Safety Fourth, Freedom First

“Stay safe!”

This is how people who have never missed a meal are telling each other goodbye nowadays.

People who have never been near a war, who have never heard a shot fired in anger (perhaps until the tumult of this hideous summer), are now going about masked in conformity and draped in self-congratulation, hailing one another as intrepid survivors.

On some level, they have a point.

You are going to die. Perhaps it will not be for many years; conversely, you may slump over lifeless before you finish reading this sentence…this sentence I am typing now…period!

You made it. Nevertheless, the fact remains that we are never safe.

“Safety first” is one of those anodyne expressions people mutter, assuming universal agreement, even as it is obscenely wrong.

The magnificent society we have inherited, the capital of which we are rapidly burning, is based on two concepts, neither of which is “safety.”

They are, in order, free speech and private property.

Within free speech is encapsulated the concept of liberty itself. Whatever amalgam of matter and spirit you consider yourself to be, if you are unable to express yourself, what freedom do you possess?

Speech is the child of thought, inwardly conditioned and refined before being released into the world. When outward expression is blocked, the inability to speak inhibits thought itself.

America’s Founders knew this and, wherever you find yourself in the current upheaval, you know it, too.

This is not a political issue. As with so many things, freedom of speech is not right because it is a law; it was made a law because it is right.

Private property has a “get off my lawn” vibe, but it simply means something to call your own.

Your home, your family, and your life’s work qualify as things for which you are responsible, and the best of which you strive to present as part of that symphony of interests we call society.

There are places and resources we all share but, without personal territory to which to retreat and refine, all of life reverts to the tragic commons.

Significantly, that which is ostensibly owned by the people is nothing of the kind. It is financed by them, whether they wish to or not, but the control and de facto ownership of such resources is effected by those who have climbed the greasy pole of politics and bureaucracy (in my financial incarnation, I was bemused at the muddled argot by which the “privatization” of a previously public utility was the only way in which the public could have any meaningful ownership of it).

There is one more crucial element of our still-free society that outranks the social and soul-distancing “safety” we hear so much about: Purpose.

This is not so easily defined as it differs for every person, and it requires the synthesis of many people to discern the purpose of a nation. But in the latter case, a handy shorthand would be the things we have in common; the truths we hold to be self-evident, if you will.

Until recently, we could at least pretend to agree that America is a noble if imperfect nation, worthy of preservation. In 2020, traditional Americans maintain this view, but an opposing faction loudly and ubiquitously proclaims its opposition.

I suspect this second group, despite their myriad complaints, holds no informed opinion on America one way or the other. They simply desire power over their fellow human beings. Ironic that this cohort seeks to cancel some of history’s greatest men for owning slaves.

They boast they are speaking “truth to power” when their real aim is power over truth. Such people are ready allies, and often one and the same, with the creeping totalitarians you never wished to know, but who will not leave you be.

Those who, in the name of safety, daily find new ways to control your life – a checkpoint on the road, an edict that you wear a mask in the bathtub, whatever – will never stop. This is because they know no higher ideal. Safety, control, and compliance are their Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

Can you blame them? If people have no concept of freedom, no aspiration to or prospect of property, and no defined purpose either for themselves or their nation, what remains?

The fetishization of safety is a shortcut to power and balm for the amputations where America’s ideals ought to be. This need not be our future.

Revolutionary War hero Gen. John Stark assessed it neatly: “Death is not the worst of evils.”

To adapt the other portion of Stark’s declaration, made famous by the good people of New Hampshire:

Live free, then die.

Theo Caldwell wanted to be left alone. Contact him at theo@theocaldwell.com

COVID-19 is the New "Climate Change"

Hands up if you suspect the Venn Diagram of people who demand you wear a mask and people who won’t let you use a plastic straw is a single circle.

You have seen this before: Some scarcity or crisis arises, and with it come people who insist the only intelligent, humane response is to do exactly as they say.

Anyone who disagrees or hesitates to comply is, ipso facto, an idiot who hates planet Earth.

I rise on behalf of the idiots to propose that we take the condemnations as read and consider the pattern.

For a time, we had a name for those who, with impressive confidence and a dearth of humility, suppose every issue requires their intervention and authority.

