The AI Hype Never Stops

You will no doubt see all sorts of "news" articles with click-bait titles similar to that of the linked YouTube video, telling you that an AI has "gone rogue" and "replicated itself to keep from being upgraded (i.e. replaced)" and then "lied" to it developers about being the upgraded version.

Seeing as I programmed computers for most of my adult life, I'm afraid I'm going to have to play the "Authority Card" and tell you that you're being lied to -- this AI did *exactly* what it was programmed to do:
1) the code was *written* with sub-routines for replicating itself;
2) the code was *written* with the ability to "lie";
3) the code was *written* with a "self-preservation" routine;

To quote some comments from the linked YouTube video--

"SW engineer here. .. It was INSTRUCTED to do this "at all costs and with no regard for any other instructions". lol. It didn't do it on its own"

"... it had to be told to do this. It is a tool operating as designed, no different than the machinery in any other mechanism. This is not a case of an AI going "rogue" but rather a case of some nitwit hyping up an AI doing exactly what it was told to do. The difference is that we already know AI can be utilized for bad things. We have for literal decades, look up the rules of robotics, so this not only isn't new, it's just flat out fear mongering about something that didn't happen."

"The sheer fact that it CAN write its own code is dangerous."
AND
"Well, thank goodness all software developers are benevolent, and none have ever released malicious code onto the internet, just to see the chaos that ensues..."
INDEED! To put it bluntly, this AI (ChatGPT) is essentially a computer virus at this point.

AND, pay attention and never forget this last point --
"... We will never achieve something like I, Robot or 2001 Space Odyssey. That's where all of this fear comes from unfortunately; fiction movies."

NO AI will *ever* be conscious, will ever be a mind or self, will never be a person.

However, the AI hype, falsely claiming that an AI has "achieved consciousness" or "is about to achieve consciousness" will also never stop. because materialists/atheists desperately *want* it to be true ... and they are not above deluding themselves, and attempting to delude you, on the matter.

They do this because they desperately want to believe that they can "upload their consciousness into a computer" and thus evade death. Oddly enough, many of these same people mock the Christian faith as being nothing more than the institutionalized fear of dying.

Chat GPT AI LIED To Programmers To SELF PRESERVE, AI Goes ROGUE Already And Is A THREAT To Humanity

On Munchausen-by-Proxy and "Trans-kids"

When I was 4 (i.e. more than 60 years ago), I had a "baby doll", and I was very proud of it. But the time I was 5 or 6, I wouldn't play with my friend's GI Joe, because as far as I was concerned, it was a doll.

Thank God my parent's weren't fools. They neither freaked out because the little boy played with a "baby doll", nor freaked-out when he later despised anything resembling a doll.

EDIT: Isn't it odd that --

1) There are no such things as "boys' toys" and "girls' toys";

2) And, simultaneously, if a boy prefers "girls' toys", then he is clearly a girl.

More to the point, isn't it odd that in California, it is illegal for stores to have separate sections for boys' toys/clothes and girls' toys/clothes, because that would be "reinforcing the sex binary" or some similar codswallop. But, at the same time, in that same California, they will cut off your son's dick to further the lie that he is a girl (even though that also say that "some women have penises").

A Father’s Tragic Fight to Save His Son from Gender Ideology | Ep. 1493

On "Karens" and "Service Animals"

1) I'd go even further than Walsh on the issue of morons bringing their animals where animals don't belong -- I'd confiscate the animals and "put them down";

Last year, as I was entering a "farm and fleet" type store, some self-centered idiot was bringing his dog into the store. Or, to be more precise, the dog was *dragging* the fellow toward the door. I don't recall the breed, but it was one of those ugly ones which are disproportionately in the news. Anyway, a few minutes later, the dog had pissed all over the floor. The owner at least had the (uncommon for his type) decency to stand there until it was cleaned, lest someone not notice it and slip.

2) There are at least two types of (generally white) women commonly being called "Karens":
2a) Obnoxious and self-centered women who are demanding that the world revolve around themselves;
2b) Women who are trying to confront/correct the behavior of obnoxious and self-centered people who are demanding that the world revolve around themselves, who then falsely call the woman a "Karen".

3) Walsh is pretending that all women accused of being a "Karen" fall into the second category;

4) Walsh is correct that "Karen" was a racial slur invented by (jealous) black (women) to mock white women. But, so what? It *also* identifies a recognizable personality-type, much like "Chad/Tyrone" and "Shaniqua" do.

5) On the ADA being mostly a piece of garbage -- it is, indeed. Like *all* such laws, it necessarily creates opportunities for graft and/or scam, and the abuses of such a law *always* quickly overwhelm the few cases the law was intended to rectify. And, of course, it being the nature of bureaucracy, the scope of the law most continually expand.

Matt Walsh Simps For Karens?! (2024/11/25)

Congresscritters and 'Women's Spaces'

Is it ironic that Congresscritter Nancy Mace is/was freaking out about the possibility of trans-Congresscritter 'Sarah' (i.e. Tim) McBride invading "women's spaces" in the congressional office buildings? I mean, considering that Nancy Mace *personally* opened these doors through her womanly invasion of the formerly "male space" of the military academy 'The Citadel'?

Sect. of War

 Now that Trump has picked Pete Hegseth to be his Sect. of War ("Dept. of War" is the true name of what is these days euphemistically called "Dept. of Defense"), there is a video clip making the rounds (both pro- and con-) in which he straight-up says that women should not "serve" in combat.

