Hypocrite

As Gentle Reader may know, I long ago lost interest in the hypocrite. However, I didn't (nor plan to) remove the link on my blogroll to his blog. I happened to bounce over there a minute ago... to see what the people on his blogroll are talking about ... and happened to see his 'Now' post.

Then

Then

Now

Exactly

a comment at 'Jihad Watch' even as we resist Islam, we are becoming Islamised --

I was talking to my sister about what happened in Kenya. She is not really interested, and is very absorbed by her natural-health business. But she has learned quite a bit from me, albeit reluctantly, and knows there is a problem (damn right there is.)

She asked how I can cope with the information I receive about jihad killing, etc. I said that I think I have become Islamised to some extent: I hear so much about savagery that in a way I am like them now, used to it, used to the idea of beheadings and stonings, even though I want to fight such things like crazy.

How must it be for Christians stuck in the "Muslim world" to be exposed to the islamisation process of acceptance of brutality? What a life!

So it occurs to me that even as we resist Islam, we are becoming Islamised. What a creepy thought.

Exactly: "So it occurs to me that even as we resist Islam, we are becoming Islamised. What a creepy thought."

This has happened before within the world we used to call Christendom -- one very important reason that the Spanish were so vicious five centuries ago is that they had spend the previous seven centuries ruled by and/or fighting the Moslems.

A walking illustration

A walking illustration of her own argument ... OR, to parody the Iconic Question (*), "Does this attitude make me look like a big ass?"

Kathy Shaidle has made herself a walking illustration of her own argument (I use the term loosely) that women should never have been given the vote. And she will never allow herself to see it, much less step back from it.

I'll keep my own comments and opinions to a minimum and let Miss Shaidle speak for herself.

On her personal blog a few days ago, Miss Shaidle linked to her recent effort at PJ Media. The first few sentences left me both yawning and sure that whatever it is she was on about, it was something about which I don't give a damn ... apparently something to do with her Glory Daze as a leftist (**) and a 'punk'. *Oh! Yawn! Rebellion! Edginess!* No biggie; we're not all going to be interested in the same things. So, I just closed the window and moved on to something else on her blog that would interest me.

Then, today, she linked to a comment someone had made that tickled her fancy. I don't normally read the comments made in response to her (or other authors') articles. But, I followed the link ... and while I was there I read this comment by a 'MAPN':

Came here because of a Kathy Shaidle link. Read it, and still have no idea what the point is. Except that I've always avoided people with strong clothing prejudices of any kind, or who use clothes to "make a statement".

and her response to it:

Not a fan of subtlety. Noted!

I'll spare the reader my opinion of that sort of use of "noted".

So, because 'MAPN' has a valid point about her style and because her brush-off mildly irked me, I sent her this little email:

I think the problem the fellow was trying to bring to your attention is that oftentimes your "subtlety" approaches that of a blank piece of paper.

The point being, of course, that that "subtlety" which leaves your readers with no idea what your point is is a "subtlety" too far.

This is her response to me:

No, he's just a moron. Anyone who doesn't understand what I'm getting at should stick to their college football games, because expecting them to catch up with my years of reading and influences would obviously be too much for them

This is my response back:

I hope you someday re-read what you just said.

And this is what will likely be the last correspondence between us:

Other people's thickness isn't my problem; when they boast about it, it is singularly unbecoming and deserving of scorn. It's that simple.

Call me old fashioned, but you've recently begun assuming a "familiar" tone with me that I don't care for. I have no time for patronizing scolds who presume to tell me what to write and how to write it, particularly total strangers.

Well played! It is surely the goal of every author of note to pointlessly alienate her fans.

Kathy Shaidle has no time for "patronizing scolds" ... and I have no time for whining feminist hypocrites.



(*) Oh, you know the one I mean! "Do these jeans make my ass look big?"

(**) News Flash: She's *still* a leftist ... she just, for whatever reason, no longer wishes to consider herself a leftist.

So, Bertolli is out

Adweek: Bertolli Makes the Most of Barilla Chairman's Anti-Gay Comments - Pro-gay posts in social media

So, apparently Barilla's chairman recently said that his company would never use "gay" "couples" in its advertising -- and, being a pussy, quickly backtracked when the Borg of Leftism, Inc got word of it and started their utterly predictable shrieking.