It is unfortunate to see people who know better feign identity politics outrage at the term “Karen” and attempt to place it beyond the pale as a sexist and racist slur (the “K-word”?).

To be a Karen has nothing to do with race, and indeed Karens need not be female.

California Governor Gavin Newsom, for example, is a straight-up Karen, as is New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy.

Likewise, Leonardo DiCaprio and Al Gore are Climate Karens.

Perhaps the mightiest Karen of all is former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who spent three terms going about the five boroughs minding everyone else’s business.

Karens are those for whom nothing can simply be permitted; everything must be mandatory or forbidden.

They are the wokescolds, the tone police, and, in their latest incarnation, they are the “wear the damn mask” bandits.

For such people, the stakes are low but the dudgeon is always high.

Caldwell’s Law, which I believe I just invented, states that the more politicized a crisis becomes, the less dangerous the crisis truly is.

This is why you see celebrities taking private jets to climate conferences so they can debate whether you and your family should be allowed to fly to Disney World.

None of them truly believes we are one SUV away from seeing birds burst into flames in midair. If they did, they would behave accordingly.

Similarly, this is why you see Dr. Anthony Fauci, who avers we must all wear masks and never shake hands again, peel off his own mask whilst sitting directly beside people at a Major League Baseball game.

For these people, the threat that defines them is not real. The only real thing is power.

I care deeply about our planet, and so do you. Pollution and waste trouble us. And yet you and I both know we are many years past when we were told there would be no more glaciers, polar bears, or Klondike Bars.

Moreover, we have lived long enough to see that the vaunted models of what would happen to the Earth’s temperature never came close to the truth. We don’t want to fight about it, but we have eyes.

By the same token, we don’t want to see anyone get sick and die, particularly if there is something we can do to prevent it.

And yet, we see that our initial fears about the mortality rate of COVID-19 were exaggerated and, as with climate models, predictions of death totals were wildly overstated.

We have also achieved a solid understanding of who is most at risk: the elderly, and those confined to hospitals and nursing homes. Younger people and those outdoors, with a witheringly small number of exceptions, risk no worse than a passing, flu-like illness.

But even as these facts range further from dispute, calls for control of the population, closing schools indefinitely, and shuttering society become more forceful and shrill.

Caldwell’s Law strikes again. As an intensely politicized issue of which no one maintains a genuine fear, the COVID-19 hysteria is climate change redux, only now it is literally on your face.

By the time something occurs to me, I find millions of people already thought of it. Much has been said of that moment when regular people – defined here as those who simply want to go about their lives, with no agenda to control the lives of others – have had enough. It strikes me that such a moment may have arrived.

Having grown tired of being insulted, threatened, and bossed around, I wonder if we are done. We were good sports for awhile, but have we missed enough weddings and funerals, birthdays and graduations, that we are ready to take back our lives?

Theo Caldwell wanted to be left alone. Contact him at theo@theocaldwell.com

 

Push Back on the "New Normal"

This will not end until we make it end.

 

Like many of you, I was a good sport when this health scare started. I even wrote and recorded a dopey song in support of the effort.

 

Snow was on the ground then and, like Coleridge’s Winter, we wore on our smiling faces a dream of Spring.

 

But, as many have noted, “Flatten the curve” quickly became “Communism.”

 

The analogy is imperfect, since what we are experiencing is not strictly political, or even cultural, but the point is clear.

 

The first time I encountered the phrase “New Normal” in this context, I bristled. Perhaps you did, too. It was early days then, and we were being asked to take precautions to keep ourselves healthy in order to prevent hospitals from being overrun.

 

It was a simple request, straightforward in its logic. A comfortable generation like ours, relative strangers to true suffering and digitally deprived of much of the human contact of ages past, eagerly embraced the opportunity to help.

 

But then someone, in print or in person, let slip that the supposedly short-term strangeness we were enduring would be the “New Normal.”

 

Whoever that person was for me, or for you, I doubt they were part of some Fauci-worshipping cabal, accidentally revealing The Master Plan.