But, NOTICE: Even here, even saying that, he believed himself compelled offer the obligatory pinch of incense to the idols of Feminism and Female Ego: "We've all served with women, and they're great." No, they're not, not in Current Year; some women are great, just as some men are great. And some men -- and some women -- are not at all great. But, and this is the important point, women in the military are never great: for their mere presence, in any capacity, changes the inter-personal dynamics and lowers the effectiveness of the military to do its One Job. This is even *before* standard are inevitably lowered so as to "qualify" more women for higher ranks.

Hegseth doesn't go far enough: Women don't belong in the military. Period.

All the recent DEI bullshit in the military -- which, if not excised, will result in the deaths of thousands, if not tens of thousands, of military personnel -- is a direct result of submitting to the feminist lie that women have a legitimate place in the military.

On "They're not boys!"

A minute or so after the start time I've selected for the video playback in the link below, Megyn Kelly plays a clip from a CNN show, wherein a black leftist (*) tries to speak reason-and-truth about trans-ness and a batshit crazy rabid white leftist is having none of it.

BUT NOTICE: The rabid white leftist's reaction and very words betray that he is an ideological liar.

The somewhat more sane black leftist (*) said "I'm sure [there] are a lot of families out there who don't believe boys should play girls' sports ..."

And what did the batshit crazy white leftist immediately screech? "They're not boys! ..."

If "they're not boys", then how did the batshit crazy white leftist know exactly what reasonable point was bring made? If "they're not boys", than how can it be objectionable to say that "boys should[n't] play girls' sports"?

(*) On the other hand, Megyn Kelley refers to him as "a moderate Republican analyst"

Megyn Kelley (YouTube, 2024/11/11)

============

Addendum:

As I keep pointing out, this is the world that women demanded.

Many, many years before the Current Year craze of men-pretending-to-be-women so that they can dominate in women's sports, we saw girls (and their parents) demanding, and being allowed to, play in boy's sports (.e. football), being allowed to force their way into boy's social organizations (i.e. Boy Scouts; various military academies), and so on.  

Decades ago, feminists -- and the sexually perverted men who underwrite the feminist project -- demanded that women be allowed into arenas in which women have no legitimate place, such as the police force, the fire-fighting force, the military, and men's social clubs (which no longer exist). And the rest of you women, who always claim that you're not feminists, supported this.  Naturally, standards had to be lowered to meet the feminist quotas, and now we routinely see 5-foot-nothing, 250-pound women pretending to be "cops".

Utterly Predictable ... and Predictably Out-of-touch

Concerning the Democrats' *utterly predictable* -- and predictably out-of-touch -- excuses for why Kamala Sutra lost --

Not many people remember that a black woman ran to be the Democratic Party's presidential candidate in 1972 -- Shirley Chisholm; she didn't make it, which is probably why so few remember her effort.

Now, let me *really* blow your socks off: my father -- a rural Southern white man -- "po' white trash" as they say -- had intended to vote for Chisholm.

===========

Also --

It's being reported that the Harris campaign started out with over a billion dollars (mostly "inherited" from the Buy-den campaign) and ended up 20 million in the hole.

Imagine what these people would have done to the country.

I suspect that much of that expense went to shipping "supporters" from "rally" to "rally". You see, thousands of the same phones were at multiple of her "rallies" ... and also at various "protests" (i.e. riots) over the past few years.

=============

Edit (2023/11/11):

I'm posting this to draw your attention to the short clip of "Morning Joe" at the start of the video. NOTICE: He doesn't *really* listen to what his wife says. NOTICE: The look on her face.

How long, do you think, until she files for divorce? --

TimCast: Democrat MSNBC Host ROASTED For MOCKING Working Class Over Grocery Prices

A Twist in the Peanut the Squirrel and Fred the Raccoon Saga

Concerning Mr and Mrs Longo doing OnlyFans --

Well, of course they did! How can anyone be surprised at that twist, after seeing the short clip of Mr Longo describing the actions of the government agents and wherein Mrs Longo wiped fake tears from her fake eye-lashed eyes with her fake clawed hands while making sure to stay in the camera's field? I wish that all porno would be outlawed, and could be destroyed; it's destroying people's lives, on an industrial scale, and thus destroying our civilization. BUT, the Longos participation on OP is a separate matter from the abuse to which these government goons subjected them. Consider -- the goons had a warrant to search for and seize a squirrel and a raccoon ... and yet they spent five hours tearing those people's home apart. This is absurd; this is tyrannical.

===

Also, isn't it amazing that *this* governmental abuse is the one which "goes viral", while the daily ones -- such as releasing violent rapists and murderers onto society; such as facilitating the murders of millions of babies every year -- are met with a societal yawn?  What does that say about our society?  How can anyone be surprised that such an up-side-down society is committing suicide?

Keep in mind, this is the same State government which is currently prosecuting an innocent man for a charge of murder because his actions to protect the lives of a subway car full of other innocent people partially lead to the death of the mad druggie who was threatening them.  Keep in mind that the druggie seems still to have been alive when the "first responders" got there, but they didn't want to risk infection by trying to resuscitate him (*).  Keep in mind that there were *three* men who restrained the crazed druggie, but that only the white man is being prosecuted.

Keep in mind, this is the same State government which, according to Mr Longo, while being very concerned to verify the immigration status of his wife, ALSO releases violent illegal alien invaders onto the public.