OK, that was bad enough -- I mean, the cowardly caving, not the initial comment. Look, it's not that difficult ... if you don't "have the courage of your convictions", then don't express them in the first place.

But, then, along comes their competitor, Bertolli, to join in the Leftist piling-on.

Fine, Bertolli; you've made your stand.

Here is mine: you products are not welcome in my house.

Idolatry

Michael Egnor: Magdi Allam and the Catholic Church

Proph (at The Orthosphere): Losing our religion III: The Francis issue

The idolatry of which I speak is that of Mr Egnor and Proph and many of their commenters with regard to the RCC, the One True Bureaucracy. Let's concentrate on Mr Egnor's response to Mr Allam's reason/excuse for leaving the Roman denomination.

Gentle Reader may recall a recent post of mine, 'A Suicide Pact?', in which I linked to the web-page laying out the official position of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops with respect to "comprehensive immigration reform", wherein I said that the position of the USCCB is one of deliberate national suicide. Gentle Reader may not know that I linked to that page in response to Mr Engor's quote of Hilaire Belloc, to the effect that the One True Bureaucracy is the House of Man.

Linking to the USCCB's statement, I asked Mr Egnor:

Do you (and Belloc) mean this Catholic Church? You know, the one that asserts that Christians have a duty to aid in the destruction of the country, both as a polity and as a people?

To relate this to the OP, my thought is that the USCCB is telling us that [-- as Christians --] we must burn our house down.

One is free to follow the discussion (including, if so inclined, the postings by the intellectually dishonest fools 'Anonymous', 'Hoo', and 'Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan Navy'), but the short of it is that despite his long-term expression of concern over Leftism's intentional acts and policies aimed at destroying America as a polity and as a people, when the leftists are wearing the robes of prelates, he can no longer find his voice.

Now, consider Mr Egnor's recent post concerning Magdi Allam

Michael Egnor, quoting John Allen, Jr, concerning Magdi Allam:

Unfortunately, in thinking about why Allam took this step, most people haven't gotten past the headline. If you consider the entire essay he published March 25 outlining his thinking, it makes for very interesting reading.

Allam says he's leaving Catholicism because of what he describes as four "physiological" features of the church he can no longer tolerate:

* "Relativism," meaning the fact that the church "welcomes inside itself an infinity of communities, congregations, ideologies and material interests that translate into containing everything and the opposite of everything."

* "Globalism," meaning the church "takes positions ideologically contrary to nations as identities and civilizations that must be preserved, preaching the overcoming of national boundaries."

* A tendency to being "do-gooders," meaning "putting on the same level, if not actually preferring" the interests of people outside one's community with the community's own interests.

* A "temptation to evil," which Allam blames on "imposing behaviors in conflict with human nature ... such as priestly celibacy, abstaining from sex outside marriage and the indissolubility of marriage, along with the temptation of money."

I agree with Allen that Allam is right that the first three characteristics are those of the Church. They are also those of Christ.

"Relativism" and "Globalism" used in the sense Allam uses it is a good thing; the Church must avoid sectarianism and exclusion to the greatest extent possible. Certain ideologies must be anathema-- Marxism, Nazism, atheism, for example-- but the world's only truly global organization must not be captive to pointless sectarianism.

And a tendency to be "do gooders"? Goodness gracious, that is what the Christian life is. We are called to radical do-gooding, by the original do-gooder Himself.

Some of Allam's criticisms of the Church's supposed accommodation with Islam resonate with me a bit as well, but I trust the Church. She alone has fought Islam for 1400 years. She understands the issues as no other entity does. Defiance has its place, for sure, and I share Allam's general assessment of the totalitarian nature of Islam, but lives and souls are at stake, and the Church's policy of engagement and respect has much to say for it.

I trust the Church.

Allum's fourth "physiological" feature which he can 'no longer tolerate' is raw nonsense. The Church is right on all of these issues.

Quothe Michael Egnor, "I agree with Allen that Allam is right that the first three characteristics are those of the Church. They are also those of Christ."

Simply amazing!