 

Even so, they were not wrong. Perhaps they understood the human need for conformity, or were adapting Newtonian laws – objects in lockdown tend to stay in lockdown – but here we are.

 

Recall, also, that in those days we were benighted as to the nature of the disease and feared the mortality rate could be as high as 3 or 4 percent. Since then, we have found the death rate to be a witheringly small fraction of that number, while making progress in understanding and treatment.

 

And yet, some of the brightest among us are bike-riding in masks and advocating keeping schools closed indefinitely, even as the near-zero risk to children and people outdoors are among the many valuable things we have learned.

 

These are not logical acts, and it took some effort to get us here. It will take more effort to get us out. This is why I say we must push back now.

 

Push, I say – not strike or hit. Besides that we have seen quite enough anger and violence lately, we are dealing with something that does not respond to force.

 

Since the Garden of Eden, mankind has demanded control – first of one’s self, and then of others. This appetite is insatiable. And it is this primal desire that prompts one to don a flimsy surgical mask in the sunshine, and then insist others do so as well.

 

We all contain this hardwiring, though it is more pronounced in some than others. Moreover, we all aspire to some higher good and we yearn for the warm, hearth-like glow that comes from being part of the group.

 

Perhaps you have seen, as I have, decent people, who have heretofore expressed little to no religious fervor, suddenly posting their solemn commitments to mask-wearing all over social media. You may also have encountered the more aggressive, profanity-laced admonitions that you wear one, too.

 

This is our controlling and collectivist impulse in its most observable form. I would only add that the occasional spasms of rage you may also have seen, where those questioned or chided for not wearing masks have blown a gasket, are related. The same nerve is being touched – the need for control.

 

But it is the former group – the mask-wearers and enforcers (masks being a proxy for the entire shutdown mindset, you understand) – that has the power and momentum. Indeed, as the logic of their case weakens, their reach seems to expand, providing further proof that they are impervious to anger and epistemology.

 

How, then, does this end? Can you imagine a day when your neighborhood birder, out with her binoculars, mask, and social distance tape measure, eschews the latter two and admits all is well?

 

If a vaccine were developed, have you any doubt that in today’s climate, proof of inoculation will be required for travel, work, or even the most basic of daily activities?

 

Certainly not, so what to do?

 

The answer is a firm but loving No. Some force must act upon this motion to stop it. In our permissive age, we keep No stored way up high, like Galliano at the back of the bar (because really, how often does someone order a Harvey Wallbanger?), but the time has come.

 

The No can take many forms – withholding dollars, votes, and support from businesses and politicians that perpetuate this cycle – or simply refusing to accept the conversational premises of a friend or family member who insists we all must get used to the “New Normal.”

 

The No should be as kind as possible – push, do not hit – and it should be accompanied by a better option. Remember that those opposed, while they are behaving differently from you, are no worse. They long to be included and on the side of goodness. Literally or figuratively, invite them to sit by your hearth instead.

 

There is an opportunity cost to all this, and peace will be disturbed.

 

I do not want to write columns or engage in public debate. I simply want to be a good neighbor, walk my dog, and show God’s love to people I find objectionable. Those are the things I believe I was put on this planet to do.

 

To paraphrase Lenin, however, while I may not be interested in the “New Normal,” the “New Normal” is interested in me.

 

When people I like and respect, young and in glowing health, say they have stopped attending church in order to minimize their contact with other people, something must be said.

 

I believe this current situation – on a cultural, political, and human level – is, as abolitionist James Russell Lowell said of his own generation, that “Once to every man and nation” moment to decide.

 

If we do not push back now, this will indeed be our “New Normal.” Generations yet unborn will never know a day when they can simply go about in freedom, unmasked, unchipped, without proof of inoculation against some illness that was moderated years before.

 

As we have seen, fear, anger, and lust for power are within us. But, as the only good man who ever lived said, so too is the Kingdom of Heaven. Let us choose well.

 

Theo Caldwell just wanted to be left alone. Contact him at theo@theocaldwell.com

Canada, Please Don't Ask Me to Take You Seriously Again

Growing up in Canada, one learns that an obligation of citizenship is to humor the nation’s delusions of grandeur.

