brought to my attention that all the usual suspects in the state-run Morlock pesthole called the mainstream media are going through their usual routine of furrowing brows and speaking in earnest, concerned, pious tones, bordering on lunatic hysteria, that a film where a white man committing acts of violence, will inspire other whites to do the same.

I have no comment to make about the film, since I have not seen the film and have no plans to see it. But I can comment about the chatter.

Read the remainder of this entry »

A reader named Lizzie McAllie has penned so clear a statement to clarify and even refute much of the confusion surrounding in issue that was recently being debating in this space, that I deem it laudable to laud her words, and repeat them here in full.

The comments are directed at one Mr. Gudeman, who proposed the paradox that any Catholic unwilling blindly to follow gruesomely erroneous pastoral teaching was estopped from criticizing Protestants, apparently on the theory that anything other than blind obedience was equal to schism.

With all due humility and deference of an individual who has not joined the conversation in Mr. Wright’s blog since the days of it being hosted on Livejournal, I respectfully posit that your dilemma presented is built upon a foundation of sand, and is therefore not a proper question in the first.

Understandably, you do not appear to have an understanding of the structure and organisation of the system you criticise. I humbly submit a summary of the basic structure:

A priest has been sacramentally inducted into his role according to the direct Apostolic lineage, traditionally associated with the line of Melchisedek (typologically, at least).

The priest is entrusted with the authority to act in persona Christi, specifically through the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Diocesan priests function as administrative limbs of the Bishop, exercising authority over a Parish, in the traditional Roman administrative structure.

In accordance with his vow of obedience, the priest is bound to communicating the teachings of his bishop (on matters of faith and morality). A priest whose does not execute this responsibility in good faith is guilty of a breach of his vow. Therefore, a priest who presents wrong teaching is guilty of wickedness, but does not undermine the Magisterial Authority.

A bishop has been ordained with the specific charism of teaching authority. He is accountable to God for what he teaches to his diocese. Were a Bishop to promulgate a false teaching (e.g., that rape is in fact a moral good), it would be cause of great scandal. Proper recourse in this instance is, by my understanding that such grave claims are presented before the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) (AKA “The Inquisition”). The CDF investigates such matters in which there are questions of the teachings of the Church, and promulgates statements as to the formal teaching of the Church. The CDF statements are not themselves infallible, but are considered authoritative and worthy of deference. If a Bishop persists in teaching contrary to the CDF proclamations, it is the responsibility of the Holy See to take appropriate administrative action.

In theoretical cases in which there is legitimate dispute of a teaching of the CDF, the next step would be A: an Ecumenical Council or B: An ex cathedra statement from the Pope.
Read the remainder of this entry »

I have been saying for years that the news is the enemy of the West, and is set upon the destruction or deconstruction of all we hold dear, in the name of imposing a utopia in its stead.

Read the remainder of this entry »

With the state of the news as it is these days, I feared many of my readers may not have heard this speech, and not seen what it means.

As I read it, this speech hurls down the gauntlet to the powers of this world and signals the onset of the final crusade of this epoch.

The Deep State, the Fake News and the Dems (but I repeat myself) orchestration some sort of extraordinary Chinese Fire Drill to take place at the same time, involving colored flares, shouting and whooping, so as to perplex and befuddle the unwary.

…

…

Thank you very much. Mr. President, Mr. Secretary-General, distinguished delegates, ambassadors, and world leaders:

Seven decades of history have passed through this hall, in all of their richness and drama. Where I stand, the world has heard from presidents and premiers at the height of the Cold War. We have seen the foundation of nations. We have seen the ringleaders of revolution. We have beheld saints who inspired us with hope, rebels who stirred us with passion, and heroes who emboldened us with courage — all here to share plans, proposals, visions, and ideas on the world’s biggest stage.

Like those who met us before, our time is one of great contests, high stakes, and clear choices. The essential divide that runs all around the world and throughout history is once again thrown into stark relief.

It is the divide between those whose thirst for control deludes them into thinking they are destined to rule over others and those people and nations who want only to rule themselves.

Read the remainder of this entry »

Part of an ongoing conversation.

One of my few readers with a name rather than a moniker or handle, Mr Rudolph Harrier poses a fascinating question regarding the topic of whether ot not ‘checkmate’ has mass, length, duration or other physical properties. He speaks as follows:

Chess can be described as a mathematical object, and so if we accept mathematical objects as real and prior to humans, then it would seem that Chess (and so also checkmates) could also be.

To see what I am getting at, consider the Prisoner’s Dilemma from Game Theory. This is a game as well, though a much simpler one, and one which is analyzed through mathematics.

