False Dichotomy: Pelagianism or Calvinism

 Below is my response (with a minor edit or two) to an internet friend's recent blog post: You Are Saved By Your Works

"You Are Saved By Your Works  ... because you're the only variable in the equation."

 The heresy expressed here is call 'Pelagianism'.  While The One True Bureaucracy has *officially* condemned this belief as heresy since the 5th century, it *also* inculcates the heresy in its adherents, even to this day.  If it helps to ease your mind, there are also some so-called Protestants who are actually Pelagians, such as the 'Holiness Movement'.

 "I've never understood the position some Christians take that you can do nothing on your own and you cannot be saved by your own actions. Maybe I'm misunderstanding it, but as far as I can tell, when it comes to salvation, there are only two actors: you and God. Since He is constant and His Universe is a given for all people everywhere, the only variable is you, your decisions and your actions.

…

If we aren't saved by our own actions, then what was the point of free will?"

 Does this help? -- You are reasoning from a dichotomy, false as it turns out, between Pelagianism, on the one hand, and “ultra Calvinism”, on the other.

 The Pelagian position is that one can become righteous-unto-salvation by one’s own works.  Or, put another way, that Christ’s death and resurrection is superfluous to one’s salvation; that if one has made oneself “good enough”, then God *owes* one a spot in Heaven, as it were.

The “ultra Calvinist” position is that human nature is so enslaved to sin that not a one of us can even so much as *regret* that we sin, much less repent of it; and thus that only those few in whom God works some mysterious change-of-nature which over-rides Original Sin can ever repent and be saved.

And, by the way, IF you were to look into the *reasoning* presented to justify the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, you will find that that reasoning is just “ultra Calvinism”, but applied to a single individual only … despite that The One True Bureaucracy *officially* condemns Calvinism as heresy.

The *Biblical* position is that *all* our righteousness is as filthy (menstrual) rags compared to the perfect (i.e. total/complete) righteousness of God.  That is, no matter *how* “good” we are, we can never be “good enough” to escape Sin/Death (Understand, that sin *is* capital-D Death).

The *Biblical* position is that *no one* is good, but only God.  Jesus himself asserts this.

The *Biblical* position is that the only contribution we make to our own salvation is to stop fighting/rebelling against God.  Or, to put it another way, it’s not so much that repentance of our sin causes or leads to our salvation, but rather that repentance of our sin allows the sin to be tossed into Hell without dragging us with it.  Sin is Death, and those who do not repent of their sin clutch their own Death to their breast as being more precious to them than Life Himself.  To truly repent of one’s sin is to stop refusing to be saved from Death.

Accepting a freely-given gift is not even on the same plane as earning a reward, much less on the same axis. 

 

The *Biblical* position is that “good works” are the result of salvation, not its cause.

 

“If we aren't saved by our own actions, then what was the point of free will?" 

The point of free-will is that you are free to open your hands, thereby letting go the Death which you have been heretofore tightly grasping to your breast, so that you are free to receive the Life which has always been there for you to receive.

=====

ADDENDUM: We are not saved by our own works any more than we are damned by our works.  You see, from our origin, we are already damned, we are already carriers of the infection of sin and dearth, we are already dying and headed for Death -- this is merely what the doctrine of Original Sin means.  Much as people misunderstand what 'Immaculate Conception' (which is false) refers to, most people also misunderstand what 'Original Sin' (which is true) refers to.

Think of it this way: We are not sinners because we commit sins; rather, we commit sins because we are sinners.

 

KT Cat on "The Value Of Christian Study"

 https://ktcatspost.blogspot.com/2023/04/the-value-of-christian-study.html

It's a good read ... even if KT is squishy on the scientism issue.

The "alt-right" is "alternative" to conservatism because it's just more leftism

K T Cat: Ta-Nehisi's Inverse -- "In a substantive way, the Left screaming about racism is just the Left screaming at itself."

K T Cat links to a tweet by one Sissy Willis, saying --

"Vox Day says the alt-right is conservative. It’s actually an identity movement on par with Black Lives Matter, La Raza, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, & other products of @CulturalMarxism." … "

My comment -

Actually, VD emphatically denies that "alt-right" is conservative -- he *despises* conservatism [and conservatives] -- so, that's one of the few times he's honest.