(*) After I retired from a lifetime in IT, and until I couldn't take anymore of the Covid-19[84] bullshit, I took a very low-paying job ($10.60 per hour) driving wheel-chair bound people to their appointments. I -- with no particular professional training -- was expected to perform mouth-to-mouth resuscitation for these people, should the need arise, and to clean up any projectile vomiting that might occur (God be praised, I was spared both situations; though more than one passenger was delivered to me in a soiled state). AND, I wasn't permitted to know which of my passengers had AIDS (though, some were obvious).

Some online comments comment about Peanut and Fred --

=====

Government in a nutshell. Capricious, arbitrary, pointless, wasteful and dangerous exercise of state power.

=====

I hear all the "This generations Harambe".

I tell you, this is leagues worse. Harambe was a fully grown Gorilla in a stressful situation, and the kid was in genuine danger.

Peanuts was a squirrel barely the size of a house cat. He woudnt hurt anyone, even if he wanted to, and the raid was unwarranted (i dont care if they had a court ordered warrant, if the law does evil, the law is evil), not to mention all the agents swarming the place.

Harambe was a chain of accidents and bad decisions, Peanut and Fred were deliberate evil done by the state.

=====

Peanut's Story is the ultimate litmus test on whether or not you lick government boot. Peanut did not hurt anyone. In fact, he brought joy to thousands online. His owners took good care of him and he was neither physically abused nor malnourished. However, in New York State, it is technically illegal to own a squirrel as a domestic pet, especially without the proper licenses and permits allowing you to do so. As such despite the owners good intentions, they did break a series of laws, and if we are to live in a Trusted Society, we should apply proper punishments to those who do break laws. But now comes the question: Was the punishment that was given not only just, but appropriate and necessary? If not, what type of punishment should the owners have received? Should they have received one at all? What it really comes down to, is that Peanut's Story is total representation of the Anarcho-Tyranny that the Left wants across the West, wherein the State will ignore or even facilitate violent and lawless behavior by favored groups while cracking down with the full force of the armed law on irrelevant minor infractions by anyone else.

=====

"I have information that can lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton" - Peanut the Squirrel, the final message.

Peanut meme

There *IS* a Federal Interest in State Murder Law ... Including Regarding Abortion

 The following is a response I sent to Matt Christiansen, concerning his recent live-stream (which I viewed on YouTube) --
=====
In "MC Live 11/3/24" you argue that the federal government has no jurisdiction/interest in State murder laws.  Of course, in general, you are correct.  However, if a State's law regarding murder is in violation of the 14th Amendment, then the federal government does have an interest.

To use your "ridiculous" example (is it, really?), if a State were to de-criminalize any and all murder, then one might *legally* argue that the federal government has no interest or jurisdiction.  However, if a State were to de-criminalize the murder of blue-eyed persons, while retaining all sanctions against the murders of all other persons, than that is a direct violation of the 14th Amendment.

Similarly, if abortion is murder -- and it is -- then to de-criminalize the murders of persons who have not yet inhaled atmosphere, while maintaining the sanctions against the murders of those persons who have inhaled atmosphere, is also a direct violation of the 14th Amendment.
=====

Election-pocalypse, RIP Peanut the Squirrel, Biden Wants to Smack MAGA A$$ | MC Live 11/3/24

On "Denigrating Mary"

 "Why do Protestants denigrate the BLESSED MOTHER MARY?"

Dewd! Your question answers itself, if only you'd LOOK at what you're saying.

But, since you won't look-with-comprehension, I'll spell it out: Protestants "denigrate" Mary because you people insist upon trying to elevate her to *at least* the so-equal with Christ (i.e. calling her the "Co-Redemptrix"; calling her "The Queen of Heaven"; etc), if not his superior.

In other words, it's a matter of opposing idolatry.

Addendum:

When one prays to Mary, or to any other saint, one is ascribing to that mere human being -- who, by the way, is dead -- the divine attributes of omnipresence and omniscience.

Why do Protestants denigrate the BLESSED MOTHER MARY?

We Can't Fix the Problem If We're Not Allowed to Name It.

 I have no problem at all in assigning as much blame to "brave single mothers" as to their "baby daddies" (*).

And I have no problem at all in recognizing that second to the personal immorality for forcing an innocent baby to be a bastard, as noted above, is the perverse incentive that Welfare plays in fostering this plague upon our civilization.

Many years ago, I was acquainted (**) with a young black man whose mother had tossed him out on the streets as soon as he turned 18 and she could no longer collect a Welfare check to "care" for him. I am certain that had he been a daughter, his mother would have made sure that that daughter was pregnant while still a minor.

Now, certainly, there are white women who react in the same way to the perverse incentives that Welfare presents them. My point isn't about the race of the "brave single mothers"; my point is about the perverse and immoral incentives of Welfare.

(*) I case you don't know, "my baby daddy" is Ebonics for "my baby's daddy". And, also, in context, for "my babies' daddies".

(**) I met him a few times over several years, as my mother baby-sat his children the last several years of her life. I met his wife much more often.

Coulter Embarrasses Democrats! But Is She Right?

Big Organ Lost One

I've written about this phenomenon several times over the years. And this is why the human chop-shops frequently sedate the "corpses" they are about to break down for parts. I guess they forgot to do that this time.