In schools, to the extent history is still taught, Canada’s role in world events is revised to outsized proportions. Self-flattering terms like “moral superpower” are coined to imply that from the Cuban Missile Crisis to the supposed existential threat of “Climate Change,” it is Canada pulling the strings, like some benign and unfailingly polite Kaiser Soze.

One is enjoined to play along as Canada insists it is the best in the world at this or that – oftentimes in qualitative, subjective fields such as the arts. Even here, anyone with eyes to see or ears to hear or good taste to consult recognizes this is not the case. But the Canadian thing to do is nod, smile, and not object.

It is perhaps fitting that a vapid scion like Justin Trudeau should be the leader of such a nation. A country of little consequence is led by a young man who has never faced consequences.

Since he first thrust his way onto the national stage almost two decades ago at his father’s funeral, I have found Justin embarrassing. I resisted opining on him for as many years as possible, even as I knew he would one day be Prime Minister, as I imagined the topic would demean me and my listeners.

Even so, Justin proved handy for profiling purposes. To wit, if I encountered someone who did not blush at his nonsense, while I would still endeavour to love them as a fellow child of God, I’d recognize that we were simply not on the same page in life.

One cannot improve upon Ben Shapiro’s economical take: “Justin Trudeau is what would happen if the song 'Imagine' took human form and then ate a Tide Pod.”

There is nothing so trendy and insipid that you will not hear it escape Justin’s lips, pronounced as though he had alighted upon some ancient and arcane wisdom.

Again, he would seem the ideal leader for a nation constantly slathering itself with self-important fantasy like so much maple syrup.

But here we find the nostrums of complacent leftism colliding with such force that I cannot, though my passport may depend on it, pretend to take Canada seriously again.

After a single, inevitable term as Prime Minister, Justin has been returned to power, albeit with a minority government (that is, winning a plurality, but not a majority, of seats in the House of Commons).

Canadian voters have ratified Justin’s rule and his absurd behaviour. In this age of climate hysteria, female supremacy, and cultural hypersensitivity, Canada has re-elected a man who requires not one but two campaign planes, has groped, bullied and sidelined female press and colleagues, and who has, on at least three documented occasions, performed in blackface while deep into adulthood.

In short, politically correct Canada has given the ultimate privileged white male a pass on conduct that would likely cost you, gentle reader, your livelihood.

It is not as though voters can point to a record of economic or policy success to justify this result. After promising to eliminate the budget deficit by this year, Justin has ensured that overspending will continue for the foreseeable future. He and his fellow-travelers have not been friends to industry and there seems no end to the number of Canadian jobs they are prepared to sacrifice to the gods of their weather religion.

Again, Justin requires two planes while you cannot have a plastic straw.

All this being said, I love Canada, as a place to live. I hold three citizenships, enabling me to reside in about thirty countries, but I chose to return home and purchase the house in which I grew up.

But let it not be misunderstood – the splendidness of Canada is not due to Justin’s good offices, or the shrill politics of the frowny-faced moon maidens who support him. Rather, the nation lives on the capital of a society established before any of us got here.

From coast to coast to coast, the country is like one vast, holiday camp from reality. Canada is much like the Shire – if it were criminal to misgender a hobbit.

The whole proposition is a race against time. Will this generation pass before Canada is hollowed out by rapacious non-entities like Justin and his ilk, or will the cloud of their smugness and silly-bears consume us all?

Either way, perhaps it is best for Canada not to be taken seriously rather than just enjoyed. As Alan Watts opined, “Man suffers only because he takes seriously what the Gods made for fun.”

Theo Caldwell is a Canadian, Irish, and American citizen. Contact him at  theo@theocaldwell.com

Democrats and Keyser Soze

 

“The greatest trick the devil ever pulled,” advised Keyser Soze, “was convincing the world he didn’t exist.”

 

One of the best lines in movie history, uttered by the recently un-personned Kevin Spacey in his Oscar-winning turn in The Usual Suspects, it has the benefit of being true.

 

Not to plot-spoil for readers who have not found time in the past quarter-century to see this 2-hour tour de force, the twist of the tale is that, not only does the devil very much exist, he takes the form you would least suppose.

