Tag: philosophy

TBT^4: Remarkable Animals

The Portly PoliticoLeave a comment

It’s been an animal-centric year for yours portly. Sweet Murphy crossed the rainbow bridge; Nugget is still going strong; and we’re likely adopting a puppy in a few weeks. The koi and other creatures are doing well—I even wrote an entire album about it (still 90% off with promo code koipond)—and our bird feeder continues to attract lots of birds—and lizards. I’ve seen a nasty skink slinking around, too.

That reminds me of this piece I wrote a few years ago, “Lament of the Lizardman“:

But I digress. It seemed apropos to reblog this series of posts about animals in all their glory.

With that, here is 11 September 2025’s “TBT^2: Remarkable Animals“:

Read More »

Wayback Wednesday^2: Gnostic Mysteries

The Portly PoliticoLeave a comment

One of the enduring temptations for Christians of a more intellectual or theological bent is to take pride in their knowledge of Scripture. It’s scarily easy to fall into that trap, but it’s one that must be avoided, lest we either a.) fall into the heresy of Gnosticism or b.) are so proud in our knowledge, we sin against God. Really, both are likely outcomes, and “b.” includes “a.” Furthermore, no one is an effective witness if they come across as a boastful know-it-all.

The danger of that pride is very, very real. Consider that it was the pride of the Pharisees that condemned Jesus to the Cross. The pride of the Athenian elites condemned Socrates to hemlock. In both cases, the condemned poked at and exposed the foolish pride of their tormentors.

The appeal to know some “secret” knowledge, or to have the real answers, is one that those of an intellectual stripe must constantly guard against. I speak from experience (and that’s not me giving myself a very roundabout, backhanded compliment, but acknowledging that I have struggled with this sin). Ultimately, Jesus Is the Source of all Truth.

With that, here is 26 November 2025’s “Wayback Wednesday: Gnostic Mysteries“:

Read More »

Memorable Monday [Morning] Movie Review: The Empire Strikes Back [(1980)]

The Portly Politico1 Comment

Back in late 2022 and early 2023, Ponty and I did a series of posts about our favorite films. I ranked 1980’s The Empire Strikes Back as my number one pick. If we redid the lists, I doubt it would rank that high, but it would certainly be in the top five.

At the time, I noted that Empire was the first film I ever reviewed for what would become Monday Morning Movie Reviews. At the time, I just called it Monday Movie Review, perhaps knowing there’d be days I’d miss the “morning” deadline. Regardless, the review of that film marked something of a turning point for The Portly Politico, moving away from primarily political topics and moving more decisively towards cultural ones.

With that, here is 28 September 2020’s “Monday Movie Review: The Empire Strikes Back“:

Read More »

TBT^4: A Discourse on Disclaimers

The Portly Politico1 Comment

In surveying the vast expansion of the much-discussed Overton Window last year, it seemed like things couldn’t get any better. After a decade of oppressive wokery, people were suddenly letting it all out in a cathartic moment that felt incredible.

A year on, it seems to be getting even better. Maybe that’s because I’m using Substack more, which basically takes all the hot takes of X and transforms them into pseudo-intellectual essays (the writing on Substack is really good, by the way). People on there have zero qualms about saying anything, which makes it a pretty exciting intellectual environment. When no idea—even the bad ones—are off-limits, everything gets discussed—and exposed.

It’s refreshing. I remember how bad things got in 2015-2016, when even here in super conservative South Carolina you couldn’t audibly espouse support for Trump in mixed company, and certainly not in a professional setting. Now people are like, “Trump hasn’t gone far enough.” I mean, look, I agree; it’s just wild how we can say it out loud now.

So, no more equivocating, folks, no more disclaimers. Let it all out in a flurry of free speech!

With that, here is 26 June 2025’s “TBT^2: A Discourse on Disclaimers“:

Read More »

Wayback Wednesday: Gnostic Mysteries

The Portly Politico1 Comment

The online historian Rudyard Lynch, also known by his channel name, Whatifalthist, put up an interesting video earlier this week about the influence of alchemy and alchemical modes of thinking on the development of Western civilization.  It’s worth watching and considering, especially as an example of the crosspollination of ideas between philosophical, ethical, and religious systems.

Lynch makes the point of differentiating alchemy from Gnosticism, the latter of which he clearly views as a demonic heresy (it is).  I suspect he lets alchemy off the hook a little too easily from a Christian perspective, but apparently it’s a topic that many churches have studied and even endorsed.

I’m not willing to go that far.  It smacks too much of the appeal of secret knowledge that is at the root of Gnosticism.  For nerdy men, especially, there is a pull to these kinds of mystical interpretations because, like computer programming, they offer up an alleged deeper understanding of the “code” behind existence.

