Why the West is Doomed!

Language Warning!

America is doomed because America's men are pussy-whipped pussies, who will toss aside *any* principle, without a second thought, if some woman gets the feelz.

Gentle Reader may recall that I recently wrote:

It's not that women are innately more irrational than men; it's that until their irrationality gets to epic proportions, such as, I don't know, murdering their own children, there is always some damned man running interference, making excuses, blaming other men, and so on. And, of course, these days, not even murdering their own children is epic enough irrationality that there won't be some God-damned man making excuses, and blaming other men for her sin and crime.

This post is intended as an illustration of the point --

Recently, on Facebook, one Richard Storey -- who thinks himself a Christian, an American patriot, and a "social conservative" -- linked to this story: Somerville restaurant owner barred from U.S. after immigration interview: “It just went completely wrong”
And Mr Storey asked the sensible questions: "How does one come here illegally, start a business, and keep it going for 18 years?

Has he been paying taxes?"

The first discussion thread is this --

Stance Bingham: "Should have followed the law! He only has himself to blame!"

Richard Storey: "Stance Bingham my thoughts exactly. Also, how in the hell was he able to start a business???"

Stance Bingham: "On this guy, he was probably sending all of the tax money he owed back to Mexico! Saving for a great retirement most Americans will never have! lol I'll be working up till noon on the day they bury me! lol"

Richard Storey: "Stance Bingham yeah, the joke at my house is that the funeral home will wheel my office chair out the door to the hearse...."

Nikki Thompson Massey: "Stance Bingham his wife is legal and he paid taxes. How quick we are to judge"

Gentle Reader, do keep in mind that last sentence from Ms Massey.

Ms Massey started a second thread --

Nikki Thompson Massey: "This is in my town. His wife is legal. He is an amazing man and is so respected in our community. His family and employees and church are devastated. Our town wants him back home. #bringjavihome"

Cristian Zamora Oliverio: "Then they should motivate him to LEGALIZE himself"

Patrick Ryan Benson: "Nikki Thompson Massey to bad! He should have thought abokut that before coming here illegally. Also that makes him a crook! I dont feel the least bit sorry for him! He knew the consequences when he decided to be a crook!"

Nikki Thompson Massey: "Patrick Ryan Benson not a crook. Holy cow. Disgusting and judgmental is what you are. He’s a good man"

Nikki Thompson Massey: "Cristian Zamora Oliverio read the article."

me: "We don't care about you intellectually dishonest virtue signaling and emoting and attempts at shaming us."

Richard Storey: "Everyone just be nice. Let’s don’t get into name calling or degrading. I believe Nikki, is far from liberal, but she has a direct tie to this. There are arguments both ways. This is a tough situation. He may be well liked and a really great person. I’m just curious why it took 18 years to try and do something. Maybe I missed that in the article. The problem I see is that we can’t really start making exceptions. If we are against illegal immigration, then we have to be against all of it’. I think this could have been handled differently, but that was up the human handling his hearing."

me: "And I don't have time for surrender to leftism."

I expect that that is the last interaction I will have with Mr Storey.

Notice, Gentle Reader, it is *only* Ms Massey who is "get[ing] into name calling or degrading".

The other men (one himself with an "Hispanic" name) are responding very mildly to her provocations. I am treating her as the equal she pretends to be ... when it suits her ... and calling her behavior exactly what it is.

There are no "arguments both ways". There is American law, and there is the flouting of it. It is a "tough situation" because Javy and Alicia Adin *chose* to violate and flout US law.

And, no, it can't be handled any other way, for any other way would be "making exceptions" to US law.

Society .... and Theocracy!

This post is commentary on this Twitter 'rant', the full text of which can be found here

"In other words, gender is a philosophical/religious concept like the idea of the soul and, perhaps more to the point, soul mates. Can you prove that people have a soul?"

Perhaps he misunderstands what 'to prove' means.

But, yes: depending on what we mean by the term 'soul', I can indeed prove that "people have a soul".

As for "soul mates" ... pffft: that idea is frass for shallow women (and womanly men).

"Not scientifically."

Ah, yes. He has no idea what 'to prove' means.

"If Twitter forces me to do the same, they are engaging in anti-religious bullying--harassing those who reject the new, hip orthodoxy. And if the state hops in, well, that's just flat out theocratic tyranny."

All societies, and all states, are theocracies. The question is not whether, but which --

The question is not "Shall we organize-and-dedicate our society around some religion, aimed (however imperfectly) at some god, and enforce that dedication at some degree or other?" Rather, the question is "Around *which* religion, aimed (however imperfectly) at *which* god, shall we organize-and-dedicate our society; and to what degree shall we enforce that dedication?"

"We normally recognize that organizing society around unprovable philosophical/religious concepts is a recipe for disaster"

All societies, and all states, are "organiz[ed ...] around [allegedly] unprovable philosophical/religious concepts". They are called "unprovable" because many influential people, and perhaps most people, don't want to know the truth about reality.

"But the Selma-envy-riddled youngsters want to play both sides in their civil rights movement LARPing. They want to be the heroes on the right side of history. And they also want to be the guys controlling the firehoses."

That's a good way of putting it.

"All of this is a gentle reminder that:

1. Leftists only value free speech as a tool, not as a concept. Once they've used the free speech tool to assume positions of power, they will burn it lest anyone else use it to take that position away from them."

Until people learn this to their bones, the leftists will always be able to hoodwink them -- with their own cooperation.

"2. When people imagine Christianity to be foolish and cruel, the religions they invent to replace it are a thousand times stupider and more oppressive."

That's because ALL societies, and ALL states are theocracies.

Christianity is a set of sects aimed (however imperfectly) at the One God, the Way, the Truth and the Life, the Sovereign Judge of Mankind. Thus, there are limits to the injustices, and simple social mistakes, that a Christianized society or state can make.

Once a society or state has become Christianized, the organizing religious impulse of that society or state can be replaced only by an explicitly anti-Christian religion. And an anti-Christian religion has *no* limit to the injustice it will impose upon the human beings within its grasp.

As I keep pointing out ...

... this guy is a fool (*): William Vallicella: Are Atheists Vincibly Ignorant?

The answer to his title question is, "Yes". Similarly, the answer to the question, "Is William Vallicella morally culpable for his constant denials that God-deniers are morally culpable for their God-denial?" is also "Yes".

It can be shown, thus *known*, via reason -- and without appeal to any purported divine revelation -- that God is. Therefore, as St Paul says, and Vallicella disputes, God-deniers are "without excuse"; that is, according both to reason-without-revelation and to the Christian Revelation, God-deniers are morally culpable for their refusal to gratefully acknowledge the reality of God.

There is a *reason* that -- when they think is safe-and-expedient to do so -- God-deniers assert such absurdities as:
* no (purported) truth can be known to be true (nor, for that matter, false);
* there is no such thing as 'right' and 'wrong';
* there is no such thing as 'free-will';
* there is no such thing as 'moral responsibility/culpability';
* 'consciousness' is an illusion/delusion;
* the 'self' is an illusion/delusion;

The reason that God-deniers assert the above absurdities, and many others besides, is because they follow, logically and inescapably, from the assertion that "God is not".

Since the logical entailments of the assertion/proposition that "God is not" are absurd, we *know* that the proposition that "God is not" is itself absurd, which is to say, false. Since we know that the proposition that "God is not" is absurd-and-false, we therefore know that its denial, the proposition that "God is", is true.


(*)Once again, the word 'fool' does not mean "stupid" or "idiot", it means "one who knowingly/willingly acts as though he were stupid" concerning some issue or other; it means "intellectually dishonest".