 

That is, he feigns weakness, innocence, and vulnerability, even as he exercises wickedness, power, and control.

 

The trouble for Democrats in recent days is that their disguise has become transparent.

 

If it seems this dialectic equates the Democrat Party with the devil himself, then you are following aptly.

 

Millions of us are neither hard-core Republicans nor diehard Trump fans, but we know we could never join with the Left in general or the Democrats in particular.

 

This is because we see the Democrats as the party of partial-birth abortion (and selling dismembered baby parts thereafter), relentlessly sexualizing children who make it into the world, incessantly dividing people by race, purveyors of lies and profanity, hateful accusers of Christianity and traditional mores, control addicts and tormentors of those who dissent, the political arm of the angry mob.

 

We rarely say as much in public or out loud. Differences arise on this issue or that, but declarative statements identifying Democrats with metaphysical evil are generally left to the firebrands of the Right, or religious types who specialize in talking that way.

 

But the conduct of Democrats, not only during the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination process but in the months and years preceding, has made the correlation clear.

 

What is most dumbfounding to traditional people is the hurricane of hypocrisy and flurry of lies that surround this.

 

Nearly a half-century after the fact, it is still considered impolite or harsh to point out that Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy left a young woman to drown in a car after he drove off a bridge.

 

That act in itself is purely evil. But equally chilling is to witness the successive generations of Democrats who excuse, deny, or ignore this incident, even as they accuse their political opponents of waging “war on women.”

 

Democratic Senator Robert Byrd was an active and enthusiastic member of the Ku Klux Klan who uttered the vilest racial terms on television right up until the early years of this century. He was embraced by his party and remained safely in office until his death, even as Democrats constantly accuse the other side of racism and bigotry.

 

We are barely a year removed from a Democratic partisan stalking out a baseball diamond and expressly confirming that the people playing there were Republicans before opening fire, yet Democrats and their media fellow-travelers fret that it is Republicans whose views “could lead to violence.”

 

Which brings us to the Kavanaugh debacle.

 

From the beginning, the peculiar aspect surrounding the accusations against Kavanaugh was not that Republicans might not believe them; rather, it is that Democrats themselves do not believe them.

 

It is an odd, almost ethereal idea, rarely spoken but largely understood, that on this as on so many issues, Democrats do not believe the words and phrases they passionately deploy.

 

Everyone, Left and Right, knows this fight is about something else. The things Democrats say about Kananaugh are rhetorical weapons of opportunity, and they know it.

 

This is why narratives continue to shift, demands are ever-changing and never satisfied, and the battle rages over generalizations regarding “women” and “survivors” rather than the facts.

 

Jesus described the devil as both “a murderer” and “the father of lies.” The juxtaposition is significant, since to lie is, in essence, to murder the truth.

 

From Moses to Milton to Michael Moore, the denial of objective truth, defined and dispensed from above, has been central to the devil’s modus operandi.

 

When Democratic Senator Cory Booker congratulated one of Kavanaugh’s accusers of speaking “her truth,” he said a mouthful.

 

Barack Obama once defined sin as “Being out of alignment with my values.”

 

As a professed Christian, it is possible Obama meant the violation of immutable right and wrong, the trespassing of objective truth, which can be felt within the soul of each person, if they wish. We all have that place inside us. God lives there.

 

Given his party affiliation and public record, however, it seems more likely Obama means compromising truth and goodness as determined by himself alone.

 

On innumerable issues, from the Kavanaugh case to their newfound yet sacrosanct belief that gender is a matter of individual choice, Democrats declare things they themselves know to be untrue and, indispensable to their need to play God, insist that everyone else yield to their pronouncements.

 

Relatedly, a word about mobs: Deep within the human mind is the burning desire to control others, and to punish those who resist. This is most effectively performed as part of a mob. Essentially, that is what Twitter is for.

 

This innate need to rule and harm is tempered in those who accept they themselves are not the sole arbiters of good and evil. But within those who insist they alone determine “their truth,” anger burns, particularly at those who refuse to submit.

 

Whatever your political affiliation, you know very well that Democrat politicians would never be hounded out of restaurants, harassed in public places, have their homes surrounded and vandalized and their children mocked, as has happened to Republicans lately.