Ultimately, Jesus Is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.  We must always be on guard against potential heresies.

With that, here is 20 September 2022’s “Gnostic Mysteries“:

Read More »

TBT^2: Remarkable Animals

The Portly Politico4 Comments

After years of misspent youth, during which time I considered animals little more than fleshy, occasionally cute, robots, yours portly has learned the error of  his ways and become an animal lover.

Don’t get wrong—I love to eat animals as much as I enjoy keeping them as pets, and I possess a realistic view of animals:  they exist to serve us, not the other way around.  I love Murphy, and I’ll make sure she is fed, watered, and (when appropriate) medicated.  But the day that the vet says, “we can keep her alive another two weeks with this $4000 experimental canine chemotherapy,” it’ll be time to give the old girl a heartfelt goodbye.  By comparison, I’d sell my left kidney to the gay mafia if it’d add one day to the life of one of my family members or Dr. Fiancée.

All that said, I now very much see animals as a gift from God.  Every child in Sunday School knows that the first job of the first man was to name the animals; God Spared the animals along with humanity when He Commanded Noah to build an ark.  Clearly, our relationship with animals is meant to be a fruitful and productive one.

Further, anyone who has ever owned a dog (or even a cat) knows that these creatures have personalities.  Sure, I imagine jellyfish don’t lead rich inner lives, but it’s wild and amusing to me how dogs can possess such a range of personalities.  Murphy is aloof and anxious, but very much the queen of her domain.  Dr. Fiancée’s three-legged mutt is sweet and loving, but has her sassy moments like Murph.  My parents’ two rat terriers are cousins and/or half-brothers of some kind (I think they share a grandparent), but despite their genetic similarity, their personalities are nearly opposite (much like human siblings at times).

Do I think dogs have souls?  Perhaps not in the way that humans do.  But there is a life and intelligence behind the eyes of a dog.  Even the most forlorn, neglected mutt possesses something of a shimmer behind his sad eyes.  The fact that the eyes can even express emotions suggests there is something deeper there.

Of course, the evolutionist wags will snarkily remark, “we just bred them to reflect qualities we like.”  Perhaps.  Nevertheless, I’m struck by how human dogs can be, while also being something quite different—in some ways, something even better.

All points worthy of speculation, idle or otherwise.  What do you think, dear readers?

With that, here is 12 September 2024’s “TBT: Remarkable Animals“:

Read More »

TBT^2: A Discourse on Disclaimers

The Portly Politico5 Comments

What a difference a year makes.  It seems as though the election of Donaldus Magnus last November ushered in a profound cultural shift.  Being Left is cringe and gay.  It always was, but now normies are saying it out loud.

Sure, there’s still a lot of weirdos out there, but it’s fascinating to see how the culture has moved so wildly in such a short amount of time.  The age of needless disclaimers may very well be coming in—or, perhaps, it will intensify during the death throes of hand-wringing.

Well, we’ll see.  In the meantime, life is too short to bottle everything up.  Drop Truth Bombs, my friends!

With that, here is 27 June 2024’s “TBT: A Discourse on Disclaimers“:

Read More »

SubscribeStar Saturday: Elective Libertarian Monarchy?

The Portly PoliticoLeave a comment

Pickup my newest release: The Galactic Menagerie!  Use promo code obesekangaroos to take an additional 20% off all purchases on Bandcamp!  Code expires at 11:59 PM UTC on Friday, 4 April 2025.

Today’s post is a SubscribeStar Saturday exclusive.  To read the full post, subscribe to my SubscribeStar page for $1 a month or more.  For a full rundown of everything your subscription gets, click here.

It has been absolutely remarkable to witness the yuge cultural-political shift since President Trump returned to office.  A flurry of executive action, coupled with robust efforts to gut USAID and even federal personnel, has subverted all expectations of what a president can do.  That a flurry of lawsuits have arisen in response to these actions does not seem to have dampened the energy of our very energetic executive.

The contrast with the last administration is glaring, not just for the sheer difference in activity—from zero to 100—but the quality of the executive actions taken.  President Biden—or, more likely, the invisible cadre of swamp dwellers who ran the government during the Jill Biden Regency—weaponized the federal government to persecute conservatives.  President Trump has weaponized the federal government to persecute… the federal government!

There is a common fantasy among doughy, slightly-above-average-IQ white guys of the libertarian king or dictator, someone who paradoxically wields the full power of the government to decrease its power.  The concept has some historical precedence, such as kings and emperors through history who have wielded power with a light touch, allowing their subjects to flourish.  Han China, England since at least the Stuarts, even the Mongols largely left people to pursue their own interests and passions and enterprises, so long as everyone paid their taxes and showed up for military service.