Mr Allam's first three points, according to Mr Allen (who appears to be quoting Allam), and Mr Egnor's responses to them, are:

1) ""Relativism" -- meaning the fact that the church "welcomes inside itself an infinity of communities, congregations, ideologies and material interests that translate into containing everything and the opposite of everything."

2) "Globalism" -- meaning the church "takes positions ideologically contrary to nations as identities and civilizations that must be preserved, preaching the overcoming of national boundaries."

"I agree with Allen that Allam is right that the first three characteristics are those of the Church. They are also those of Christ.

"Relativism" and "Globalism" used in the sense Allam uses it is a good thing; the Church must avoid sectarianism and exclusion to the greatest extent possible. Certain ideologies must be anathema-- Marxism, Nazism, atheism, for example-- but the world's only truly global organization must not be captive to pointless sectarianism."

So, while avoiding addressing Mr Allam's actual criticisms of the socio-political stances of the ruling bureaucracy of the One True Bureaucracy, Mr Egnor nevertheless asserts that those socio-political stances are "those of Christ."

Let's consider "Globalism", as Mr Allam appears to be using the term -- meaning the church "takes positions ideologically contrary to nations as identities and civilizations that must be preserved, preaching the overcoming of national boundaries."

According to Mr Egnor, these positions are "those of Christ." According to Mr Egnor, it is God's Will to destroy the nations as discrete peoples, and to destroy the nation-states as discrete polities.

Now, I deny that this is God's Will for nations, as peoples or as polities ... but, is this not *exactly* what I had previously argued on his blog is the socio-political stance of the One True Bureaucracy, and which (at the time) he couldn't quite bring himself to acknowledge? Is it not *exactly* what I had previously said (though had not argued) on my blog is the socio-political stance of the One True Bureaucracy, and which Bob Prokop is unwilling to see, even though it is right there in black and white, requiring only that one read with comprehension?

3) A tendency to being "do-gooders" -- meaning "putting on the same level, if not actually preferring" the interests of people outside one's community with the community's own interests.

"I agree with Allen that Allam is right that the first three characteristics are those of the Church. They are also those of Christ.

And a tendency to be "do gooders"? Goodness gracious, that is what the Christian life is. We are called to radical do-gooding, by the original do-gooder Himself."

Christ does not call us to prefer the interests of other families, communities, and nations over the interests of our own families, communities, and nations. Christ does not demand of us that we betray our natural loyalties; he calls us to rightly understand and order them, but not to betray them, not to violate them, not to destroy them.

Christ does, sometimes, call us to prefer the interests of other individuals over our own narrow personal interests. But, even then, it is a matter of proper understanding or ordering. It is not that Christ calls us to sacrifice ourselves for the sake of 'The Other', but rather that he calls us to *stop* sacrificing 'The Other' for the sake of our improper interests.

This is not Christianity to which Mr Egnor is agreeing and defending, it is Leftism.

Leftism is a heresy of Judeo-Christianity, and specifically of Catholicism -- Leftism could never have arisen in a purely Hindu social milieu, for instance -- and even in the best of times, Catholicism has *always* been on the brink of falling into Leftism. Apparently, The One True Bureaucracy has committed itself to Leftism, at last.

So, it seems to me, the question is now: who are the faithful Catholics who are faithful to Christ, and who are those who are faithful to the Bureaucracy? As for all men, the question is always "Whom do you worship? Is your God Christ, or is your god Something Else?"

Parthenogenesis in 'Higher' Animals

Here is an interesting science fact -- contrary to the sort of "scientific laws" much belovéd by 'Science!' fetishists -- Parthenogenesis in Turkeys

The reason for the 'atheism' and 'Christianity' and 'scientism' tags will be made clear, eventually.

Stupid 'Atheist' Tricks IV

Right now, I have time only for a quick post, just a reference, really.

I present for Gentle Reader's amusement, a stupid 'atheist' trick recently posted on Victor Reppert's blog. Can you see the "stupid trick" -- by which I mean intellectual dishonesty-- without me explaining it?

Steven Carr:
Why wasn't the Christian god able to populate the Earth with Adam and Steve?

Surely with 'the power of omnipotence' that should be easy.

