The Crisis of Modern Secularism One of the primary reasons modern society has dismissed the Christian worldview is the perceived disconnect between what it teaches and the realities of contemporary life. The Church’s assertion of offering a transcendent, universal truth often seems irreconcilable with the secular narratives ingrained through personal experience, societal norms, and the pervasive influence of modern media. In previous generations, much of what an individual knew and understood was shaped by their local community and the shared religious framework that, in the West, was predominantly Christianity. This close-knit environment provided a sense of stability and assurance, as people’s beliefs and values were largely aligned with those of their neighbors. However, advancements in technology — especially in communication, travel, and information — have fundamentally reshaped this dynamic. The modern individual is now inundated with an overwhelming influx of ideas and perspectives from across the globe, creating a kind of information overload. This unprecedented exposure has profoundly challenged the shared certainties of the past. As modern individuals encounter competing ideologies and gain direct knowledge of people once considered enemies, they discover that these individuals, their beliefs, and their practices are not as foreign or unreasonable as previous generations may have assumed. Confronted with this complexity, a modern person often feels compelled to choose between two equally troubling paths: either accept all perspectives as equally valid, leading to relativism and a rejection of absolute truth, or dismiss all perspectives entirely, turning instead to secularism and scientific materialism. The latter path is particularly alluring in an age where scientific advancements offer tangible and consistent results, making them appear as the only stable and reliable source of truth. In contrast, religious practices — once central to human life — are increasingly viewed as psychological crutches for those unable to adapt to modernity. With no immediate or measurable outcomes, these spiritual acts are often dismissed as relics of a superstitious past, tools designed to comfort the fearful and uncertain rather than genuine connections to a transcendent reality. The Church is frequently regarded as an archaic institution, steadfastly adhering to rituals and doctrines that many deem irrelevant in an age of rapid progress and innovation. Whether immersed in material abundance — manicured lawns, pristine homes, technological conveniences, and curated lifestyles — or striving for the perceived attainability of these comforts, which are presented as normative in modern culture, people often question the Church’s focus on sin, grace, and redemption. The false promise of stability and fulfillment offered by modern life obscures the deeper existential struggles that Christian teachings aim to address, leading many to dismiss the Church as a relic of an unenlightened past, incapable of addressing the complexities of a progressive, globalized society.Desensitized and Disoriented In contemporary society, media plays a paradoxical role in shaping our perceptions of suffering, negativity, and normalcy. Its relentless portrayals of violence and tragedy desensitize us, leaving many emotionally unmoved by real suffering. At the same time, it inundates us with advertisements and entertainment programs that depict idyllic lifestyles and curated images of happiness, fostering false expectations of what is normal and achievable. Together, these extremes distort our understanding of life’s true nature, numbing us to its harsher realities and trivializing genuine struggles. These programs and cultural influences not only normalize destructive behaviors but also perpetuate the illusion that individuals are inherently entitled to material prosperity and unassailable self-esteem, irrespective of moral conduct. Additionally, they promulgate the erroneous belief that negative outcomes are aberrations and fictions rather than inherent aspects of the human condition. For decades, this distorted paradigm has led many to misdiagnose the root of their struggles, attributing them to flaws in their mindset rather than deficiencies in their actions. Society repeatedly advances the narrative that the remedy lies in cultivating greater self-love, heightened self-esteem, and unconditional self-forgiveness. In pursuit of such ideals, countless individuals have turned to modern self-help philosophies, aspiring to attain personal enlightenment and alleviate the existential dread that permeates their inner lives. Yet, no amount of positive affirmation or meditative practice can fully dispel the profound guilt, shame, and existential darkness that reside in the depths of the human soul. Upon deeper introspection, many individuals recognize that feelings of inadequacy and despair are not as unfounded as modern thought leaders often claim. Life’s inherent fragility reveals itself in the stark reality that failure and collapse often come far more easily than success. Countless variables beyond our control can unravel, leaving us powerless to alter their course, while moments of serendipity remain exceedingly rare. Achieving anything truly meaningful requires focus, determination, and a considerable amount of hard work. Failure, on the other hand, takes no effort — it happens simply by letting things fall apart. This dynamic extends to the moral and spiritual realm. Moral compromise often presents itself as the path of least resistance, offering immediate gratification, while sacrifice and the pursuit of holiness demand discipline and fortitude that can feel nearly impossible to sustain. Modern society has exacerbated this tension by promoting the belief that success is an entitlement, irrespective of one’s efforts. This entitlement mindset has led many to harbor resentment — toward life, toward others, and even toward whatever they perceive as their creator. For those who still cling to false hopes, this resentment often feeds into a cycle of compromise that unknowingly breeds greater failure, anxiety, and despair. Even for individuals striving to lead virtuous lives, small moral compromises or missteps often masquerade as moments of respite, offering temporary relief from the unrelenting struggles of life, both internal and external. Yet this reprieve is fleeting, ultimately compounding the weight of the burdens they seek to escape.The Gnostic and Modern Understanding of Suffering This dual crisis — of relativism on one hand and secular reductionism on the other — has parallels to challenges faced in early Christianity. Gnosticism arose among certain early Christians who, while acknowledging the divinity of Christ, struggled to reconcile His teachings with their understanding of the God of the Old Testament. Confronted with the undeniable suffering and brutality present in the world, Gnosticism proposed an alternative theological framework: the material world was intrinsically evil, the creation of a lesser or malevolent deity, and salvation could only be attained through esoteric, hidden knowledge accessible to a select few. For the Gnostics, the stark realities of the natural world — cycles of predation, decay, and suffering — were evidence of its inherent evil. A striking example can be found on Fernandina Island, part of the Galápagos archipelago, where thousands of racer snakes lie in wait each year to ambush newly hatched marine iguanas. The hatchlings, guided by instinct, attempt to make their way to the safety of the shore, but many do not survive the journey, relentlessly pursued by waves of snakes in a grim display of predatory efficiency. Such brutal scenes seem to reflect the disorder and cruelty Gnosticism associated with the material world. In contrast, Modern secularist’s tendency to romanticize creation often leads to a selective focus on its beauty and a purposeful ignorance of its brutality. This sentimentality obscures the harsher realities of nature’s unforgiving side, such as the raw spectacle on Fernandina Island, which disrupts idyllic views of the natural world. Yet this evasion of reality extends beyond how we perceive nature. Just as the modernist glosses over the violence of the wild, so too do they seek to deny or escape their own suffering. Pain, loss, and existential uncertainty are anesthetized through layers of distractions — endless entertainment, consumer comforts, and, most prominently, medications and therapies that promise relief. These means, while often necessary and beneficial, can also serve to mask the deeper, unavoidable struggles of human existence.The Christian Understanding of Suffering The Christian worldview, in contrast to both, provides a profound and cohesive understanding of creation’s suffering. While it acknowledges the fallenness of the world, it also proclaims that creation retains its inherent goodness and purpose. The suffering inherent in creation is not evidence of its inherent evil but a reflection of humanity’s sin and its far-reaching