And, yes indeed, "alt-right" *is* "actually an identity movement on par with Black Lives Matter, La Raza, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, & other products of @CulturalMarxism." Or, to put it another way, it's just another variant of collectivism ... which is left, not right.

The "alt-right" is just as inimical to individual liberty as any other variant of leftism is.


K T Cat: Jordan Peterson Destroys The Myth Of The Alt-Right

To paraphrase Kathy Shaidle, "It you see "alt-right" and "antifa" battling in the street, the correct response is not to pick sides, but to pray for a meteor strike."

ps: Peterson is also not a conservative, much less a Christian.

============
Donald Sensing: Mass shootings - a few relevant links

Time moves on

K T Cat: In 15 Years
"Most importantly, when today's mania fades, do you still have celebrity credentials?"

The One True Bureaucracy ... and Celibacy!

From the comments of K T Cat's post concerning recent revelations about the Lavender Mafia within the bureaucracy of the Roman denomination (here "Catholic Arguments Against A Celibate Priesthood") --

K T Cat: "Tim, I'm sure the requirement for celibacy is rooted in logic and derived from some solid first principles. Everything in Catholicism is."

I'll explain it to you --

1) it is a natural aspect of the psychology of (normal) human males to put the interests of his group ahead of his own interests, even to the point of sacrificing his life for the group;

2) when a (normal) man is married, his primary group naturally becomes his wife and children;

3) the bureaucrats of The One True Bureaucracy -- which base their absurd claim to universal dominion over the souls of mankind upon a deliberate mis-reading of a single verse -- require its priests to be unmarried for much the same reason that generals (and street-gang thugs) would rather their soldiers be young and unattached: it's far easier to turn that natural masculine instinct to serving *your* ends if there isn't a woman (and children) mucking things up.

============
lee: "Having been part of another religion with married clergy, there is no bigger pain in the backside, them and their family."

Yes, there is that, too.

============
============
Please understand, above I am explaining why the Roman denomination settled on a demand of celibacy of its priests; I am neither praising nor condemning the decision.

On 'Morality' absent Biblical religion

K T Cat: Biology, Morality And Religion

It's all horrible, but is it wrong? That's the question I wrestled with as I listened. Putting myself in their shoes, where their gods and goddesses are nothing more than good luck charms and their morality is derived from satisfying biological urges, why is any of it wrong?

Therein lies the problem for those who claim that atheism can produce a moral code equal or superior to Christianity. You might be able to do it in the faculty lounge, which I doubt, but you certainly can't do it with the general public. You can't answer the simple question that all moral codes must address: Why shouldn't I satisfy my biological urges?

Modern 'atheism' -- which is to say, the God-denialism which is grounded in rejection and/or hatred of Christianity -- and the various paganisms of the ancient world share the same foundational metaphysics, so it's to be expected that their 'morality' will be similar.

Living In A Madhouse

K T Cat: Living In A Madhouse

Refanging The 10th Ammendment (updated)

K T Cat: Refanging The 10th Ammendment

Though, as Mr Cat's commenter, Tim Eisele, points out, it's not that the 10th Amendment is inadequate or ambiguously worded, it's that the bureaucrats and politicians -- anf the People -- don't want to abide by the Constitution, including the 10th.

Here is my contribution to K T Cat's thread --

I think that one of the biggest reasons, and perhaps the biggest reason, that the current (and collapsing) behemoth is an anti-liberty behomoth is that people -- even senators and supreme Court (*) justices -- simply don't understand the Constiution, and mostly never try to rectify the lack. It's sort of like the case of the Bible ... everyone has one, and no one reads it.

The nearly universal misunderstanding of the Constitution starts in civics class, wherein we are taught falsehoods about the Constitution which a simple reading of it ought to dispell.

For instance, one of the first things drummed into us in civics class is that we have a federal government of three "co-equal" branches. Now, this claim is false in two ways: it's false by the Constitution (that is, it is fase de jure), and it is false by how the federal government actually operates (that is, it is fase de facto).

De facto, our rulers are various judges within federal courts. And just below the judges are the "permanent government" within the bureaucracy, which is ostensibly answerable to the chief executive.

De jure, the Constitution established the *Congress* as the supreme branch of government.