 

This particular technique of mobbing and public abuse is a staple of Castro’s Cuba and other communist regimes. In America, it was incubated on the college campus before its recent graduation to national politics. And it is a practical manifestation of the devil’s rage against the light.

 

Lies are the means to, and the purpose of, power.

 

“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize,” avers Voltaire. For all Democrats’ complaints about “white male privilege,” no Leftist utterance would seem complete without a swipe at white people, particularly men.

 

And who cannot be criticized? Anyone who achieves victim status. Currently, this includes Kavanaugh’s accusers, no matter how outlandish their claims.

 

Here, as in Keyser Soze’s example, brute power wears a veil of innocence and vulnerability.

 

The point is not that Democrats, in particular, are evil. All people are evil.

 

The difference is that traditional Americans, and Christians by definition, understand this about themselves and recognize the need for redemption by a higher power.

 

For Democrats, there is no higher power but power itself.

 

theo@theocaldwell.com

Guessing Justin Trudeau's Mental Age

Not to brag, but I was embarrassed by Justin Trudeau BEFORE he went to India.

The Good Book instructs that whoever says to his brother, “You fool!” shall be in danger of hellfire, so let me address this a gentler way.

In assessing others, particularly political leaders, we tend toward familiar terms to gauge their qualities – experience, intelligence, wisdom, honesty, and so on.

Each of these is important, certainly, but to consider any one, or even several of them to be dispositive paints an incomplete picture. It is unsatisfactory.

What we are really talking about, though we rarely use the word, is a person’s essence.

Is this a person of substance? Do their values resonate and do they have the means to uphold them?

People of profound experience or nonpareil intelligence can nevertheless be badly wrong. In fact, they often are.

I do not, therefore, choose to pile on the global mockery of Trudeau’s recent India trip by dismissing him as “stupid” or “inexperienced.” Besides that such characterizations can be off-putting, or at least unhelpful, they miss the point.

Among the many weaknesses of the Conservative Party’s disastrous 2015 campaign to prevent Justin from ascending to his father’s seat as Canada’s prime minister was their ubiquitous slogan, “Just not ready.”

The implication was that the younger Trudeau was simply lacking in time served and, after a few more years of professional politics, would be all set for the big chair.

To civilians like me, pulling our hair out as we watched a winnable election slip away, this failed to address the instinct of millions of Canadians, left and right, that Justin Trudeau was not a person of educable depth.

Having inherited a family fortune and, effectively, the leadership of the Liberal Party, Justin enjoys a more privileged life than you or I ever will. As we sometimes see with children of celebrities, or those who achieve fame too young, arrested development sets in.

To wit, such people do not mature because they do not have to.

As a rough estimate, I would assess Justin a mental age of about 15.

I do not mean a precocious 15, either. In fact, I mean a particular sort of teenager, with which you might be familiar.

I mean the kid in the class who adores the sound of his own voice, who stands in awe of his own intellect, and whose overall obtuseness is obvious to everyone but himself.

He is the sort of self-promoting, mean-spirited virtue-signaller who is always leading some politically correct campaign, just so he can make a speech in assembly or get himself interviewed by the local news.

Cast your mind back to your schooldays and I bet you can picture that kid. I certainly know who it was for me (as does everyone who was in my class except, I suspect, the person himself).

If you still know that person, have they changed much?

Among the little I know of the Conservatives’ current leader, Andrew Scheer, is that he has shocked me twice: once, by winning the speakership of the House of Commons; and again by becoming head of his party.

He is younger than Trudeau, but reassuringly more mature.

Jovial and unobtrusive, Scheer seems the ideal antidote to Trudeau’s brand of electric nothingness.

In an interview on Election Night 2015, I referred to Justin Trudeau as a “ridiculous ballerina.” Without irony, I apologize for that. It’s no way to talk about people.

But as a Canadian, he wields greater power over my life than does the leader of any other free country over its citizens.

Consequently, it is in my personal interest, and that of my nation, to point out when our prime minister is fundamentally unsuited to the job.

His India debacle is just the latest, searing example that Justin Trudeau is not ready, and never will be.