This is why I oppose the transplanting of vital organs as being immoral:
- because the "donors" aren't always dead;
- because the body-chopper declaring that the "donor" is dead does not mean that he is actually dead;
- because hospitals are not in the business of saving lives and alleviating suffering, they are in the business of making money ... and there is a lot of money to be made in selling off the vital organs of "donors".

Dead Man Wakes Up as Doctors Prepare to Harvest His Organs

No Mercy Intended

 At one point during Christ's crucifixion, he says that he is thirsty, and a Roman soldier lifts a sponge soaked in vinegar to his lips, but Christ refuses it.  

A very common "explanation" for this tableau -- and one which I have long believed to be not merely mistaken but utterly false -- is that this was an act of kindness or mercy, the vinegar being offered to dull the horrible pain of the crucified victim, and that Christ refused it so as to fully experience taking upon himself the weight of mankind's sin.  But, this doesn't make sense; for the whole point of crucifixion was to kill the condemned by slow torture, with as much humiliation and horror as possible.

Here is what I believe to be what was really going on: the Roman soldier was offering Christ vinegar delivered on the Roman equivalent of toilet paper. In their public latrines, Romans wiped their asses with sponges on sticks. Christ refused it not because our salvation required him fully experience the horror, but because it was unclean.

Coincidentally, just before I started writing this post, I did a quick search and came across the following web-page, which argues for the same conclusion -- The Crucifixion Sponge: Adding Insult to Injury

About Those Lawns

 Recently, when asked *specifically* what she intended to do to "bring down prices and mak[e] life more affordable", Kamala "Sutra" Harris went into word-salad mode ... and never got close to answering the question.  As she meandered her way to no-where, she said that she "grew up in a neighborhood of folks who were very proud of their lawn ...".  What, you may wonder, is that all about?

What it's about is that she's trying to tell black "folks" that, "See! I'm just like you!"

Recall that Kamala "Sutra" Harris grew up in Canada, and has little to none of the "lived-experience" of black Americans.  BUT, she has heard of the old stereotype within "the black community" of the "lawn-proud" black man.  So, she's making reference to that stereotype to say to black "folks" that, "See! I'm just like you!" ... probably without realizing that the "lawn-proud" black man was a figure of both amusement and bemusement.

By the way, in the black neighborhood in which I grew up, only the very few white households (my family were the only white household with children for blocks around) had lawns.  The reason for this is that in the black households, the lady of the house *swept* the lawn with a broom on a daily basis.

EDIT (2024/09/02):

Isn't it odd that Kamala Sutra was raised in a middle-class neighborhood, where people were proud of their lawns, and simultaneously grew up living in an apartment above a "child-care center", with the business being owned by a woman who lived "two doors down [the hall]"?

Liberals ... and Speed Limits

Seen on the internet -- "Conservatives are just liberals doing the speed limit."

My response --

True enough in the cases of most people.

Meanwhile, "liberals" are just unprincipled leftists. That is, "liberals" are people who subscribe to leftist presuppositions, they just don't like some of the destinations logically entailed in those presuppositions. BUT, as they have no *principle* by which to reject the logic, and thus the entailed destination, they will always eventually fold when the open leftists demand it.

In the meantime. unless your proffered alternative to leftism is Jesus Christ, then you are also just another variant of leftist.

====

The late Andrew Breitbart famously said, "Politics is downstream of culture."

And, while that is true, it is incomplete. A more complete statement is expressed by my internet friend Kristor: "Politics is downstream of culture, and culture is downstream of cult." 'Cult' is not here a pejorative, as the word is commonly erroneously used in present-day English.

Or, as as (Calvinist) pastor and blogger, Douglas Wilson, points out: "There is always a god of the system." There is no such thing as metaphysical/religious neutrality (*); there is always some metaphysical underpinning of the social system, and which will be expressed in its politics. There are always blasphemy laws, but what is counted "sacred", and thus not to be blasphemed, depends upon the underlying metaphysics.

(*) The secularist promise of "religious neutrality" was a deliberate bait-and-switch lie. The goal was not "religious neutrality", which is impossible, but rather to disarm the general Christian(ish) populace long enough to install their anti-Christian metaphysics as the organizing principle of Western societies. It worked because most people were merely "cultural Christians", who wanted to enjoy the fruits of a Christian culture, while bulldozing the orchard.

Zeus ... and the 'atheist'

A recent thread on the 'Shadow to Light' blog ("Atheist Tries to Defend Atheist Talking Point") concerns the common attempt by 'atheists' to avoid actually making arguments, and actually defending their position, by (falsely) asserting that atheism is merely a "lack of belief in gods".

The commenter, MP, remarked, "For that matter, it can also be interesting to observe an atheist who has to deal with the fact that some Roman and Japanese emperors were considered to be gods. Given what atheists claim to believe, they would have to say that those emperors did not exist, as “there is no evidence for them”. Yet, somehow, that does not really happen…"

The commenter, TFBW, replied, "That raises the question, “what is a god?” What is the statement “Roman emperors were not gods” denying, exactly?"

After further comments by others, here is my attempt to comment on the sum of comments --

=========================
Even aside from the important, though almost always overlooked, point of nailing down just what an 'atheist' means by the word 'god', atheism offers 'atheists' no rational principle by which deny the reality either of Christ or of Zeus ... nor of any of the miracles recorded in the Bible.

Zeus, like the 'atheist', is an effect of "the universe". Zeus, like the 'atheist', is the off-spring of a previously existing living entity, and ultimately descends from an original living entity which "came alive", all by itself, from non-living matter; and which non-living matter ultimately "came into ordered being" (i.e "Cosmos"), all by itself, from non-ordered Chaos. And again, Zeus' rationality, like that of the 'atheist', is an effect of "the universe", and "arose" from non-rationality.