consequences. As stewards of creation, humanity’s rebellion against God introduced disorder into both the moral and natural orders, leading to the predation, decay, and death we observe today. Far from being a sign of divine cruelty, such suffering underscores the interconnectedness of humanity and creation. St. Paul speaks to this in his letter to the Romans: “For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the children of God… in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay” (Romans 8:19–21). The suffering of the Cross stands at the heart of Christ’s redemptive work, revealing the depth of God’s love for a broken world. On the Cross, the full weight of cosmic disorder and estrangement from God was borne by Christ, embracing pain and rejection to bring about reconciliation and renewal. Far from being merely a symbol of human suffering, the Cross is the ultimate expression of divine love, where God confronted the brokenness of creation. Through this redemptive moment, suffering itself is can be transformed into a pathway for renewal.A Groaning Creation and the Hope of the Christian Worldview While Gnosticism saw creation as irredeemable and modern secularism often ignores or trivializes its harsher realities, the Christian worldview offers a more integrated and redemptive vision. Rather than retreating into sentimentality or denial, Christianity confronts creation’s suffering with honesty, affirming both its disorder through sin and its enduring goodness as God’s handiwork. The Christian worldview, when properly understood, addresses both the complexities of human experience and the profound truths of divine revelation — a reality that even many Christians struggle to fully comprehend. Within this framework, God’s omniscience encompasses the unfolding of events within His providential plan, yet humanity’s sinful nature profoundly shapes the outcomes of our reality. Sin’s effects extend beyond personal or societal consequences, reverberating throughout creation and introducing cosmic disorder. These outcomes are not arbitrary decrees of a wrathful Creator but the inevitable consequences of humanity’s departure from divine harmony. Modern cultural forces, however, obscure this truth. By minimizing the reality of sin and suffering or distorting them through narratives of self-sufficiency and superficial solutions, society prevents individuals from confronting their need for divine grace. This misunderstanding often leads to a view of God as either wrathful or irrelevant, driven by a lack of theological depth and engagement with tradition, Scripture, and Christological catechesis. Yet, the Christian worldview reveals a God who is neither indifferent nor cruel but profoundly merciful, actively guiding humanity and all creation toward ultimate redemption. Central to this redemptive vision is the Incarnation, where God, in His infinite love, entered the very fabric of the created reality. God, in a profound paradox, both offered His Son for our sake and simultaneously entered fully into human suffering, bearing the weight of sin and disorder not only for humanity but for all creation. Through His Passion, death, and resurrection, Christ affirmed the inherent goodness of the created world, transforming suffering into a means of redemption and renewal. This act of self-giving love reveals a divine mercy and compassion that transcend human understanding, offering hope and restoration to all of creation. Far from divine cruelty, creation’s groaning reminds us of humanity’s estrangement from God and the hope of restoration. This suffering reveals not the absence of God’s goodness but the consequences of humanity’s rejection of His love, disrupting both the moral and natural orders and creating dissonance across creation.Conclusion The Christian worldview calls humanity to confront these realities with honesty, recognizing the profound need for salvation and repentance of sins. Through Christ’s death and resurrection, the path to reconciliation with God and the gift of eternal life are made available to all who respond in faith and seek to live according to His teachings. This message of hope transcends the illusions propagated by cultural forces, offering true transformation through the redemptive power of divine grace. Moreover, the Christian vision extends beyond humanity to encompass all of creation. The groaning of the natural world, visible in predation, decay, and natural disasters, is not meaningless but part of a larger story of renewal. Through Christ, creation itself is invited to share in the hope of redemption. This promise is not abstract but concrete, culminating in the ultimate restoration of all things, as foretold in Isaiah’s vision: “The wolf shall dwell with the lamb” (Isaiah 11:6) and the revelation that one day, all things will be made new (Revelation 21:5). Embracing the Christian worldview calls humanity to transcend modern distortions — denial, desensitization, or despair — through a transformative recognition of our brokenness and dependence on divine grace. In Christ, we discover the ultimate source of meaning, healing, and restoration — not only for humanity but for all of creation. Through Him, what was once broken will be made whole, and the groaning of the world will give way to the glory of a renewed cosmos united with its Creator.

The second season of Squid Game plunges deeper into the moral and psychological struggles of its characters, exposing the fragility of human nature when pushed to the brink. Through its high-stakes, life-or-death competition, the series strips away societal facades and reveals unsettling truths about desperation, selfishness, and the lengths people will go to survive. Beneath the dramatic storytelling lies a sobering commentary on modern society’s quiet flirtation with despair, relativism, and the erosion of shared moral values. While exaggerated, Squid Game presents a reflection of the world we inhabit — one where despair often hides beneath polished exteriors and moral compromise operates under the radar. For many, the relativism that guides decisions feels harmless, concealed by the comforts of modern life. But the show’s brutal premise lays bare a truth that few are willing to confront: in moments of crisis, when self-preservation is at stake, moral relativism unravels.The Comfortable Mask of Relativism In everyday life, the things a person is willing to do under the influence of relativism are often invisible — even to themselves. Modernity, with its conveniences and distractions, masks the depths of human brokenness. Needs are met in ways that disincentivize the most egregious sins, fostering the illusion that people are inherently “good enough.” Without the right circumstances to expose their inner flaws, many carry on without realizing the extent to which self-interest dictates their decisions. This illusion rarely survives in extreme conditions. Squid Game thrusts its characters into an arena where survival hinges on moral compromise, laying bare the darkness that lurks beneath societal norms. The polite, restrained individuals who enter the game gradually morph into versions of themselves they scarcely recognize — driven to deceit, betrayal, and violence. The series poses a haunting question: How thin is the veneer of decency? When stripped of comforts and placed under pressure, how many would remain upright? Squid Game suggests that for the relativist, the answer is often grim. Without a foundation of objective truth, individuals flounder when faced with adversity, prone to buckle and crack under pressure. While some may resist longer than others, the absence of unshakable moral anchors leaves everyone vulnerable.Despair and the Search for Meaning The contestants in Squid Game are not just financially bankrupt — they are spiritually impoverished. Their participation stems not only from debt but from a profound sense of despair and purposelessness. This echoes a broader reality in the modern world, where material wealth often coexists with inner emptiness. Despite advancements in technology, medicine, and communication, contemporary society is marked by rising levels of anxiety, depression, and loneliness. People live longer but often without a clear sense of why. The chase for comfort, success, or pleasure masks a deeper longing for meaning — one that no amount of external achievement can satisfy. Squid Game dramatizes this hunger for purpose by creating a scenario where contestants cling to life, even as the competition drains them of their humanity. The show suggests that people will endure almost anything to fill the void, even if the pursuit leads to destruction.Truth Under Pressure In Squid Game, moral lines shift easily. Players betray friends, sacrifice strangers, and manipulate each other — all while justifying their actions as necessary for survival. This fluid approach to morality mirrors the relativism pervasive in today’s culture, where concepts of right and wrong often bend to fit personal circumstances. But relativism’s flexibility is precisely what makes it dangerous. Squid