Perhaps this god didn't use the sight of sightedness to see how he could use the power of omnipotence to produce a miraculous birth.

Edit 2013/09/30:
First, in case one has not read it, the background of this particular stupid trick is that Mr Reppert had made a little joke post, the humor of which follows from one's familiarity with:
1) the quip that God created man as Adam and Eve, not as Adam and Steve (which is to say, that as God created man intrinsically sexed -- male and female -- then homosexual couplings are intrinsically unnatural and disordered);
2) the like-clockwork regularity of announcements by "scholars" that they've "discovered" "new" documents that are going to "rock the foundations" of Christianity.

Victor Reppert: Are there pages missing?

Actually, some recent manuscripts have been discovered which show that God first created Adam and Steve. But that didn't work out so well with regard to populating the earth, so God then created Eve to correct the situation.

So, that's the context in which the infamously intellectually dishonest

Steven Carr said:
Why wasn't the Christian god able to populate the Earth with Adam and Steve?

Surely with 'the power of omnipotence' that should be easy.

Perhaps this god didn't use the sight of sightedness to see how he could use the power of omnipotence to produce a miraculous birth.

And the "stupid 'atheist' trick" that Mr Carr is attempting to deploy is the very common atheistic dishonesty of demanding that the Judeo-Christian (conclusion and) claim that "God is omnipotent" means and must mean that we are saying that God is illogical and irrational (and even anti-rational).

This specific instance of the particular "stupid 'atheist' trick" under discussion is of the same nature as saying "If your God were *really* omnipotent, he could make a married bachelor!" But, of course, "a married bachelor" -- a man who is both married and unmarried -- is a contradiction in terms. It is as logically impossible for there to be a "married bachelor" as for there to be a "square circle".

The terms 'male' and 'female' -- and the physical-and-biological realities to which they refer -- have meaning only in mutual relation. A 'male' is a member of a sexually reproducing species who is able, in principle, to fertilize the ova of 'females' of his species. A 'female' is a member of a sexually reproducing species who is able, in principle, to have her fertilized by 'males' of her species.

At the sane time, 'males' and 'females' are not 'hermaphrodites'. Possibly, some species could have some members who are male, some who are female, and some who are hermaphroditic. Whether or not that is actually possible, given rules of biology, that is not how the human species is created.

So, when the intellectually dishonest fool, Steven Carr, said

Why wasn't the Christian god able to populate the Earth with Adam and Steve?

Surely with 'the power of omnipotence' that should be easy.

he was saing one of these two things:
1) If God were really omnipotent, he could have created 'Adam' able to impregnate 'Steve' -- in other words, the dishonest fool is saying that if God were really omnipotent, he could have crated a 'male' who is really a 'female'. But, as we have seen above, given the meanings of the terms 'male' and 'female', this is a contradiction if terms. A 'male' who is really a 'female' is like a 'circle' which is really a 'square' or a 'bachelor' who is really a 'husband'.
2) If God were really omnipotent, he would have created 'Adam' able to impregnate 'Steve', and 'Steve' able to impregnate 'Adam' -- in other words, the dishonest fool is saying that if God were really omnipotent, he would have created man as hermaphroditic, rather than as male and female. But, of course, this is both a total non sequitur ... and a self-contradiction -- for, if the (ahem) logic were sound, then *had* God created us hermaphroditic, then it would still be the case that his having made *that* choice would "prove" him to be non-omnipotent.

When the intellectually dishonest fool, Steven Carr, said

Surely with 'the power of omnipotence' that should be easy.

Perhaps this god didn't use the sight of sightedness to see how he could use the power of omnipotence to produce a miraculous birth.

he was simply:
1) expressing his willfully-chosen ignorance of the meaning of 'omnipotence';
2) expressing his willfully-chosen ignorance of the meaning of 'miracle';
3) expressing his touching faith in Magick ... which he calls 'Science!';
4) mocking the Christian doctrine of the Virgin Birth ... which he ignorantly imagines is logically impossible.



*Our* God's name is "IS" ... one of the names of Mr Carr's god is "Cannot Be". Mr Carr's foolish post can be seen as an act of worship of his god, "Dis-".