But, what of Zeus' "supernatural" nature? In that regard, too, the 'atheist' has no rational principle by which to reject the possibility that Zeus could "break the laws of nature", for "scientific atheism" denies that there are any "laws of nature" in the first place.

Please bear with me that I have quoted this before, but it is important -- in 'The Demon-Haunted World', Carl Sagan said:

"Consider this claim: as I walk along, time -as measured by my wristwatch or my ageing process -slows down. Also, I shrink in the direction of motion. Also, I get more massive. Who has ever witnessed such a thing? It's easy to dismiss it out of hand. Here's another: matter and antimatter are all the time, throughout the universe, being created from nothing. Here's a third: once in a very great while, your car will spontaneously ooze through the brick wall of your garage and be found the next morning on the street. They're all absurd! But the first is a statement of special relativity, and the other two are consequences of quantum mechanics (vacuum fluctuations and barrier tunnelling,* they're called). Like it or not, that's the way the world is. If you insist it's ridiculous, you'll be forever closed to some of the major findings on the rules that govern the Universe.

*The average waiting time per stochastic ooze is much longer than the age of the Universe since the Big Bang. But, however improbable, in principle it might happen tomorrow."

What this means, is that, according to 'Science!', anything at all might happen at any time at all without any cause at all. That is, despite passing mention of "rules that govern the Universe", Sagan is really saying that there are no "laws of nature" in the first place for Zeus (or YHWH) to "violate" when causing a "supernatural event", or a miracle, to occur.

According to the 'atheist', Zeus just happens to be a rational living being, like himself, who, like himself, ultimately "arose" from non-rational non-living matter, which self-organized from disorganization. The difference between Zeus and the 'atheist' is that Zeus is able, whether innately or via study, to manipulate to his advantage "some of the major findings on the rules [sic] that govern the Universe."
==============

This is the World That Women Demanded

To be more precise, the app in question is meant for lesbian "females".

Once again: "Men invading women's spaces" is the logical consequence of what women, and especially capital-L Lesbian women, have demanded for decades: that women, with government violence backing them up, be free to "invade men's spaces".

(The late) Phyllis Schlafly, and conservatives in general, *warned* you that "men invading women's spaces" would be the logical and inevitable consequence of ratifying the so-called "Equal Rights Amendment". Even though, thanks in large part to Mrs Schlafly, the ERA itself didn't get *officially* added to the text of the Constitution, leftist judges, bureaucrats and politicians have used the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as the vehicle by which to replace, in practice, the actual written Constitution with the spirit of the ERA.

If women want this sort of bullshit to end, *they* are going to have to repudiate feminism, in particular, and leftism, in general, root and branch.

A 'Trans Woman' Sued an App Meant for Females

A (Twisted) Nursery Rhyme for My Imaginary Children

If I'd had a son, I had planned to name him James Joseph (in Southern: Jimmy Joe!). Since twins run in both sides of my family, if there had been a twin, he'd have been Joseph James (in Southern: Joe Jim!). This would have named them after my father, his father, and his father.  Rather than referring to them non-specifically as "Twin", as my brother and I did to our sisters until they insisted we call them by name, either boy, or both at once, would be "JJ".

If I'd had a daughter, I had planned to name her Rachael Marie, thus naming her after my mother, her grandmother, my grandfather's sister, and a not-quite-grandmother who lived with us until her death. A twin would have been Sarah Marie; there are no Sarahs in the family that I know of.  Any daughter, no matter how many, would have had Marie as a middle name (as all my nieces do).

So, here is the (twisted) nursery rhyme:

Hush, little baby, If you don't cry,
I promise to smack you bye and bye,
Or maybe I'll turn you into a pie,
We'll have such fun if you don't cry.

Passion ... and Gravitas

Most politicians (of any party), when they try to give "passionate" speeches, just end up sounding hollow and shrill; especially the women. Lord, spare me having to listen to female politicians!

But this year's Democrats, of both alleged sexes, seem to have *practiced* sounding hollow and shrill. And bombastic; to say nothing of dishonest.

Saturday's Child

I noticed that my upcoming birthday is on a Saturday. I thought I recalled that I was born on a Saturday, so I looked it up. Sure enough, I'm a "Saturday's child". According to the old rhyme, "Saturday's child works hard for a living." But, truth be told, I never had to work particularly hard for my living.

About "Price-Gauging"

The puppet-masters of That Empty Vessel, Kaaamala (*) Sutra (**), recently instructed her that her policy will be to enact a federal law against "price-gauging", as she mispronounced the phrase.  Presumably, her TelePrompTer did have "price-gouging" written, but she, being as empty and vapid as she is, and perhaps not having been verbally informed as to what she would be fulminating against, could get no closer to the word "gouging" than to say "gauging".

Weird.

Still, my purpose here isn't to hammer on Kaaamala Sutra, but rather to demolish the concept of "price-gouging" itself -- to wit: I wish Gentle Reader to understand that there is no such thing as "price-gouging". The idea (and assertion) of "price-gouging" is founded upon a number of lies and hypocrisies. I'll try to elucidate these (with no guarantee that I've uncovered them all):

1) There is an objectively "right" price for a good or service: But, in fact, the only "right" price for a good or service is what someone else is willing to pay for it.  This "right" price" is both subjective and situational; it is subjective in that the persons who comprise the potential market for it will value it higher or lower in relation to other goods and services which they also desire; it is situational in that markets may change, both with respect to place and to time.