Another civics class myth is that the Constitution establishes an "independent" judiciary (which is "co-equal" with the other branches). It does nothing of the sort: the Constitution makes the federal courts, and specifically the supreme Court, creatures of the Congress -- the Constitution gives the Congress the authority to declare that almost every matter of law is outside the jurisdiction of the supreme Court (and thus all federal courts): so, for instance, if Congress were so minded, it could simply enact bills overturning both Roe and Obergefell and include provisions declaring these matters to be outside the jurisdiction of the federal courts.

Another civics class myth is that the Constitution grants the power of "judicial review" to the supreme Court, and thus to the federal courts under it. The Constitution does nothing of the sort; the Court's exercise of "judicial review" is an unConstitutional usurpation going back to 1803 -- John Marshall's power grab appealed to the then-current partisan needs of both the Federalists and the Democrats, and so the politicians cooperated [with the judges] in violating the Constitution ... as they have been doing ever since.


Isn't it odd that so many of the myths we are taught in civics class have the effect of making us blind to blatant violations of the Constitution? Really, it's not all that odd -- the tone of our nationalized education was set in the Progressive Era, and the Progressives were all about a stealth overthrow of the Constitution.


(*) interesting tidbit -- the Constitution never mentions any "Supreme Court", but only a "supreme Court"

Edit 2015/09/01:
The reason the "Bill of Rights" are amendments to the Constitution, rather than written into the original document as presented to the States for Ratification, is because at the Constitutional Convention itself the argument (*) prevailed amongst the Framers that if a "Bill of Rights" were explicitly written into the Constitution then over time Americans would forget that necessarily that "Bill of Rights" could list only a very small number of their rights. In the wider American society, this argument didn't prevail; and, in fact, a number of the States made their ratification of the Constitution conditional upon a "Bill of Rights" being presented to the States as amendments for further ratification.

So, this is *why* the 10th Amendment is included in the "Bill of Rights", and why it is worded as it is worded. The Constitution as originally presented to the States for ratification gives the federal government *only* the powers and authorities explicitly enumerated in the document. That is, the original document implicitly reserves all other powers and authorities to the People or to the States. So, in keeping with the rationale for not including a "Bill of Rights" in the original document, the 10th Amendment was written to make explicit that all non-enumerated powers and authorities are reserved to the People or to the States.

(*) And, as history has shown us, Hamilton, Madison and the others were right: Consider merely the current "Gay Wedding Cake" non-debate --
Here we have "gay" little fascists using the violent power of the state to attempt to compel others to approve and celebrate their choice to live lives of deviant perversion. Now, no government anywhere on earth has the authority to so compel its subjects. Yet, how are Americans trying to protect themselves from this illegal and immoral usurpation of their own rights? Why, by meekly looking for some wording in the Constitution which can be used as a basis to claim that on this particular point their inherent rights as human beings and as citizens take precedence over the (illegal and immoral) desire of other persons to enslave them.

A people who *really* believed themselves to be the inheritors of "the land of the free and the home of the brave" would say, simply: "Go the Hell! You don't have the *right* to tell me to do this."

Remember: there is no such being as "the government"; it is not "the government" that is deciding to use the threat of violence-unto-death to compel so-called citizens to participate in "gay" "weddings" whether they wish to or not. Rather, it is specific actual human beings making this decision.

So, just as the Framers feared, we Americans have degenerated to the point where we automatically behave as though those who wish to use us for their own ends have the right to do so and that *we* bear the burden of proof to justify that we have this or that right as an exception to that general rule. The whole point of the Constitution implicitly, and the 10th Amendment explicitly, is that the reverse is true -- *we* have the rights without needing to justify that we have them, and *they* bear the burden of proof to justify any and all attempts to impose upon us.

Ye olde 'double-standard'

Any number of women -- and womenly men -- like to complain about some supposed "double standard" that "society" (by which they generally mean "men") imposes upon women vis-a-vis the selection of "partners". But, in fact, what they're really complaining about is the fact, well-known for centuries, that men and women value different things in the opposite sex -- or, to put it another way, they're complaining that men are not women.