Game reveals that when truth is treated as subjective, it erodes the conscience, leading individuals to act in ways they once thought impossible. A society that rejects objective moral standards creates conditions where, when the pressure is on, individuals choose whatever seems most advantageous — regardless of the cost to others. Yet, the series also hints at another path. Moments of loyalty, sacrifice, and selflessness occasionally pierce through the darkness, revealing that even under extreme duress, the human spirit is capable of nobility. However, these moments are often fleeting, overwhelmed by the gravitational pull of self-interest. The lesson is clear: without a foundation in objective truth, even the noblest intentions falter when tested.The Erosion of Human Worth Squid Game offers a sobering critique of a culture that commodifies human life. Contestants are reduced to numbers, their worth determined by how much they can win — or lose. This dehumanization is not limited to fiction; it reflects real-world tendencies to measure people by productivity, success, or external value. In modern society, worth is often contingent on what one can contribute. Those who fall behind economically, socially, or physically risk being forgotten or marginalized. Squid Game dramatizes this reality by creating a system where failure results in literal elimination, emphasizing how easily people discard others when they cease to be useful. Yet, even in the show’s bleakest moments, traces of humanity persist. Despite the brutality, players form bonds, share brief moments of compassion, and acknowledge each other’s intrinsic worth. This acknowledgment — however rare — points to a deeper truth that cannot be entirely suppressed: every life carries value beyond what it produces or achieves.A Different Vision of Reality The unsettling world of Squid Game is not inevitable. While the series exposes the fragility of human nature, it also suggests the possibility of redemption — though it remains just out of reach for most characters. The antidote to the world portrayed in Squid Game lies in the rejection of moral relativism and the rediscovery of objective truth. It rests in the recognition that human worth is not contingent on success, power, or status but is inherent and unchanging. This vision finds its fullest expression in the Christian understanding of reality, which affirms that every person — flawed as they may be — is made for something greater than mere survival. In a culture that often masks its brokenness, the need for a savior is easily forgotten. But as Squid Game illustrates, when facades are stripped away, the truth becomes painfully clear: left to their own devices, people will act in ways that betray their higher calling. The good news, however, is that this need not be the final word. There is a path that leads beyond relativism, beyond despair — a path rooted in truth, hope, and redemption.

We are all familiar with that moment when something is said that enlightens us to a useful or needful conclusion previously buried in the depths of our unconscious. Today, such things are often called “Aha!” moments, but back in the day when there was an actual working civilization, these were known as “Eureka!” moments from the Greek word meaning “I found it!” The term itself arises from a story out of ancient Greece regarding the philosopher and scientist Archimedes of Syracuse. This well-known gentleman had been given a commission by King Heiron II of Syracuse to discover if a crown made for that ruler was, in fact, pure gold as ordered (and paid for). The despot feared that the artisan had diluted the gold with silver and wanted Archimedes to prove if the old tyrant had indeed received what he had paid for. Ordinarily, this would not have been a problem, for Archimedes needed only to scrape a small portion of metal from inside the crown to determine its contents chemically. Ah, but the King would not permit the crown to be damaged in any way, no matter how slightly – and so, poor Archimedes had to determine if the crown were pure gold by simple observation, something he considered impossible! And although his life was not in danger should he fail, he knew that his reputation was decidedly “up for grabs!” At length, the anxious philosopher, unable to solve this enigma, determined to calm his nerves with a visit to the public baths in hopes that a long, slow soak might free his mind to further consider this pestilent conundrum. And so, Archimedes wended his way to a local bathhouse, entering one of the rooms containing a large tub filled with warm, perfumed water. After divesting himself of his garments, as he lowered his naked body slowly into the tub, he noticed that the water level rose as the volume of his body displaced some of the water thus causing the level to rise until such time as he was fully immersed. It was at that moment, that Archimedes realized that he could determine the makeup of the crown without removing any of its metal by using this same method of water displacement! That is, he would place the same weight of pure gold and pure silver – both equal to the weight of the crown – into the same amount of water. Thus, by measuring how high the water rose within the container as he placed each into this “bath,” he could discover the metallic makeup of the King’s crown! As this solution struck him, the greatly relieved scientist yelled out “Eureka!” – and then, overcome by both his discovery and his relief, ran naked out into the marketplace where, it is assumed, any number of startled citizens also yelled, “Eureka!” – or words to that effect! (Parenthetically, Archimedes discovered in his efforts that silver displaced more water than gold of the same weight and, as the crown did so as well, he was able to advise old Heiron that he had indeed been cheated! Undoubtedly, this intellectual victory led to kudos for Archimedes, but we’re never told the fate of the fellow who made the crown!) Our own “Eureka” moments are usually equally unexpected and perhaps even as satisfying, and that is why they are so startling! Something is said and, having been heard – and understanding what was said, we are shocked to discover that perhaps what seemed so mundane was, in fact, so much more important than its prosaic circumstances suggested! One such moment occurred to me during that (fairly) recent “medical monstrosity,” the so-called COVID “pandemic.” Now, I must admit that shortly after COVID & Co. came upon the scene, I believed that, like gawkers at a ‘shell game,’ We the People were being “had”, and for me, this conclusion only grew more pronounced over time. One of my biggest concerns was the response of the medical community to all that was occurring, from the claims of “tens of thousands dead” and “hospitals overwhelmed” – when clearly anyone who took the time to look at the matter understood that neither was the case! – to the very real disasters arising from the use of the “vaccines” supposedly created to deal with the matter, disasters that were being hidden from the public by the very organizations intended to warn us of such dangers! Yet situated between We the People and Fauci, the HHS, the WHO and the CDC were our own physicians – private practitioners to whom, having taken the oath of anotherclassical Greek, Hippocrates Asclepiades, we entrust with our lives and the lives of those we love. These “guardians,” like sandbags on a levee during a flood, are our last hope against what seems to be an effort to “depopulate” the planet of such useless eaters as We the People! My own physician, an old family friend, offered this “cure” to me during a routine office visit, but when I averred that it was not a “vaccine,” but a genetic modifying nostrum of no value against “COVID” but of great personal danger to myself, he simply shrugged and admitted that I was indeed correct. Later in that year I had another visit at which time he again asked, if I “had been or wanted to be vaccinated,” to which I again answered – quite sharply! – in the negative. The visit then went on as if nothing of consequence had been said. Now, I didn’t expect much from my elderly physician who is obviously hanging on until he can retire and live out his life in Florida with his lawyer wife. Indeed, I could somewhat understand his viewpoint as “medicine” has so greatly changed since the beginning of our relationship. Indeed, he was forced to give up his private practice and be absorbed into one of these “health corporations” when he was no longer permitted to visit his own patients in our local hospital because that facility had also been turned over to businessmen rather than fellow physicians. Obama did this. He destroyed our health care system not only with “Obamacare,” but in taking hospital administration out of the hands of doctors and giving it to bureaucrats who have no moral (much less administrative) difficulties in establishing a “hospital protocol” for COVID that included the murderous “drug” Remdesivir – a Dr. Fauci nostrum with a 55% death rate* – and respirators that frequently