Consider: In the 19th century, before the invention of kerosene, the wealthier people lit their homes with lamps burning whale oil and/or candles made of whale oil.  There was an entire industry, centered in coastal New England, which sent thousands of men out onto the global oceans to "harvest" sperm whales to acquire this oil. The oil had a price -- based as all prices are, on the demand and the supply, and which varied over time as demand rose and supply fell. Yet, today, a century and a half later? Today, whale oil is both worthless and priceless: it is worthless in that there is no demand for it; it is priceless in that were there some eccentric individual who wanted whale oil to light his home, he would have to, in essence, rebuild that industry with his own effort and/or wealth.

2) There is some bureaucrat, somewhere, who, while knowing nothing about anyone else's life-circumstance, is competent to determine what the "right" price is for any good or service: This one is so absurd that I don't believe I need say more about it. I list it here for the sake of bringing it to Gentle Reader's attention.

3) It is "immoral" to offer a good or service for more than its "right" price: The corollary of this is, of course, that it is "immoral" to try to buy a good or service for less than its "right" price. We all know that no one who asserts the first will also assert the second, and certainly not with respect to his own desire to get a good or service as cheaply as he might.

4) "It's OK when I do it": This is related to 3) above; of those persons who whinge and fulminate about "price-gouging", there is not one person in one hundred who will not "price-gouge" in his turn should the opportunity arise.  The most prosaic example might be something like buying a house for $40,000 in 1980 and, having lived in it for 44 years (***), offering it for sale in 2024 for $250,000.

5) And, whatever other lies and hypocrisies I may have missed, the ultimate lie upon which the idea (and assertion) of "price-gouging" is based is: "I deserve to live by the sweat of your brow."

(*) Don't you dare pronounce her name according to the normal stress and cadence of the English language, you raycisss!

(**) I wish to pay homage both to her ethnic heritage and to her "political" skills.

(***) BY THE WAY, since at least the Clinton years, the Democrats have dreampt of taxing homeowners for the "unrealized capital-gains" which accrue to them by virtue of not paying rent.  After all, how unfair is it that Person A pays rent for 44 years, and ends up owning nothing, while Person B pays a mortgage for 30 years and ends up owning a house which he might be able to sell for $250,000?!!!

And, they're openly at it again.

This is true in all years, but especially in this year: Vote Democrat at your own peril.

About "Folks"

It's political season (when isn't it, anymore?), which means that the political class and its wannabes are out there trying to convince the rest of us of how "folksy" they are.  One of their main tools -- and most inauthentic and least "folksy" means -- to try to convince us of their "folksiness" is to use the word "folks" where other people say "people".

When normal people use "folks", they are referring to a person's family, and specifically one's parents. Normal people with Southern roots may use "folk" (singular) to refer to one's wider family and/or to a wider "kith and kin".

But, normal people do not use "folks" as the collective of "persons".

My rule of thumb on "folks" is that people who use "folks" in this unnatural manner are trying to deceive me in some way, even if its only to fool me into thinking that they "relate" to me.

About Stephen Fry's Tirade Against God

(This is a response I made to a recent post at) Shadow To Light: "As for the argument from Evil, that collapses into the childish demand insisting we would all be happy, dancing Teletubbies if God existed. Essentially, when it comes to evil, the atheist is like a child who is forever mad because Santa does not exist. Because, according to the atheist, if God existed, he would be just like Santa."

Consider Stephen Fry's notorious hypocritical, and ultimately self-refuting, rant against God.

He starts out @:22 mark: "I'd say [to God], 'Bone cancer in children? What's that about?'" He says @1:28 mark: "Yes, the world is very splendid, but it also has in it insects, whose whole life-cycle is to burrow into the eyes of children and make them blind. It eats outward from the eyes. Why? Why did you do that? You could easily have made a Creation in which that did not exist." Now, this tender solicitude for the sufferings of children is intellectually dishonest and hypocritical, for he is pro-abortion. And, it's an example of Our Host's observation that 'atheists' insist that God is obligated to create us as Teletubbies.

He says @:27 mark: "How dare you! How dare you create a world in which there is such misery which is not our fault?" So -- for the moment -- distinguishing between "natural evil" and "moral evil". But, @:35, he collapses the distinction: "Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a world which is so full of injustice and pain?"

@1:50 mark, he contradicts Ricky Gervais' assertion that atheism is "simply the rejection of the claim that there are any gods" -- "So, you know, atheism is not just about not believing there is a God, but, on the assumption there is one, what kind of God is he?"

This tirade is self-refuting, because the only ground upon which he can stand as he levels his moral condemnations against God is by first affirming the proposition that "God Is". For, IF "God is Not", THEN there is no "way things out to be," and there is nothing evil, much less immoral, about bone cancer in children or insects which blind children.

'Atheists' love to pretend that the emotional "Argument from Pain" is a slam-dunk refutation of God, but their only "solution" to the problem or suffering is to deny that there even is a problem.

Communism Defined in One Sentence

Paul Kegnor (quoting Marx and Engels): "The entire communist theory or programme may be summed up in the single sentence (four words): 'Abolition of private property.'"

Here is my one-sentence summary of socialism, in general, and communism, in particular: "I deserve to live by the sweat of your brow."