In effect, Mr Carr is saying, "If your God were *real*, he would be the same as my anti-rational and anti-existent god."

They aren't Americans

One of the current crop of politically correct leftists dishonesties is that various individual Islamic terrorists are "Americans". In almost no instance is this true -- having set foot on American soil does not make one an American. For instance, the Boston Marathon bombers were not Americans.

In the most recent instance of Islamic mass terror/murder, the assault on the shopping mall in Nairobi, it is being reported that up to three of the murdering scum are "Americans". They are not Americans; never were and never will be. They are Somali Moslems that our insane "liberal" ("soft" leftist) rulers imported to our shores as a sub-project of their on-going goal of destroying the American people/nation.

Names of Democrats on House Oversight Committee who walked out on Benghazi victim family members

Names of Democrats on House Oversight Committee who walked out on Benghazi victim family members

h/t Bob Parks

Video Of The Day

Bob Parks: Video Of The Day -- The choice of background music is perfect.

edit: At the same time, this video may have come from Big Brother ... in which case, it's not at all amusing, but rather chilling.

PZ Myers is spot on

Shadow to Light: Does Richard Dawkins Defend Pedophilia? -- “... PZ Myers is spot on when he observes that Dawkins['] position on pedophilia “sounds like something out of NAMBLA.””

Where was ol’ PZ ten years ago? Somehow, I can’t quite seem to squech the suspicion that there’s a reason he’s admitting this *now*, rather than then. In case Gentle Reader is unaware of it, the Gnu Atheists are presenty going through a period of self-cannibalization ... as is inevitable with groups of humans who insist upon denying reality and actual morality in favor of a contrary-to-reality "morality" that is based upon nothing more than political force and compulsion.

“Dawkins is clearly try to cast pedophiles as the victims. Am I wrong?”

It's of a piece with his false worldview and false anthropology -- which he admits, in public writing, that he himself doesn't even believe.

“Adult hang-ups?? Let’s get this straight. Some old man exploits some situation where he decides to touch, grab, and handle the genitals of a young child. If you think that is not just wrong, but very wrong, it’s because you have an “adult-hang-up.” And it is your “adult hang-up” that keeps you from understanding that since the child was not violently raped, nothing truly bad actually happened. In fact, what’s truly bad is that you have over-reacted because of your “adult hang-up.””

That's "liberalism" (i.e. "soft leftism") for you -- the immoral/criminal aggressor is always "the real victim", and the more so the more immoral and perverted the act, whereas those who dare to judge/condemn the act are the "real" aggressors.

This topsy-turvy black-is-white mindset is on display everywhere the leftists are actively working to overthrow traditional social understandings and norms. For example, not only can a "gay" person not help his/her sexual attractions (which belief is at least plausible, whether or not it's true in fact), but is helpless to resist expressing those attractions, and thus deserves sympathy (*) and *approval*. Meanwhile, if *you* disapprove of the public flaunting of and expressing of those attractions, you're a vile "homophobe" -- who *can* choose to be otherwise -- who deserves public censure and condemnation, and political/legal prosecution.

(*) that is, not sympathy in the sense of pity for suffering from a psycho-sexual abnormality, borne of an understanding of one's own broken nature, but sympathy in the sense of fawning celebration.

Make no mistake, in just a few short years, the leftist-atheist alliance will be giving the expression of pedophilia the same treatment they are currently giving the expression of same-sex attraction -- and *you* will be the vile, immoral criminal for trying to protect children from sexual predators.

A Suicide Pact?

Christianity is not a suicide pact -- neither with respect to individuals nor to peoples and societies -- but according the the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, Catholicism is a national suicide pact, at least with respect to *our* nation.

Power vs Authority

David Warren: An authoritarian writes --

Power, that is the thing. It is what I have been reading about, all through this summer: the use of Power to destroy a magnificent civilization. Power, verily in opposition to Authority. For it is Authority that holds a civilization together, Power that blows it apart.