caused patient deaths! [*Death by Remdesivir often imparts the same symptoms as COVID and so, of course, deaths from that drug are counted as COVID deaths thus raising both the death rates and the financial gain for the reporting hospital.] After my latest “visit” to my new doctor, I couldn’t help but again wonder where the average physician falls in this ongoing war. Of course, I know the fate of those who have spoken out to their own disadvantage including one scientist who warned against “razor blades” made of graphene oxide being injected into our bodies in these potions. Shortly after his disclosure it was reported that he had been murdered, after which those disclosures instantly disappeared! Frankly, those in charge today have no problem removing whistleblowers. Hell! They have no problem removing most of humanity! But again, most of us remember when doctors are (or perhaps more accurately, were) men and women who chose medicine to serve their fellow man and not Big Government and Big Pharma! So, as I thought on this situation, I found myself gifted with a very real “Eureka!” moment. Two neighbors in my small apartment complex were discussing this matter and one was telling the other about a couple in her family who had “received the jab.” The woman started to have chest pains and was taken to the hospital where it was discovered that she suffered from pericardial effusion, that is, fluid around the heart. The lady was, at the time in her early forties and in good health having never suffered from any cardiac issues. The neighbor then revealed that the couple’s personal physician had attributed her condition to her having received the inoculation! Then came the response that caused my revelation! For the other neighbor then calmly declared, “Most doctors would never make that claim!” “Eureka!” She was quite right! The vast majority of our personal physicians into whose hands we have placed our lives and the lives of our loved ones would never make that claim even knowing full well that it is true! Still less would they say something before one received this “jab!” But it really doesn’t matter why this is the case. Maybe these “physicians” fear the retribution visited upon so many health care workers – doctors, nurses, health aides, pharmacists, etc. – for their honesty in this matter. I can indeed sympathize with those who are silenced by fear, but I cannot in any way honor or respect them! For, upon becoming physicians, they all swore an oath to “first do no harm!” But, what the hell! American doctors broke that oath long ago when they accepted abortion, as a “medical procedure” though it is directly forbidden in that oath! But as the oath has been rewritten, thus cancelling the repudiation of abortion, it probably also absolves “doctors” for killing the rest of their patients as well – at least in accordance with our nation’s present laws as the oath now says, “…I will do nothing illegal.” But, I ask, given our present society, what today is both evil andillegal? Not much, apparently – though that reality has yet to become a “Eureka moment” for most Americans.

Reality, Relativism, and the Human Condition While some argue that humanity’s final frontier lies in the vast reaches of space, others contend that it is found within the depths of the human mind — where reality itself becomes the ultimate battleground. Paradoxically, progressivism, despite its name, often eschews genuine progress, seeking instead to alter what is inherently immutable. It promotes a subjective reinterpretation of language, redefines moral principles, and challenges the stability of objective scientific truths, elevating individual experience and perception above universal realities. In this paradigm, reality is no longer an objective constant but a malleable construct, driven by a desire to surpass the natural boundaries established by the divine order that upholds and defines truth. This pattern bears a striking resemblance to the events in the fall of mankind in the Genesis account, where the fundamental laws governing human existence were divinely and unambiguously established — laws as inviolable as the law of gravity. Among these laws was a single, specific prohibition: humanity was forbidden to eat the fruit of one particular tree, while enjoying free access to all others. Yet, through cunning and deceit, Satan introduced doubt, undermining both the clarity and authority of the Creator. He encouraged its reinterpretation and cast suspicion on the divine purpose behind our instructions, insinuating that knowledge and power were being withheld from humanity out of fear that they might become equal to God. Thus, the seeds of rebellion were sown — not through an outright denial of God’s law, but by distorting its meaning and intention. Whether one currently believes in the literal accounts in the book of Genesis or prefers to interpret them symbolically — viewing them, for instance, as representations of the human condition — is largely irrelevant when initially engaging with the Christian worldview. The Genesis narrative invites deeper reflection, and the Catholic and Orthodox traditions, while affirming the theological truth of the Fall, have allowed for interpretations that include theological and metaphorical speculation regarding the events in the Garden of Eden. Though some Protestant denominations might hold more rigidly to a literal interpretation, the high church traditions often recognize that Scripture can speak both literally and symbolically, conveying timeless truths about human nature, temptation, and the relationship between God and man. A similar scenario unfolded during the exchange between Pontius Pilate and Jesus as recorded in the Gospel of John. When Jesus declared, “Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice,” Pilate cynically responded with the rhetorical question, “What is truth?” before abruptly leaving the room (John 18:37–38). Pilate’s dismissive attitude encapsulates a timeless skepticism toward the existence of objective truth — a skepticism that has reemerged in various forms throughout history. By refusing to engage further, Pilate embodies the mindset that truth is either unknowable, irrelevant, or subordinate to pragmatic concerns such as power and expedience. His question, while seemingly rhetorical, has come to symbolize humanity’s ongoing struggle with relativism and the rejection of transcendent truth.The Corruption of Language and the Erosion of Truth This dynamic finds a modern parallel in the deliberate manipulation and redefinition of language. Language is the medium through which truth is communicated and understood; to undermine the meaning of words is to undermine the foundations of truth itself. Such efforts are not merely academic exercises but strategic attempts to reshape reality according to subjective agendas. As Orwell famously observed in 1984, the corruption of language is often a precursor to the corruption of thought, leading to confusion, manipulation, and division. Justified under the guise of “progress” or “inclusivity,” these attacks on language often result in words losing their connection to objective reality and instead becoming tools of personal or ideological will. The prevailing cultural tendency to embrace subjective truth has become a convenient justification for a wide array of actions and ideologies. Within this paradigm, nearly any behavior can be rationalized, as truth becomes a matter of individual perception rather than a shared reality. In the absence of external agreed upon moral truths — such as natural law or divine revelation — individuals often construct their own moral frameworks. Yet, these frameworks are inherently unstable, prone to shift with mood, experience, or circumstances. To reconcile morally questionable actions with their self-imposed codes, individuals frequently resort to self-justification, driven by a desire to avoid the discomfort of cognitive dissonance — the tension that arises when behavior conflicts with stated principles. This phenomenon reflects a deeper philosophical shift, wherein truth is no longer seen as something external and binding but as an extension of individual autonomy. In rejecting objective moral standards, individuals elevate their own will as the ultimate authority, blurring the line between right and wrong. While this moral relativism may appear liberating, it ultimately erodes societal cohesion by undermining trust, accountability, and shared ethical commitments. The consequences of this ambiguity extend beyond individual actions, infiltrating broader societal structures. The erosion of objective truth has fostered a fragmented landscape, where competing groups and ideologies assert their own subjective versions of truth. In such a climate, truth ceases to be a unifying reality and instead becomes a weapon wielded to advance particular agendas or secure power. This fragmentation breeds conflict and deepens societal divisions, as dialogue becomes futile without a common moral foundation to mediate differences. As G.K. Chesterton