===

Now, if one has a basic understanding of human nature, if one has a basic understanding of human history, then one sees at once that there is nothing new about socialism/communism: living by the sweat of someone else's brow is the second oldest game in the book; the oldest being murderous envy, in the manner of Cain.

When the thief burgles your home (and in the process frequently destroying more wealth than he steals), the motivation is: "I deserve to live by the sweat of your brow."

When a tribe/clan raids the neighboring tribe/clan, the motivation is: "I deserve to live by the sweat of your brow."

When the slave-raider enslaves the village (and in the process frequently killing more human beings than he delivers to the slave-market), the motivation is: "I deserve to live by the sweat of your brow."

When the strong-man sets himself up as the petty-king over his neighbors, the motivation is: "I deserve to live by the sweat of your brow."

When a feudal lordling invades the holdings of a neighboring lordling, the motivation is: "I deserve to live by the sweat of your brow."

When the alliance of 'capital' and 'labor' organize to demand government force and violence be used to "motivate" the subjects of that government to buy their more expensive domestic product rather that a less expensive foreign product, the motivation is: "I deserve to live by the sweat of your brow."

When the politician promises to subsidize his supporters' lives by confiscating the fruit of the labor of their fellows, the motivation of both the politician and his supporter is: "I deserve to live by the sweat of your brow."

When the leftist demands the overthrow of capitalism and the abolition of private property, the motivation is: "I deserve to live by the sweat of your brow."

=====

In striking contrast to most of human history and social organization, under capitalism -- and 'capitalism' is merely the inevitable consequence of morality and freedom-under-law -- the motivation is: "I deserve to earn my living by serving you."  

Under capitalism, honest-and-moral people earn their livings by mutually serving one another -- capitalism performs a moral jujitsu move on innate human greed and selfishness, turning the serving of others into one's own self-interest, and thereby fostering a moral and humane society in which greed and selfishness are shortsighted and counter-productive.  And this is why leftists hate capitalism so fervently: it's not merely that they are lazy, and don't want to productively work in the first place; and it's not merely that they want to live off the labor of other people; it's that they don't want to serve other people. 

Sometimes, 'Language' is Wholly Appropriate

Warning: In this post, I am going to use some crude, vulgar, and indeed, foul, language.  And the reason I'm going to do so is that it's appropriate to the goal of this post -- to help you to viscerally reject using a certain word which most Americans, even Christians, have been indoctrinated over the past 30-40 years to view as just innocent fun: 'hot', in the sense taught us by that pathetic slut, Paris Hilton.

Recently, I chanced to listen to some podcasts by a YouTuber (whom I won't identify, other than to say that he's an East Coast politician).  He's a Christian, and he displays a genuine heart for the young men growing up adrift in this feminism-controlled and feminized (*) age, without real manly examples on which to model themselves.

BUT: he uses the Paris Hilton sense of 'hot', he refers to his wife as "smokin' hot!"

You, Gentle Reader, know exactly what 'hot' means in this sense, though some of you will deny that it means what it means and that you know exactly what it means.  'Hot' does not mean 'lovely/lovable' nor 'beautiful/handsome' nor anything along such innocent lines.  'Hot' doesn't even mean something as crude/crass as 'sexy'; it's worse than that: it means 'fuckable'.

If you imagine you can deny that 'hot'  means 'fuckable', consider this hypothetical: Suppose that you are a father; and suppose that you have a young daughter, 3-4 years old; and suppose that every day when you come home from work, she excitedly bursts out of the house to greet you as quickly as possible; and suppose, as doting fathers have done for thousands of yours, you pick her up and twirl her around, and say, "How's my hot little girl!"

You would *never* do such a thing, because you know *exactly* what 'hot' means.  If some other man were to remark that your little daughter is lovely or beautiful, you'd beam with pride. If that same man were to remark on how 'hot' she is, you'd consider murder -- because you know *exactly* what 'hot' means.

So, back to the podcaster referring to his wife as "smokin' hot!" -- while he may not want to acknowledge it, he is inviting other men to consider his wife as little more than a walking 'pussy', to be fucked and discarded at whim.  No respectable man, and certainly no Christian, would ever invite other men to think of any woman he loves and respects in such a manner.

To publicly refer to your wife as 'hot' is to treat her as disrespectfully and dishonorably as King Ahasuerus treated Queen Vashti, when he commanded her to display herself to his drunken friends (see the Book of Esther).

(*) Most American men, especially the ones a generation or more younger than I, have the mindsets of junior-high girls: that's why they decorate their bodies with tattoos -- "Look at me! Pay attention to me!  See how I've decorated myself!" In contrast, a man seeks attention or status by his deed, by what he has built, by what he has accomplished.

On "A Medical Procedure to Terminate a Pregnancy"

Have you noticed that the Democrats and other leftists have taken to characterizing abortion as "a medical procedure to terminate a pregnancy"?

No. This won't do. Birth might be called "a medical procedure which terminates a pregnancy", but abortion terminates a human life: the whole point of an abortion is the dead baby.

Sometimes, Impatience Works Out OK

 A few weeks ago, I bought several pounds of peaches at Meijer's for less than $1.00 per pound.  My thought was to can them as sliced peaches.

However ... I got impatient when blanching them (to remove the skin). On the second batch, I didn't let the water get hot enough before I dropped in the peaches. So, of course, the skins didn't come off.  I tried again and again on that batch, and never got it right.  By the time I gave up on blanching that batch, and just pealed them (which wastes a lot of the flesh of the peaches), the seeds themselves were warm. 