I’m afraid this truth is little understood, in our age of Power Triumphant. Little Man has stood against the gods, & in the euphoria of his hubris, declared them to be overthrown. Henceforth Little Man will make the rules. He will no longer answer to Authority, to the philosophia perennis. By Power he has usurped the Authority, & need not listen to it any more. Henceforth, words will mean whatever Power will choose them to mean, in our looking-glass world. (Take for instance a term from time out of mind, such as “marriage.”)
...
And in the end, Authority is restored; the truth is vindicated by an accident of Nature; Humpty Dumpty tumbles from his Wall. For here is a mystery: that in despite of Little Man, the universe is held together by Authority.

The thing is, Authority protects the "Little Man" from the abusive Power of the "Big Man" ... and yet, the fool is *always* willing to listen to the would-be "Big Man", who always promises, and always fails to deliver: "If only you will give me unlimited Power over your life, I will *free* you from the shackles of Authority; I will free you from your father and from God."

Bouncing Checks

Douglas Wilson: A Three Car Funeral -- "... If I might change the metaphor, our federal government is bouncing checks in more areas than just the budget."


Douglas Wilson: Syria in a Sentence -- "I want Congress to authorize something I don’t believe they need to authorize, and which I reserve the right to do anyway whether or not they authorize it, in order that I might defend the credibility of a red line I didn’t actually draw, so that I may take decisive action that will not in any way affect the momentum of the Syrian civil war or, if it accidentally does, al-Qaeda will the stronger for it, in order that I might have a chance to do what I have spent a decade yelling about other people doing."

Stupid 'Atheist' Tricks III

I suspect that I could make a new "Stupid 'Atheist' Tricks" post every day from the raw material provided by the 'atheists' who infest Michael Egnor's blog and not run the risk of exhausting the vein. Mind you, Gentle Reader, I'm not saying that any of these 'atheists' are themselves stupid. No, no, no: it's the tricks that are stupid; the 'atheists' are just intellectually dishonest.

Consider this recently unearthed gem, concerning a video to which Michael Egnor had linked --

troy: "Apart from the gullible and the demented, does anyone take that huckster still seriously?"

Ilíon: "We all know what you mean, troy. *Everything* about Dawkins, and especially that [prissy] sissy accent he uses, is hucksterish and quite annoying."

troy: "No, obviously I meant that huckster WLC. Except lining his own pockets at the expense of the gullible and demented, and making the insecure believers feel a little better about their superstitions, what do know now that we wouldn't have known without his 'scholarship'?"

And that, boys and girls, is atheistic "reasoning" in a nutshell.

Why is Willian Lane Craig a "huckster", who is "lining his own pockets at the expense of the gullible and demented"? Why is it that all he does is "making the insecure believers feel a little better about their superstitions"? Why is it that it is questionable there is anything we "know now that we wouldn't have known without his 'scholarship'"?

Why? One reason, and only one reason -- because he kicks atheistic butt, using logic they cannot counter; you know, logic, which 'atheists' like to imagine that they own, or even invented.

Why is it that Christians are "gullible and demented", who hold to "superstitions", rather than to ralional beliefs? Why is it that Christians are "insecure believers [who need someone to make them] feel a little better about their superstitions"?

Why? One reason, and only one reason -- because, in utter contrast to atheism, Christianity can be supported by evidence and logical reasoning ... and, because, moreover, even if evidence-and-logical-reason were to falsify Christianty, it remains forever the case that logical reasoning falsifies atheism.

This "projectile reasoning", as I call it -- this psychological "projection" having nothing to do with actually reasoning -- is how 'atheists' tend to "reason" about "religion", especially Christianity (*), and their own God-hatred.

Which is to say, they do not reason, for, they do the very opposite of reason. And this little example I've shown above really is standard-issue "reasoning" amongst the 'atheists' one will encounter on the internet or in real life.

(*) And really, other than Judaism, what other religion does *any* member of a Western society really care about?


BUT, let's play pretend -- let us pretend that some 'atheist', perhaps even this 'troy' (who brings disrepute to a noble name), has shown that WLC is a "huckster"; further, let us even pretend that some 'atheist', perhaps even this 'troy', has falsified Christianity, and thereby shown it to be a "superstitions" (which would, of course, seem to entail that Christians are "gullible and demented" "insecure believers [who need someone to make them] feel a little better about their superstitions).