observed, “When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything.” The result is a cultural landscape reminiscent of the Wild West — a chaotic environment marked by moral relativism and the absence of universally recognized ethical boundaries. Without a shared understanding of truth, there can be no consistent moral framework upon which to build a coherent society. Notions of right and wrong become fluid, shaped more by personal preferences or power dynamics than by enduring moral principles. The implications of this relativistic mindset are profound. Societies that reject shared moral absolutes lose their capacity for unity, as these common truths form the bedrock of cooperation. Without them, suspicion, discord, and fragmentation take hold, threatening the very stability of institutions and communities. Foundational concepts such as justice, fairness, and accountability become mutable, shaped by ideological agendas rather than anything objective. This erosion of truth also weakens the bonds of trust and solidarity that sustain healthy societies. As Pope Benedict XVI warned, a culture that rejects objective truth risks falling into the “dictatorship of relativism,” where truth becomes subject to the whims of personal opinion or power. In such a scenario, those with the loudest voices or greatest influence dictate what is considered “true” or “good,” marginalizing others and deepening societal divides.Self-Reflection in Light of the Unknown Self-reflection is essential in scrutinizing the justifications we offer for our actions. It requires us to ask whether we hold ourselves to the same standards we impose on others and whether our justifications reflect a genuine commitment to moral integrity or a mere avoidance of discomfort. While this process can be unsettling — exposing inconsistencies and weaknesses in our moral reasoning — it also opens the door to moral growth. By confronting our rationalizations, we create the opportunity to align our behavior more closely with the objective moral truths we claim to uphold. This pursuit of integrity — defined as consistency in thought, word, and action — is essential for authentic human flourishing. Yet such self-examination forces us to grapple with a deeper and more troubling question: What is our margin for error? We acknowledge our imperfections, but how much imperfection is acceptable? Is there a threshold beyond which we risk moral or spiritual ruin? These questions strike at the heart of the human condition. Some may justify their own minor transgressions while condemning others harshly, even entertaining the idea of eternal consequences for their neighbors. But what is the ultimate truth about the morality of our actions and their consequences? The complexity of this question often tempts people to dismiss it as unanswerable, yet such a dismissal would be both intellectually and spiritually negligent. As C.S. Lewis insightfully observed: “If I find in myself desires which nothing in this world can satisfy, the only logical explanation is that I was made for another world.” Human longing for meaning, fulfillment, and permanence points beyond the confines of this temporal existence. Even if our beliefs about eternity or morality prove incorrect, living a life dedicated to virtue, holiness, and the pursuit of higher purpose remains profoundly meaningful. Conversely, choosing immediate gratification while rejecting objective truth places us at great risk — a wager not only against eternal life but against the possibility of profound and lasting consequences. This leads to a sobering question: Has modern science or philosophy disproven the existence of eternal consequences? Can it confidently assure anyone that a life untethered from objective moral truth guarantees peaceful annihilation or eternal rest? The answer remains no. Despite its advancements, science cannot penetrate the mystery of what lies beyond death, nor has secular philosophy eradicated the possibility of eternal consequences. This uncertainty should give the modern secularist pause. On what grounds does one assume with confidence that eternity aligns with their preferences? History is replete with civilizations whose moral and philosophical frameworks were ultimately replaced or corrected. Most cultures have recognized humanity’s transcendent dimension — our longing for something beyond the material world. To presume that our modern, secular framework has resolved the mysteries of life, death, and eternity is, as Lewis might argue, an act of hubris.Conclusion In the face of modern relativism and the rejection of objective truth, humanity finds itself at a crossroads — confronted with questions that touch upon the very essence of our existence and the eternal consequences of our moral choices. From a Christian perspective, this trajectory is not only alarming but deeply revealing, as it reflects the same ancient temptation witnessed in the Garden of Eden, where humanity sought to define good and evil on its own terms, apart from God. Such a rejection of objective truth does not lead to liberation but to fragmentation — moral, spiritual, and social. When truth becomes subjective, the bonds of unity, justice, and coherence that hold society together begin to erode. Jesus’ words, “I am the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6), serve as a direct counter to this relativistic mindset. Truth, as revealed in Christ, is not a malleable concept but a transcendent and unchanging reality — one grounded in the eternal nature of God. To reject this truth is to reject the very foundation of moral order and human flourishing. As Pope Benedict XVI warned, relativism creates a “dictatorship” where truth is manipulated to suit personal desires or ideological agendas, often leading to moral chaos and self-justification. Without an external moral standard to guide us, we risk shaping our moral frameworks to align with convenience rather than integrity, bending principles to suit our fleeting desires and avoiding the discomfort of introspection. This cultural trajectory has profound consequences. The erosion of shared truth and moral absolutes fosters a fragmented society where justice, fairness, and accountability become subjective and inconsistent. Dialogue is replaced by power struggles, and the search for genuine solutions to societal problems becomes increasingly elusive. Without a commitment to objective moral truth, individuals and societies lose their ability to recognize the good, the true, and the beautiful — realities that reflect the divine order and give meaning to life. Yet this rejection of truth also raises a deeper question: What are the ultimate consequences of our moral choices? Even the most ardent secularist cannot claim certainty about what lies beyond this life. As C.S. Lewis astutely observed, “Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance.” If there is even the possibility of eternal consequences — whether reward or loss — then dismissing these questions out of apathy, pride, or skepticism is not a neutral decision but a profound risk. Ignoring the eternal implications of sin and moral failure, as uncomfortable as they may be, leaves us vulnerable to consequences we cannot fully comprehend or disprove. From the Christian worldview, the answer to this crisis is found in the mercy and truth of God. While we cannot overcome our imperfections on our own, God’s grace offers a path to redemption and transformation. As St. John reminds us, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9). The sacrament of Confession in Catholic tradition reflects this reality: a concrete opportunity to confront our failures, receive forgiveness, and realign our lives with the divine moral order. This path requires humility, repentance, and trust in God’s mercy — a mercy that bridges the chasm between human weakness and divine perfection. Ultimately, the rejection of objective truth threatens not only individual integrity but the stability of society itself. To restore order, meaning, and authentic freedom, we must return to a shared commitment to truth — rooted in natural law, reason, and the transcendent reality of God. As Christ Himself declared, “You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John 8:32). Truth, far from being a constraint, is the path to genuine liberation, enabling us to live lives of virtue, integrity, and purpose. Therefore, it is imperative that we engage these profound questions with open-mindedness and intellectual rigor. Whether approached through faith or reason, the reality of human imperfection and the possibility of eternal consequences demand a response. By seeking objective truth, confronting our moral failures, and aligning ourselves with the divine order, we prepare not only for a life of meaning in this world but for the eternal reality that lies beyond it. For as Jesus reminds us, “What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul?” (Mark 8:36). The pursuit of truth is not merely an intellectual endeavor — it is a matter of life, purpose, and the eternal destiny of the human soul.