There is a little exchange touching on this supposed "double-standard" over at K T Cat's blog. My response is far too long to post in a commbox, so I've turned it into an OP post here --

Ilíon: "So, the lady is complaining how unfair it is that men aren't women?
"

K T Cat: "Yep. Maybe there's a problem or two with telling girls to act like boys...
"

Jedi Master Ivyan: "No. I think the complaint is that men's standards for appearance are ridiculously high. Even men who don't look at pornography are bombarded with images of perfect women in media. A portly 40 year old man expects no less than a ravishing 20 something. There are plain women who need husbands, too."

K T Cat: "Jedi, you are right as well. Having said that, it does no good to tell young women to wait to begin sifting through the market until they're older. It only makes matters worse. You can bet that I will not be telling my daughter to wait until she's 30+. Instead, I'll tell her to find the right guy and not worry about her age.

The stories of what girls are doing in college these days - hooking up instead of shopping around - is heartbreaking. Many of them will end up like the unhappy woman writing in the UK newspaper."

"No. I think the complaint is that men's standards for appearance are ridiculously high. Even men who don't look at pornography are bombarded with images of perfect women in media. A portly 40 year old man expects no less than a ravishing 20 something. There are plain women who need husbands, too."

A man whose "standards for appearance [is] ridiculously high" -- given the context of what *he* has to offer that women value -- is a man who will remain single. Problem solved, don't you think?

"A portly 40 year old man expects no less than a ravishing 20 something. There are plain women who need husbands, too."

Now, see? You're doing the very thing that the woman in question is doing -- you're demanding that men be women.

What you're say is something like this: "If this particular man (a "portly 40 year old") were a woman, he wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of attracting a mate he (as a 'she') desires."

Well, yes. But, the fact is, he's *not* a "plain woman" (presumably) trying to attract a man she finds desirable; he's a "portly 40 year old man" (presumably) trying to attract a woman he finds desirable.

And the plain fact is that men and women find quite different traits or characteristics to be desirable in the opposite sex --
1) men desire women who can give them children (and who *respect* them .. and who also desire sexual activity with them, as this is generally how men achieve the emotional-belief that “she loves-and-respects me”); this tends to skew towards "a ravishing 20 something";
2) women desire men who can -- and will commit to -- support their children (and who *cherish* them ... and who also sexually desire them while not being kinky in those sexual desires, as this is generally how women achieve the emotional-belief that “he loves-and-cherishes me”); this tends to skew towards "successful" men ... who, not infrequently, are "portly 40 year olds".

But, with women, there is an added twist: women tend to desire the men that already belong to other women (in this context, by 'women', I really mean "human females with the minds of junior high-school girls, regardless of their chronological ages"). That is, as women tend to be herd creatures, they not infrequently fall into the fallacy of judging the worth of a man not on his own merits, but on some amorphous herd consensus: “if some other woman desires him, he must be desirable” -- this is why, in the present day, we see masses of 'women' going ga-ga over absolute trolls ... provided those trolls are pushed on TV.


"Even men who don't look at pornography are bombarded with images of perfect women in media."

It's not due to "the media", and it's not due to pornography -- it's due to human nature and the *different* things men, in general, desire in women, compared to what women, in general, desire in men. There is an added twist, of course, and you can blame "the media" if you wish: our cultural elites (who tend to be leftists and God-haters) have spent the past couple of centuries working to make the vices of the sexes into the (perceived) virtues; and, most recently, having convinced most 'men' that being a cad is what manhood is all about, they've switched gears to trying to turn men into ersatz women (though, not, of course, virtuous women, but the opposite).

But, on the basic human nature angle, why do you think that older men -- even before Christianity -- have *always* cautioned younger men to not make physical appearance the most important criterion by which they pick a woman, but rather to look at the full package of what she can bring to a marriage, starting with whether she is a woman of honor (thus, being a slut pretty much out-weighed whatever good qualities she might have)? Why do you think that older women -- even before Christianity -- have *always* cautioned younger women to not make popularity the most important criterion by which they pick a man, but rather to look at the full package of what he can bring to a marriage, starting with whether he is a man of honor (thus, being a cad pretty much out-weighed whatever good qualities he might have)?

Now, it's true that we presently live in society in which the social elites devalue -- 'hate' is not too strong a word -- marriage and commitment. It's true that we live in a society in which the social elites (who tend to be leftists and atheists) have been hard at work for the past couple of centuries to divorce "sex" from reproduction in the minds and attitudes of "the masses" -- and thus we see masses of women, and men, in their 30s and 40s, with a lot of notches on their bed-posts, but no committment: no *real* marriage (even if they have gone through some ceremony); no (living) children, but any number of children murdered via abortion, and no grandchildren.