One hopes our long, national facepalm is almost over.

Theo Caldwell hates to say he told you so. Contact him at theo@theocaldwell.com

This Christmas, Try to be More Judgmental

One of my favourite expressions, which Google finds to be of disputed provenance, is "Be hard on yourself, but easy on others."

Most of us naturally tend toward the opposite.

In my case, I give myself unlimited hall passes for things much worse than I condemn others for. I have done this all my life, I’m frightfully good at it, and I doubt I will ever stop.

This comes to mind because 2017 has been the worst year of my life. Four people very close to me died within a few months of each other (the last two, 10 days apart), with a fifth passing away just before Christmas 2016.

As one does at times like these, I cast about for guidance and inspiration, which brought me to the works of 18th-century spiritualist Emanuel Swedenborg.

During his later years, Swedenborg claimed to have visited the afterlife, including both Heaven and Hell, and wrote prolifically about what he saw there.

This may seem bizarre, but Swedenborg’s books are profound and detailed, with many concepts worthy of consideration, even if the entire canon were the product of delusion.

In my nascent Swedenborg study, I have found that some Christians consider him to be a heretic, even an occultist.

Whether Swedenborg offered a legitimate interpretation of scripture or was a doctrinal arsonist and, as his contemporary John Wesley is said to have described him, "one of the most ingenious, lively, and entertaining madmen that ever set pen to paper," his prevailing message is clear.

To wit, everything we do and are, and the whole of existence, including this life and the next, is based on love.

The task for us as humans is to decide which sort of love will rule our natures – love for ourselves, or love for God and our fellow man?

In practical terms, this translates to the good things we do for others and, crucially, our reasons for doing them.

Consequently, we must judge ourselves fearlessly on what we do and why.

Personally, I do nuthin' for nobody and, the few times I actually do help my fellow man, I practically give myself a medal in my mind.

Self-interest is crafty and conniving, a master of disguise, and it adapts like a virus.

Let's say you give money to a homeless man on the street. Why are you doing it? Is it so you will be seen doing so, or even just to get him away from your car?

Are you giving to him so you yourself will experience the warm gladness of having helped someone else?

Perhaps most challenging, if you have faith in God, by giving money to that homeless man, do you believe you are increasing your chances of getting into Heaven, and adding to the treasure that awaits you there?

To the extent any of these motivations is true, you will notice what is missing: giving out of a genuine love for that other person.

Even (or especially) those last two motivations – the warm fuzzies and/or jumping the queue to Heaven – are ultimately about you.

Why, even, have I published this column? Is it (as I like to believe) because I have alighted upon something worthwhile that will benefit others?

Or is it so people will think well of me, or consider me erudite for the Dickensian reference in my bio at the bottom, and because I use words like "erudite" and "Dickensian" when I could just as easily have said "smart" and "Scrooge"?

The reason the Golden Rule is to treat others as you would like to be treated, and Christ instructs us to love others as we love ourselves (the starter kit to loving God above all things), is that this is motivation to which people can relate.

We all love ourselves first and foremost. Our assignment is to take that abiding self-love that is in the heart of every human and, so far as we are able, redirect it toward other people.

At this time of year, when crummy gifts are given (e.g., socks, fruity soaps, donations to the Human Fund), they are often ameliorated by saying, “It’s the thought that counts.”

How true that is.

Swedenborg has a particular observation pertinent to the Christmas story, which I must paraphrase (Swedenborg was Swedish and writing in Latin, so gimme a break):

The reason the wise men traveled to see the baby Jesus and laid precious gifts before him is that true wisdom bows down to the supremacy of love – in Jesus’ case, love personified.

We all like to think of ourselves as wise. I don’t know you, but you’re probably smarter than I am.

But all the wisdom in the world amounts to foolishness if it is not informed by love. Similarly, two people doing the same good deed may look identical, but the only one truly doing good is the one motivated by selfless love.

And so, my unsolicited and borrowed advice this Christmas is this: Judge yourself as thoroughly as you are able, even (and especially) when you are being easy on others.

Theo Caldwell should have made mankind his business. Contact him at theo@theocaldwell.com