Throughout America, more monuments, statues and place names have been disappearing from the public square than small, easily pocketed items from the shelves of Walmart and CVS! At the rate things are going, our maps will need constant updating to indicate what has changed and where. Only those public areas designated by numbers are safe from the all-out assault of our “politically correct” Kevins and Karens, set upon removing any mention of those who have fallen afoul of their WOKE culture! But this attempt to remove from history those whom the WOKE consider “unworthy” is lacking in both moral and intellectual justification for many are removed for living in times in which slavery and other “racist” beliefs were normal. Yet we are told today that there is no excuse for any display of “racism” no matter the mitigating circumstances. However, there is a fundamental caveat here. For the “racial hatred” being condemned is limited to blacks and “indigenous people” while hatred of whites is lauded and even considered “appropriate” given the treatment of the former by the latter. Furthermore, this blanket condemnation remains even when it is historically evident that black slavery originated in Africa, not Europe and that European and American whites put an end to the slave trade and eventually slavery itself in Europe and the Americas. As well, there were more whites enslaved by the Barbary pirates than blacks brought to the New World as slaves! Indeed, the first slaves in the New World were white, not black – Irish prisoners resulting from the English conquest of that nation. Yet facts and truth do not matter in the current climate; all that matters is acceptance of the desired narrative. Yet, while WOKEs are taking down monuments and changing the names of streets, schools and military bases for the crime of being insufficiently “humane,” “tolerant” and “non-racist,” in New York City they are adding the name of a supposed “great hero” of Haiti, in celebration of his “achievements.” In August of 2018, the New York City Council voted to designate a two-mile stretch of Rogers Avenue in Brooklyn as “Jean-Jacques Dessalines Boulevard.” According to New York State Assemblywoman Rodneyse Bichotte, “Jean-Jacques Dessalines is an individual whose historical importance is difficult to understate.” Dessalines was the man who founded Haiti on the ruins of French Saint-Domingue and, again according to Bichotte, “led the first successful slave revolt in world history and, in so doing, created the first free Black Republic in the Western Hemisphere.” City Council member Jumaane Williams, who proposed the street name, called Dessalines “a revolutionary who fought for his people and overthrew an oppressive regime who [sic] brutally enslaved and persecuted the Haitian people.” He added, “Haiti and its proud people are an intrinsic part of my district and it is only right to honor that spirit with this co-naming.” So, here we see a name being honored for his (supposed) “achievements” as a founder of the island nation, Haiti. Well, let’s take a brief look at some of those “achievements,” shall we? First, let us understand that St. Domingue’s (Haiti’s) slave population had already been emancipated by a decree from France in 1793! But the blacks remained in virtual slavery owing to a decree from Governor-General Toussaint Loverture a man who was also black! Indeed, Dessalines was an avid enforcer of this rule, becoming known as “a butcher of the blacks” when he briefly defected to the French in 1802 during Napoleon’s campaign to retake the island. Loverture ended any hope of a republican government by blacks in Haiti when he declared himself, Emperor! These facts call into question Dessalines’ supposed legacy as a virtuous icon of racial freedom and justice. In January 1804, after French forces were defeated, Dessalines, who had replaced the far more moderate Louverture as de facto leader of the former slaves, decided to kill every white French man, woman, and child in Saint-Domingue. The Haitian Declaration of Independence, written as an address by Dessalines, denounced France as a “nation of executioners.” In November 1803, the besieged port city of Cape Français saw French refugees scramble aboard the few remaining warships providing refuge. But for many, it was too late. Historian Philippe Girard estimates that between 3,000 and 5,000 souls perished in the first four months of 1804. The deliberate eradication of entire communities had no parallel at the time, save for the suppression of the pro-monarchist Vendée Rebellion ten years earlier by the Committee of Public Safety in France. It was as if the French Revolution, receding in France itself with the rise of Napoleon Bonaparte, had reached its bloody climax in Saint-Domingue. In a corresponding matter, news of the massacre dealt irreparable harm to American abolitionism, as Haiti became a grim example of black terror for white Southerners! There is overwhelming evidence that the atrocities were planned in advance by Dessalines rather than occurring as spontaneous acts of vengeance by the Haitian people. In his seminal work The Black Jacobins, Trinidadian Marxist C. L. R. James hints at premeditation on Dessalines’ part: “The old slave-owners were everywhere grinning with joy at the French expedition; he would finish with everything white forever.” In May 1803, Dessalines created the first Haitian flag by tearing out the white stripe in the French flag and sowing together the blue and red, symbolizing a nation where the white race would cease to exist. Dessalines, who was seen personally presiding over mass executions, later admitted his own culpability, but without remorse. In an address in April 1804, he boasted that, by “render[ing] to these true cannibals war for war, crime for crime, outrage for outrage … I have saved my country … I have performed my duty; I enjoy my own approbation; for me that is sufficient.” He concluded saying, “‘War and death to Tyrants!’ that is my motto.” Yet, despite indisputable evidence, prominent scholars of Caribbean history have refused to identify the Horrors of Saint-Domingue as genocide. Writing for The Washington Post, Julia Gaffield lists as one of the “five myths about the Haitian Revolution” that “Dessalines committed ‘White genocide’.” Reports of the killings were “exaggerated and taken out of historical context.” Elsewhere, Gaffield defends Dessalines by pointing out that he spared British, American, and other non-French civilians. Dessalines did, in fact, spare some Europeans, saying that “a handful of whites, commendable by the religion they have always professed, and who have besides taken the oath to live with us in the woods, have experienced my clemency. I order that the sword respect them, and that they be unmolested.” On paper, Poles and Germans who defected from Napoleon’s army along with a few white women and children were spared. So were professionals and clergy. These acts do indicate that the man did practice some restraint, but they hardly move him into the ranks of the “tolerant” and “non-racist” unless, of course, one does not consider hatred of whites to be “racist!” The accounts of Chazotte and many others defy Dessalines’ claim that he only targeted political enemies and as he became an international pariah, Dessalines felt a need to defend his conduct. As early as June 1803, he wrote to President Thomas Jefferson explaining that Haiti was simply “following the example of the wisest nations” that had “thrown off the yoke of tyranny” even though “our countryside is already purged of their sight.” One need only guess who Dessalines meant by “their.” The February 1804 letter to the Philadelphia Gazette cited by Daut and Alexander as proof of the limited scope of Dessalines’ massacres was part of a public relations campaign. After all, the letter warned that “evil disposed persons … will not fail to charge us with causing an indiscriminate destruction of the whites.” Taking at face value this press release from Dessalines’ government recalls The New York Times journalist Walter Duranty’s representation of the Soviet government’s position in his notorious whitewashing of the 1932 famines in Ukraine. While not all progressive historians engage in the blatant denialism of Gaffield, Daut and Alexander, today’s “academics” appear proud to voice racial hatred against whites. In a Yale University lecture entitled “The Psychopathic Problem of the White Mind,” psychiatrist Aruna Khilanani said she “felt guiltless” about “fantasies of unloading a revolver into the head of any white person that got in my way, burying their body and wiping my bloody hands as I walked away relatively guiltless with a bounce in my step.” And remember, this is an individual to whom we have entrusted our youth and who calls herself a “psychiatrist!” Another supposed “professor(!), one Brittney Cooper said – and with no concern about “causing offense” – that “Whiteness is going to have an end date . . . we gotta take these m*****f*****s out.” And so, you see, Robert E. Lee and even Teddy Roosevelt must go, but a sadistic mass murderer deserves his name on a street in Brooklyn because he is black and only tortured and murdered white people. Well, given what New York State and The Big Apple have become, maybe these “historians” have a point and Monsieur Dessalines actually does represent this blue city and state! He certainly is a poster boy for today’s academia as we can see above!