If we define “winning strategy” in a precise way, such as one that will maximize the limit of the utility function with the assumption that all other players play towards the same goal, then there is a true winning strategy.

This can be mathematically proven, and mathematical proofs are necessarily about mathematical objects, so it would seem that the Prisoner’s Dilemma could be prior to the idea of prisoners.

But we can analyze Chess using the same ideas, so would that mean that Chess is also prior to the humans who created it?

I have several remarks to make on this fascinating and difficult question. Here is the deep waters indeed: let us fill our lungs and cliffdive into the ocean of subtle philosophical definitions and distinctions.

Read the remainder of this entry »

I just encountered the odd spectacle of CNN, CBS, NBC, and MSNBC describing a proposed action by President Trump with terms of respect and dignified agreement.

Apparently, the news wishes to convince the unwary that e-cigarettes, which may or may not be responsible for as many as six deaths, and perhaps responsible for some breathing disorders in a vanishingly small percentage of the population, are a menace to the public health more dangerous than Spider-Man.

Six deaths! I read here that, in a Maryland county whose avowed policy is not to cooperate with immigration agents nor to enforce the laws against people in this country illegally, the seventh case in five weeks has been reported of a rape or a child rape.

Logically, if six death linked by an uncertain chain of medical speculation to vaping authorizes such bold and sweeping action as banning all flavored variants nationwide, that seven rapes should authorize the feds to send in the national guard to arrest the country commissioners on charges of treason, and, after a swift military tribunal, hang them all from lamp posts.

I assume the studies were performed by the same diligent and careful scientists who have been warning us for the past thirty years that global warming will destroy the planet in ten years, and, before that, global cooling.

Normally, my suspicions would not be aroused. That is all I voice at the moment, a suspicion, since I have not looked into the matter.

But to have the Fake News applaud their arch-foe Trump is so odd, so very odd, ‘twould be odd indeed for me, or anyone, to take the Fake at face value.

My father in law is one of the men whose life was saved by the use of the atomic bomb to end World War II. Hence, I am wary of making the argument showing that World War Two was a just war, and that aerial bombing during that war, atomic or conventional, was justified and right, lest I be accused of having my gratitude compromise my objectivity.

However, I do not mind pointing to the argument as made by others:

My comment: That my family was one of those saved by the use of the atomic bomb, on the other hand, does not negate the fact that many more live were saved, not just American but also Japanese, by the a-bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The fact that the only reason why anyone is discussing this matter at all is due to Soviet agitprop also does not negate the fact that there is a principled argument to be made against all aerial bombing. While I respectfully disagree with said argument, I do not regard it as facetious. Arguments that single out atomic bombs from conventional bombs and hold them to a different standard than the just war standard, those I do regard as facetious.

We hear a rumor that one comes forth, a mighty champion of logic and rhetoric, as have many before him, to claim that Christians going to war directly and clearly violate the teachings of Christ and the will of God thereby. The question before us is not the truth of Christian teaching, merely its validity, that is, even if false, does it or does it not contradict itself on this point?

The matter being too weighty for me, I lay my hand over my mouth and defer to wiser minds. Saint Thomas will speak for the Christians. Any man deeming himself equal in scholarly learning to Saint Thomas is invited to put forth, in term no less clear and congent, the antichrist position.

Question 40. War

There are four questions under this article:

1. Is some kind of war lawful?
2. Is it lawful for clerics to fight?
3. Is it lawful for belligerents to lay ambushes?
4. Is it lawful to fight on holy days?

***

Article 1. Whether it is always sinful to wage war?

Objection 1. It would seem that it is always sinful to wage war. Because punishment is not inflicted except for sin. Now those who wage war are threatened by Our Lord with punishment, according to Matthew 26:52: “All that take the sword shall perish with the sword.” Therefore all wars are unlawful.

Objection 2. Further, whatever is contrary to a Divine precept is a sin. But war is contrary to a Divine precept, for it is written (Matthew 5:39): “But I say to you not to resist evil”; and (Romans 12:19): “Not revenging yourselves, my dearly beloved, but give place unto wrath.” Therefore war is always sinful.

Objection 3. Further, nothing, except sin, is contrary to an act of virtue.

But war is contrary to peace. Therefore war is always a sin.

Objection 4. Further, the exercise of a lawful thing is itself lawful, as is evident in scientific exercises. But warlike exercises which take place in tournaments are forbidden by the Church, since those who are slain in these trials are deprived of ecclesiastical burial. Therefore it seems that war is a sin in itself.

Read the remainder of this entry »

Jagi, here:

Thank you all, again, for making this happen!

This is a particularly lovely day. Juss is on his trip, and John and I have been married for 30 years.  ;-)