But, there is no *reason* that the individual must submit to this cultural suicide. As Mark Steyn always says: "The future belongs to those who show up" ... and those who fall prey to the leftist/atheistic hatred of real marriage, and real sexual activity -- which is to say, making babies -- tend to de-select themselves from The Future (tm). The current cultural consensus -- hatred of real marriage -- is unstable and, in fact, self-destroying.

Further, we live in a deliberately feminized age. By this I mean that most 'men' *already* have been trained by our leftist/atheist elites think and behave similarly to women (in this context, by 'women', I really mean "junior high-school girls"). And most 'women *already* have been trained by our leftist/atheist elites to never mature out of the mindest of junior-high girls.

The solution to the discontents of 'women' who have wasted -- as they were *taught* to do -- their 20s and 30s chasing after everything *except* the one thing that they, as women, really do most desire, is not "more of the same", and it's not "let's brow-beat men into trying to be women", and it certainly isn't "let's pretend that we were not intentionally mislead, and that we did not willingly join in our own deception and did not willingly cooperate in the ruination of our own lives."

The #StreetHarassment Meme and #Feminism’s Kafkatrapping Tactics

The Other McCain has a very good post analyzing the recent (and fundamentally dishonest) "street harassment" video (*) -- The #StreetHarassment Meme and #Feminism’s Kafkatrapping Tactics

Also, here is a previous post on the matter -- Racism, Classism and Catcalling (or, #Feminism Is for Rich White Lesbians)

(*) you know, the one that was *supposed* to "prove" that I, being a white(ish) man, am a horrible, incorrigible "sexist" and that all the discontents of all women are *my* fault, but instead it sparked a big cannibalistic (and self-contradictory) feeding-frenzy amongst all The Right (which is to say, leftist) People out to "protect" their own favored protected class of "victims."

Here is a good comment by K T Cat -- -- "So there's a video of some chick walking past a bunch of minority dudes getting catcalls and wolf whistles. ... This has feminists in Full Freakout Mode, demanding, err, something. I'm not quite sure of what they want, probably because what they want is fundamentally contradictory with something else they want and so the whole thing is incoherent."


By the way, here's a video of a man experiencing "#StreetHarassment"

Rotherham is what happens when you deliberately ...

K T Cat: Rotherham, 1980

K T Cat: In Rotherham, They Believed Us

That should work out nifty!

K T Cat Drafting Frauleins Into The Wehrmacht

Bono endorses Lewis' trilemma

K T Cat: Well, This Kind Of Explains Why I've Always Liked U2 --

Interviewer: So then, what or who was Jesus, as far as you're concerned?

Bono: I think it's the/a defining question, for a Christian is, "Who was Christ?" And I don't think you're let off easily by saying "a great thinker" or "a great philosopher" ... because, actually, *he* went 'round saying he was the Messiah. That's why he was crucified; he was crucified because he said he was the Son of God. So, he either, in my view, *was* the Son of God, or he was ...

Interviewer: Not.

Bono: No, no! Nuts!

Interviewer: Nut? Yes? Yes?

Bono: Forget rock-and-role "messianic complexes", this is like, I mean, Charlie Manson type delirium. … And I find it hard to accept that all the millions and millions of lives, half the earth, for two thousand years, have been touched, have felt their lives touched, and inspired, by some nutter. I just, I don’t believe it.

Interviewer: So, therefore it follows that you believe he was divine?

Bono: Yes.

Interviewer: And therefore it follows that you believe that he rose physically from the dead?

Bono: Yes.

On Sam Harris' denial of free-will

Two posts by 'K T Cat' concerning Sam Harris' recent "ghastly pamphlet" denying the reality (*) of free-will --

You Have No Free Will. Vote Democrat. Isn't it odd that any practical implication of scientism is *always* "more leftism!" and/or "more atheism!" Why, one might almost begin to believe that the "science" is just the tail being wagged by the atheistic/leftist dog.

Raising Children Without Free Will

(*) though, of course, his denial of human freedom, and especially his attempt to convince you that you are not free, is but an affirmation of the freedom of the will after all.