Day after day and night after night, television, the “net” and print news media are overwhelmed with open, senseless and increasingly deadly violence perpetrated by blacks – both domestic and imported – against innocent people, many (but not all) of whom are white. Numberless videos of mindless and violent brawls involving both sexes and all ages in eateries, stores and streets adorn social media. It has gotten so bad that even the intentional failure of the media to identify the race of those involved cannot hide from any discerning viewer that a large number of especially “inner city” blacks no longer participate in the behavior that used to identify “civilized man.” Neither is this growing chaos limited to the US. All countries founded under and by Western Civilization have become punching bags for ever more mindless, intolerant and enraged “minorities” who no longer answer to the laws to which the rest of humanity is held. Now, at this point, sadly, because of our culture’s present “moral foundation” (or lack thereof), it becomes necessary to publicly admit the obvious: that is, most black Americans are ordinary, decent people! We have black scientists, black clergy, black entrepreneurs, black educators etc. etc. etc. To have to openly proclaim this obvious truth is necessary only because in our present WOKE culture, to criticize people in any specifically “protected” group is claimed to have condemned everyone in that group. Obviously, this is nonsense! But this viewpoint is not simply a lack of simple commonsense! Rather, it is intended to prevent the transmission of factual information about people in certain “protected” groups whose members cannot be criticized even when such criticism is entirely valid. As this is the case, those involved in “reporting” the problem must present the above clarification each time – and even then, their condemnation will be seen as “racist!” If we were still an intelligent and rational society, all that should be necessary is the accurate identification of the perpetrator(s) of the act(s) being reported. Unfortunately, under our present circumstances, the identity of those involved changes everything including the significance of what was done! Of course, the Deep State made much use of this situation in 2020 when the fraudulent presidential election of that year was being planned and executed. Neither were they alone. Liberal whites happily participated in unlawful acts under the guise of “social justice.” But the racial component was both the most obvious and the most necessary to fulfill the desires of the Deep State. Perhaps the Left believed that the removal of the legitimately elected President, Donald J. Trump from office and replacing him with a smorgasbord of commie criminals would somehow end – or at least blunt – the black campaign of savagery and barbarism ongoing in the culture. It hasn’t – as all plainly saw in the second year of the Biden Maladministration. Furthermore, the Left’s attack on what little remains of the barrier between decency and all that is despicable, atrocious and fiendish has made deep inroads into that barrier. Few in “law enforcement” are willing to lay down their lives for the glory of being castigated in the media and unjustly persecuted in the “no-longer-justice” system for attempting to do their jobs. Of course, there are those who are quite content to be America’s storm troopers and they have the Deep State’s “blessings” for their tyranny. All that is required is that they understand against whom they have carte blancheto act: that is, pro-lifers, concerned parents, moral and political conservatives, Christians and, of course, whites! As long as these are the groups targeted, “anything goes.” But mindless as these savages are, they are clever enough to pick up the fairly few useful claims that give them whatever small amount of “cover” needed in their criminal behavior. For instance, when they are charged with a crime, in many instances, they take up the cry of Emile Zola in defense of Alfred Dreyfus, “J’Accuse!” – that is, “I accuse!” Accuse what? Accuse whom? Accuse the system, the victim, the stars &etc. ad nauseum. Look at the consequences when black crimes do come to court and you will see that in the eyes of the criminal, his or her family and the “black community,” it is never their fault! Someone else is to blame! This has become so ingrained that to keep it simple – as one must these days! – the blame now falls upon the standards of behavior that they are supposed to maintain in a normal society, standards that obviously they are mentally, psychologically and emotionally unable (or unwilling) to meet. Today, in the third decade of the 21st century, the West has come to a definite crossroads. We have excused blacks for every sort and type of behavior based on past injustices suffered by some of their race – right or wrong, true or false! Of course, these are not injustices suffered by the criminal element involved even if such exists, but all blacks, everywhere over time whether or not that suffering differs from the suffering of all human beings throughout history at one time or another. No other people, no other race has been given this “Get Out of (or Never GO to) Jail Free” card now bestowed upon all those who have any claim whatsoever to the most minute amount of black DNA. Sadly, all but the terminally stupid know that this “social pass” is cultural suicide and especially for blacks! But apparently, that doesn’t matter one bit! This is the judgment of our elite rulers. Why? Because they need these mindless troglodytes as their Storm Troopers to beat down and destroy the far more dangerous – to the government! – white citizen! They need them to make ordinary people of all races afraid! They need chaos to provoke the call for order! And how do you get “order?” Why, the government comes in and takes over, removing all individual freedoms in order to create a “safe” environment. Of course, the question of who is safe in such an environment is never asked – until it is too late! So, it’s come to this: for the savages to continue to be allowed to rape, assault, rob and murder, they must have an acceptable “excuse” for their behavior and the only excuse so acceptable is the claim that all attempts to prevent that behavior are based upon “White privilege!” Naturally, those “attempts” represent civilization and all that that entails. Ergo, we are at a cross-roads. To continue to have a civilized way of life worthy of that definition, the barbarism of some “citizens” must be ended! But we know that the Deep State still has great need for shock troops to be used against decent Americans white and black! However, it is no longer possible to go on with the “status quo” by claiming that the riots in blue cities were “peaceful demonstrations” and the ongoing destruction of everybody else’s way of life by a group that represents less than 13% of the population is acceptable because of “historical tyranny.” Our establishment leaders must either “fish or cut bait” – that is, they must stop black lawlessness or abandon that civilization that took mankind from the cave to the stars! And, frankly, if they continue to procrastinate, that decision will be made for them and our world will become an even darker place than it is today.

