Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

This writer once wrote a blog @ (the blog is now only in archives). The first essay was 4120 words in length, thus, I cannot post it here @ As posted on it was titled: “Answering George Orwell’s Call to Duty.” We quoted Orwell thusly: “We have now sunk to a depth at which re-statement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.” In the essay what was not said, but perhaps should have been, is why Orwell was quoted; having only read Animal Farm and 1984, we are not that familiar with Orwell, his life or thought – so why use that quote. Well, we came across the quote in a book – don’t remember which one, but it stuck with me – and I used it because, I believe Orwell intimates – in both of the books mentioned – that action follows understanding. That is to say, if an individual, or a society, has their/its conception of what constitutes right action changed their actions change accordingly e.g., if one holds sexual relations outside the bonds of marriage to immoral, then it is likely that such an individual will behave considerably different if that same individual’s belief is changed to a view that holds unrestricted sexual relations are both natural and good. Similarly regarding any other conception of what constitutes good, and evil; if – following Nietzsche’s dictum: ‘everything formerly considered good, will now be considered evil, and the what was formerly evil, shall now be held as good’ – good should be exchanged for evil within the human soul, human action will reflect such changed views.

What an individual deems good and evil is generally predicated upon a particular understanding of the world in which they live. If one asserts oneself an atheist – or a theist – a mental circumscription of what constitutes reality is a necessary correlate. If one claims to be an atheist, but lives as a theist, either they do not know what atheism portends i.e., they are confused – or they are not an atheist, but know it not… Likewise, if one claims oneself a theist, but chooses to live in contradiction to the requisite lifestyle choices, then one is either a hypocrite, dull or sentimental.

Now the Classical Western Culture worldview i.e., Christendom, was organically fashioned and promulgated by the Catholic Church – and by her offspring denominational Christian Churches – and by the Church’s creation – the University. Universities are organic derivatives of the Catholic Seminary. A mark of Christendom was its correlative ubiquitously rational ( i.e., objective intelligent order) worldview, which provided nations – within its folds – a common ground, and an unconscious intellectual comfort similar to fish enveloped by water; just as the fish – we assert – do not contemplate the water, neither did most people within the confines of Christendom contemplate, or question, the worldview. Note: The Constitution of the United States presupposes Christendom.

Most common terminology we use today is a legacy product of Christendom; within that worldview words of common usage e.g., “moral” had their ultimate meaning within the purposeful creation (God centered) lived by its citizens; meanings of words – for most people – were not rigorously defined, but intimated through verbal/written intercourse contextualized by the dominant worldview. When that dominant worldview began to be questioned many of its corresponding elements (meanings of words, and meaning itself) began to be questioned; an ongoing entropic intellectual decay logically followed…

Without going through a discussion as to how Christendom was supplanted by its irrational antithesis i.e., the present culture (i.e., the culture –of-death; another topic for another day) – we aver that such a supplanting occurred; analogous to Lobochevsky’s negation of Euclid’s parallel postulate i.e., one Geometry (analogue: the objective worldview, Christendom) became many geometries (analogue: multiculturalism following Kant’s “Copernican Revolution”) i.e., the one rational worldview, became many irrational worldviews; as many views as exist distinct consciousness’s/people… These worldviews are incompatible with the Founding documents of the U.S.A.., and the Founding Fathers…

Thus, it is necessary – if one wants to recover an originalist reading/understanding of the U.S. Constitution – to explain and define many terms related to jurisprudence and all that is presupposed by law (e.g., moral-agents/rational-beings). Many times words e.g., “rational” if referencing a dictionary – even a philosophical or philological dictionary – only offers what Webster offers because meanings are derived from a decaying worldview derived from organic epistemology (i.e., theory-of-knowledge). Recovery of meaning must be derived from an objective worldview e.g., Christendom, and a dialectical examination of related and derived terms for logical consistency…

Because Christendom exists as a remnant, it necessary – as Orwell contends – to re-state the obvious. With each essay we write we attempt to articulate and convey something which was formerly so obvious to all that it required no formal contextual delineation. And thus, if we assert that humans are “rational-beings” – in response to Orwell’s call to duty – we are required to define ‘rational,’ and then, subsequently, ‘rational-being,’ and quite a number of additional terms, as well. For a guy who would rather escape from this cultural-of-decay by reading Louis L’amour novels, such is a daunting, and at least apparently, arrogant endeavor.

A friend asked: “Why do you define so many terms in your writing?” My response: “When writing about abortion this morning, I began to define “moral-being;” the thought occurred: “an explanation is due as to why terms need defining.” The reason: the generic individual reader’s understanding – irrespective of their education – reflects how legacy concepts, removed from their principally objective meaningful context (Christendom) have insidiously enlisted almost all people – to varying degrees – in the campaign for the ubiquitous advancement of the irrational…

Evil is Biblically associated with darkness (confusion), goodness correlates to Light, thus: “But men loved darkness rather than the Light, because their deeds were evil.” John 3:19. Now since choice/action is circumscribed by the understanding, if one confuses evil with good, then one chooses wickedness – thinking it goodness; such describes our culture, the culture-of-death.


iPatriot Contributers


Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.


Need help, have a question, or a comment? Send us an email and we'll get back to you as soon as possible.


Log in with your credentials

Forgot your details?