Click Baby

K T Cat: Hilarious!

Sorcery Is The Only Reasonable Explanation

K T Cat: Sorcery Is The Only Reasonable Explanation

If Obama Could Have Been Trayvon Martin . . .

William Vallicella: If Obama Could Have Been Trayvon Martin . . . "then most of us could be the next George Zimmerman."

Exactly. And that's rather the point of Zimmerman being Zimmerman, isn't it?

"Besides, if you could have been Trayvon 35 years ago, what does that say about you? Did you go around thuggishly attacking people, breaking their noses, pinning them on the ground, pounding and grounding, slamming heads into pavements, threatening 'crackers' with death?"

That was my first thought on hearing the Alien's foolish assertion.

==========
K T Cat: Why Race Is The Go-To Excuse "It's because the alternative would be to blame behavior and no one wants to be judgmental."

Of course, another, and perhaps deeper reason, is that there is an on-going class-warfare amongst whites.

'Amongst' may not be the best word to us, as this class-war is being waged by the self-selected elites against the rest of us ... who really have no interest in having a class-war.

In any event, indiscriminate accusations of racism is just a tool these self-selected elites, these "liberals", use in their war against you and me; they don't actually give a damn about blacks, and everyone knows it.

Let’s Give Up on the Constitution

Louis Michael Seidman (NYT Op-Ed): Let’s Give Up on the Constitution

AS the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken. But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions.

Of course, doing away with the US Constitution has always been the goal of the "progressives", and has always been their proffered "answer" to every "crisis" -- even if they have to exert themselves in a truly heroic manner to manufacture that "crisis". That is, it isn't that case that "observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken"; rather, these "observers" start, and have always started, from that axiom.

And, by the way, it's not even remotely true that "the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos", for the government is not the nation.

Consider, for example, the assertion by the Senate minority leader last week that the House could not take up a plan by Senate Democrats to extend tax cuts on households making $250,000 or less because the Constitution requires that revenue measures originate in the lower chamber. Why should anyone care? Why should a lame-duck House, 27 members of which were defeated for re-election, have a stranglehold on our economy? Why does a grotesquely malapportioned Senate get to decide the nation’s fate?

"Why should anyone care?" -- Translation: Why should we "progressives" care about the clear rules when we think we have the raw force to do, and to compel others to do, whatever it is we wish?

An appeal to morality isn't going to hake headway with "progressives", especially when they're feeling their oats. So, let's try "self interest" -- Dude! You people aren't *always* going to have the presumed authority to get away with whatever you want to do. And, in truth, you don't even now have the raw force to compel the rest of us to bow to your shibboleths. You get away with imagining you have this authority (and this force) only because the rest of us -- the enemy -- are still playing by the rules. Make is obvious that you "progressives" have destroyed the rules, and things will get very interesting very quickly.

"Why should a lame-duck House, 27 members of which were defeated for re-election, have a stranglehold on our economy?"

What's going on in Washington has next to nothing to do with the nation's economy, except to make the economy weaker -- "fixing" the federal budget will not fix the economy. Even truly fixing the budget -- something the "progressives" will never allow -- will not fix the economy.

The economy does not originate in DC, and Washington can *never* 'grow' the economy -- the nearest any government can get to 'growing' an economy is to stop sucking all its lifesblood from it. But, "progressives", being vampires, can nevercountenance such an idea.

"Why does a grotesquely malapportioned Senate get to decide the nation’s fate?" -- Translation: Let's complete the Great Project begun in the Civil War and brought closer to fruition with the Seventeenth Amendment -- Let us finally get serious about abolishing the States which *created* the Union for which we claim to be speaking!

"Progressives" loathe decentralization and the general dispersion of power (and force) that is explicit in the American Union.


(h/t K T Cat)

Edit 2013/01/04:
If Gentle Reader can stomach wading through them, the reactions of the "liberals" and other leftists who infest Michael Engor's blog may be informative of the standard-issue leftist mindset.

Edit 2013/01/07:
Here is Michael Flynn cpmmenting on the matter: Sometimes the Mask Slips, Just a Little

Tradition Protects The Younger Generation From Themselves

K T Cat: Tradition Protects The Younger Generation From Themselves

I quite understand what he is saying.