But the idea is a fantasy because it is unreal, impossible, in any real sense.  “Libertarian” means different things to different people; for most libertarians, it means smoking a lot of pot and being a weirdo in public.  The more generous definition would probably describe a system in which individuals pursue their own interests with limited or no government interference, in which the non-aggression principle is always applied.

Libertarianism is a pipe dream, though, because the non-aggression principle—the idea that my right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins—is not always applied.  Government exists in large part to protect us from a.) foreign invaders who don’t respect a nation’s sovereignty and b.) fellow citizens who don’t respect our bodies, homes, and property.  We have police because people sometimes act violently, and sometimes no amount of economic incentive can prevent a Friday night at the bar from turning into a scene from Roadhouse (1989).  If we were driven purely by economic incentives, no one ever get a DUI or an aggravated assault charge—or only those rich enough to pay the fines or to skirt jailtime could afford the luxury of reckless criminal behavior.

But for all of its deficiencies, the core of libertarian thought is the idea that the government that governs least, governs best.  That’s not always the case, but it’s a broadly good principle.  I get nervous every time I get a property tax bill for my house or my car, because I know that, even if I send in the check, if some bureaucrat makes a mistake, I could still lose everything—and the burden of proof would be on me to prove that I paid my taxes and that they made a mistake.  If that seems paranoid, think about the myriad stories of people losing their homes or farms or cars—or getting arrested!—because someone in some distant office made a clerical error.

Enter Donald Trump.  Trump is no libertarian—thank God!—but he possesses the very American impulse that most Americans want to be left alone to live their lives and to do their business relatively unmolested by the guarantors of their domestic tranquility:  the federal, State, and local governments.

With that in mind, his sweeping executive action so far—accomplished largely via executive orders—smacks flavorfully of an elected king wielding his power to restore more power to the people—and to reform the federal bureaucracy.

To read the rest of this post, subscribe to my SubscribeStar page for $1 a month or more.

Open Mic Adventures XCIX: “Pythagoras”

The Portly PoliticoLeave a comment

Pickup my newest release, Math: And Other Delights, now!  And stay tuned for Spooky Season III releasing this Friday, 4 October 2024!

Now that it’s October, I think it is time to move away from featuring tracks from White Boy Summer; instead, I’m going to feature a somewhat spooky track from my latest album, Math: And Other Delights.  It’s not a scary song, but it has a cool, ancient, mysterious feel to it, and involves Pythagoras.

Read More »

Guest Post: Brian Meredith: There’s No Such Thing as Bad Art

The Portly Politico50 Comments

We have a new contributor here at The Portly Politico, a chap from jolly old England, Brian Meredith.  He’s a graphic designer by trade and is Internet friends with our own senior correspondent, Audre Myers.

In this piece, “There’s No Such Thing as Bad Art,” Brian makes an essentially semantic argument:  if we glorify pieces we like or appreciate as “art,” we conversely consider “bad” pieces as “not art.”  Ergo, we cannot have “bad art” if art is definitionally whatever we define as “good.”

As Brian noted in an e-mail to me:  “I would like to make it clear that my intention was to write something about the use of language rather [than] about art itself and in particular the commonly-accepted assumption that the very idea of art confers status.”

It’s an interesting argument, and one that I think has its merits.  I disagree with the underlying premise, in that we can create things broadly termed “art” that are, indeed, quite poor in quality, either because of aesthetic choices or merely a lack of craftsmanship on the part of the artist.  There can be “art” of varying qualities.

But I think Brian is correct when we look at “art” as a term of social categorization—as a form of judgment.  In that regard, anything that we think is worthy of praise—even if from an objective or technical standpoint it is not very good—could be elevated to the status of “art,” as his argument is that society uses the term “art” almost exclusively as a term of praise.  As such, if enough rubes agree that, say, an ashtray is a work of art, it is merely laudatory “art,” and not “bad art,” which—again—cannot exist in this usage of the word.

That explains why there are plenty of poor craftspeople whose work is lauded as “art” because they are well-connected (as I have written about before on this blog).

Ultimately, this subjective, linguistic/definitional argument results in the kind of postmodern garbage we see coming out of art studios today.  I do not think Brian would agree with the sentiment he points out—he seems to be a diagnostician, not a physician, of this problem—but its existence is certainly real.  As such, because lay persons exclusively use the term “art” in a laudatory context, the result is that we do end up with a great deal of bad art, even if definitionally that’s impossible.

It’s an intriguing semantic argument, but like most semantic arguments, it seems like it too easily devolves into postmodern nonsense.  Again, I don’t think Brian is advocating for that, but is merely diagnosing the problem.

With that, here is Brian Meredith’s “There’s No Such Thing as Bad Art”:

Read More »