NOW, having pretended the truth of these things that 'troy' asserts (but *never* even attempts to demonstrate), allow me to ask you: So, what?

Do you not get it? On top of his claims-of-fact, this so-called atheist is asserting moral claims -- he is asserting that there is an objective-and-transcendent moral reality, knowable to human beings, and to which we are obligated to conform ourselves.

As the old saying goes: what the Hell?! Where did that come from?

Neo Hides From Lumbergh

Agent Intellect: Utter brilliance -- You will want to watch that little mash-up.

Thoughts on the Seattle Slutwalk

American Clarity: Thoughts on the Seattle Slutwalk

More on Black-on-black Slavery in the Old South

AmericanCivilWar.com: DIXIE'S CENSORED SUBJECT - BLACK SLAVEOWNERS

Lubricating the Slippery Slope

The Other McCain: Lubricating the Slippery Slope: The Intellectual Astroglide of the Elite --

Few are willing to admit the truth, namely that our cultural elite have abandoned the truth — but that is putting it too mildly.

Our cultural elite, of which the editors of the Washington Post and Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg are members, have not only abandoned the truth, but have declared war on truth, and have dedicated themselves to the advancement of falsehood.

People saw this coming and sounded a warning. ...

Whether or not you follow my reading recommendations, the bottom line is this: Good luck with this “secular conservatism” thing.

It ain’t gonna work, and if the history of the past 10 years or so haven’t convinced you that embracing secularism is doom for conservatism — and, ultimately, for the American republic — I’m sure the next 10 years will, but by then there will be nothing left worth conserving. And we’re probably doomed already.
...
Basically, the enemy got inside the perimeter. The bombardment of liberal propaganda convinced both the Republican Party elite and leading figures of the conservative intelligentsia that all those hillbilly Bible-thumpers were, on balance, a detriment to the GOP’s political prospects, so shut up, Sarah Palin, shut up Michele Bachmann, shut up Rick Santorum and anyone else who doesn’t applaud gay marriage as enthusiastically as Rachel Maddow and Andrew Sullivan.

Way to go, Republican elite! You saved your reputation as sophisticated, tolerant, enlightened intellectuals and you are . . . Doomed.

The revolutionary turning point is now in your rear-view mirror, and you’re all Vichy Republicans, negotiating with the radical Left the terms of your collaboration with their progressive agenda. In November 2008, I explained where we were heading:
...
Sure, let’s make fun of the Washington Post, but their editors seriously believe that a woman’s most important “right” is killing her own babies, and if people can believe that, what immoral monstrosity won’t they endorse? At some point, Republicans must either summon the courage to speak the truth — sorry, we’re not going to call you “Chelsea Manning,” you despicable traitor — or else stop pretending that they have any actual disagreements with Democrats.

Do Reince Priebus or John Boehner or Mitch McConnell have any plan at all to halt this headlong descent into lawless perversion?

“Children are not inherently unable to consent” to sex with adults. Pedophiles are “unfairly stigmatized and demonized” by society. Sex with kids is tainted by a “cultural baggage of wrongfulness.”

People need to wake the hell up.

This Weimar decadence is very bad. What comes after the decadence is likely to be worse, and if you listen closely you can almost hear the sound of hobnailed boots marching over broken glass.

I've understood for most of my life where we were/are headed: I grew up listening to sermons explaining the lawless rebellion -- and the consequences that would-and-must follow from it -- manifest in American culture even then, 50 years ago.

For most of my life, I have understood that what was/is destroying America is the tacit agreement between the self-selected (and reliably leftist) elites and "the common man", to wit: "We not only will not condemn, but will actively defend your "right" to engage in them, and will demonize the "hillbilly Bible-thumpers" who disagree, the "little" or common sexual sins that appeal to you ... and, in exchange, you will keep your damned mouths shut when we think the time is ripe to roll out the rank sins that make you retch."

For most of my life, I've expected that within my own lifetime, the US government would be actively persecuting Christians -- and we now appear to be only a handfull of years away from that. For most of my life, I've expected that the day would come that I too, as with so many Christians in the past, would face the choice: your life or your Life!

But then, I'm one of them there ignernt "hillbilly Bible-thumpers".