In the culture I grew up in, children were seen as blessings, not burdens. My grandmother would often remark that a full house—however chaotic—was a happy house. It’s a mindset that feels increasingly foreign in today’s world, where we trade the fullness of life for the sterile comforts of control. Among the social circles in which I find myself, a new fad has caught on with surprising fervour — the DINK lifestyle. Dual Income, No Kids. The acronym alone carries an air of smugness, a badge of honour that suggests its practitioners have outwitted the drudgery of parenthood. These are typically people employed in white collar professions that, while demanding are not unreasonably so, granting them both a respectable income and a lifestyle of conspicuous ease within India's most developed and cosmopolitan enclaves. In an era that genuflects at the altar of self-fulfillment, this trend is seen by its acolytes as a mark of contemporary enlightenment and a rebellion against the tyranny of tradition and biology. Two incomes, unfettered by the grubby demands of infants, represent freedom, self-actualization, and an unencumbered pursuit of personal pleasure. To me, however, it represents a hollow triumph, a short-sighted pursuit of comfort at the expense of meaning and legacy. Of course, the appeal of the DINK arrangement is obvious. The modern DINK couple, unburdened by the inconvenient cries of an infant or the looming spectre of college tuition fees, can indulge in what marketers euphemistically call “experiences.” They can tour the vineyards of Bordeaux or lounge on the beaches of Bali — all without interruption from a toddler tugging at their sleeves. But at what cost does this freedom come? To dismiss children as mere impediments to personal pleasure is to misunderstand the very nature of fulfillment. True satisfaction does not lie in the accumulation of experiences or possessions; it lies in the assumption of responsibility, and in the knowledge that one’s life contributes to something greater than oneself. DINK adherents often frame their choice as a rational decision, the product of self-awareness and a refusal to conform to outdated societal expectations. But beneath this veneer of sophistication lies a deeper malaise—one that reflects not just a rejection of parenthood but a rejection of responsibility itself. The modern ethos insists that individuals owe nothing to anyone beyond themselves. At its core, the DINK philosophy sees life not as a duty but as a buffet, from which one is entitled to take only the choicest morsels. In this worldview, children are not a continuation of the human story, nor a source of joy, growth, and meaning, but rather obstacles to a lifestyle of comfort. This hedonistic calculus — where the value of an action is determined solely by the inconvenience it might impose — betrays an impoverished understanding of what it means to live a fulfilling life. The Infantilization of Adulthood Among the more disquieting consequences of the DINK lifestyle is its perpetuation of what might be called the infantilization of adulthood. In eschewing parenthood, many DINKs remain arrested in adolescence, their lives revolving around self-indulgence and immediate gratification. Parenthood, whatever its tribulations, compels one to reckon with the unrelenting reality of sacrifice. In avoiding parenthood, the DINK couple often avoids the moral and emotional growth that comes with it. They may delight in their freedom to flit between exotic locales or attend late-night concerts, but this freedom comes at the cost of an engagement with life’s most pressing questions: What do we owe to the future? How do we find meaning in the face of inevitable mortality? In renouncing parenthood, DINK followers leave behind not just the cries of infants but the echoes of posterity. As someone raised in the frugality of a middle-class household, the DINK philosophy appears to me not only shallow, but impoverished in its understanding of fulfillment. I think of my father, who wore shoes so worn that their soles were patched with glue, yet ensured that I had the indulgence of choosing footwear to match my outfits. My mother would recount the 'hard years' with a mixture of nostalgia and pride, describing how they saved up to acquire one luxury at a time: first a refrigerator, then a washing machine, then a television, piece by piece transforming their modest house into a home. I remember my father’s old scooter, its rattling engine carrying him to work through the sweltering summers and biting winters. On Saturdays, he would stop by a kebab shop near his office, the aroma of grilled meat marking his early return home to share lunch with us. Yes, for all their sacrifices, my parents’ lives were well-lived and my childhood, happy. A False Sense of Virtue What makes the DINK phenomenon particularly galling is the self-righteousness with which it is often promoted. Its adherents frame their choice not merely as a personal preference but as an ethical stance. They claim, for example, that forgoing children is an altruistic act, reducing their carbon footprint in an overpopulated world. This argument, while superficially appealing, collapses under scrutiny. First, it assumes that the world is better off without their hypothetical offspring, a curiously self-loathing position. Second, it ignores the reality that the most sustainable societies are often those with stable populations, not declining ones. A world filled with DINKs would soon face the grim consequences of demographic collapse: aging populations, economic stagnation, and a cultural void where once there was vitality. Moreover, the notion that one’s contribution to humanity ends with paying taxes and living a "low-impact" life is a starkly reductive view of human potential. Human beings are not merely economic units or environmental burdens; they are creators, thinkers, and contributors to a collective legacy. The childless DINK may plant a tree or adopt a dog, but these acts, however admirable, cannot replace the immense, intangible contribution of raising a child who might grow to cure diseases, compose symphonies, or simply bring joy to others. In rejecting parenthood, the DINK couple unwittingly undermines the very social structures that allow their own lifestyle to exist. Who will care for them in their old age if not the children of others? Who will sustain the institutions, economies, and communities they now take for granted? The irony is stark: DINKs depend on the sacrifices of parents who choose to raise the next generation even as they disavow the necessity of such sacrifices themselves. The Meaning of Life A few months ago, I attended a wedding where many of the guests were DINKs. The event was luxurious—an open bar, gourmet food, a live band. But what struck me was the absence of the familiar chaos that comes with bringing children to Indian weddings: no running around, no whiny voices, no spilled juice. In criticizing the DINK phenomenon, I do not mean to suggest that all couples must have children or that parenthood is the only path to a meaningful life. There are, of course, many ways to contribute to the human story. Yet the celebration of the DINK lifestyle as an aspirational ideal reveals a troubling impoverishment of our collective imagination. It reveals a society that has lost sight of what it means to live well, mistaking convenience for contentment and individualism for fulfillment. The issue is not simply one of demographics or economics but of existential significance. To live for oneself alone is to live a diminished existence, one that denies the richness and complexity of the human experience. Parenthood, for all its challenges, offers a glimpse of transcendence—a chance to participate in something greater than oneself, to leave a legacy that endures beyond one’s brief time on Earth. A society of DINKs may be rich in comfort and leisure, but it will be poor in purpose, and eventually, it will be poor in people. Image source: Gilmore Girls (2000-2007)