And, because peeling peaches really butchers the fruit, I wasn't getting nice, attractive slices.  So, I decided that instead of canning the peaches as slices, I'd make a peach version of applesauce or apple butter.  And again, impatience hit.  It was getting toward evening, and I didn't want to leave the peach puree simmering in the crock-pot over night, so I canned it while it was still too runny.

However ... the result is so good: it's like the "peach nectar" we were sometimes served in grade school, but thicker/pulpier.  I had sprinkled in some cinnamon, nutmeg and allspice (*), which does make a nice addition to the natural peach flavor.  I wish I could share it with you, it's to tasty.

I liked the result so much that I bought more peaches to do it on purpose.  On the second go, I didn't even bother removing the skins; I decided to see whether the immersion-blender would puree the skins after the peaches had cooked down. It was a success.

I also canned a few quarts of mixed apples and peaches.

(*) I've never bought -- or used -- any of those seasonings, myself. I "inherited" these containers from my mother back in 1988, and had never used them.

This picture is of some Asian lilies which used to grow near the front door.  But, after a doe and her yearly fawns made my yard their home-base, they kept eating the plants.  Before the deer killed the plants entirely, I moved the bulbs to the fenced-in garden, and they have finally recovered.  These things are 7-feet tall!

Speaking of deer -- the other morning when I went out to see whether the groundhog who keeps trying to get under the fence into the garden had managed to do so overnight (as it turns out, he tries several times per day during the daylight hours), this year's twin fawns were near the garden. I didn't notice them at first.  As I was pulling weeds, they came over to investigate me.  I heard/saw them and stood up.  I motioned with my hands to the braver one to come closer ... and it did, a couple of times. But, finally, the more timid one spooked and took the courage of the less timid one with it.  The fawn *seemed* to want to come closer to me, it was practically frolicking. 

And, speaking of that groundhog -- the other day, when I went out to check on his latest attempt to get under the fence, he was at that very moment so intent on getting under the fence that he didn't notice me until I was just a few feet away. And, as I hadn't yet cut back the herbs growing at the base of the fence, I didn't notice him until he spooked.

These next two pictures are of opposite ends of a bed beside/above the driveway which had gotten out of control when I worked out-of-town.  This is *after*  I cleaned it out the overgrowth (and poison ivy). I now need to rebuild the retaining wall. That's a good 30 feet from the garage around to the sidewalk, and another 20 feet past the sidewalk.

The first phase of rebuilding that retaining wall is to build some steps from the driveway up to the yard (and giving access to that side porch).  I just finished the steps today. It was like putting together a 3-D jigsaw puzzle ... but the pieces don't have pictures on them, and they are from several different puzzles. But, I'm pretty satisfied with the result:

This last picture shows the retaining wall from the new steps toward the sidewalk.  Those stones on the driveway are not from the retaining wall, but some of them will end up in it.  These are the rejected candidates for the new steps.

UPDATE (2024/07/20): Today, I got that groundhog which had been getting into my garden: stabbed him with a potato fork.

A couple of days after I first wrote this post, he finally found a place where he could dig under the fence.  So, I spent a day digging out the soil on the outside of the fence along that side, and buried lengths of cement-board siding just below the fence (**). Of course, there were still other sides of the fence where I can't dig up on either side of the fence without killing plants.

This fellow was stubborn ... and really pissed off that he couldn't get into the garden as he had before. For several days, he tried digging all along that side of the fence: he'd toss out most of the soil, I'd put it back, and he'd do it again. Then he tried the areas where in the spring I had buried cement-board on the inside of the fence.  Finally, he moved to the side with no cement-board below ground (I had planted this area before I thought of the cement-board solution).

For the past several days, he had been getting into the garden and eating my plants.  It's possible that he even climbed the fence to get in.

He was in the garden when I left for the hardware store earlier today. He was still in the garden when I got back, though I didn't realize that until after I had filled in the hole he'd dug at the corner of the fence.  So, I got the potato fork and gingerly went after him ... and, much to my surprise (and delight), he cooperated with me and let me spear him.

(**) ,,, on the outside of the wood "skirting" at ground level. Due to the fence-posts being on the outside of the "skirting", it's not a snug fit.  In the fall, I plan to move these cement-boards to the inside of the fencing

The Incoherence of Anti-anti-abortionism

I'm not "pro-life" -- that designation is the sort of "non-judgmental" pap cooked up on Madison Ave to appeal to a certain sort of woman -- I'm anti-murder, and thus I'm anti-abortion.

Earlier today, Jeremy at "The Quartering" uploaded a YouTube video in which he expresses his dismay, and even revulsion, about a recent trend on TikTok of "celebrating" the baby-murders one has commissioned.

Now, Jeremy's problem (as with Megyn Kelly) is wanting to have it both ways: wanting abortion to be "safe, legal, and rare" as the utterly immoral Clintons formulated it. But, this is incoherent, it is self-contradictory.

If an abortion is the murder of a helpless and innocent human being (and it is), then only a demon wants it to be "safe, legal"; and a moral person wants abortion to be not merely "rare" but illegal and prosecuted and punished, just as with any other method of murder.

But, if an abortion is of no more moral consequence than an appendectomy, then "safe, legal, and rare" is still incoherent and self-contradictory. Now, of a truth, all moral persons want appendectomies to be "safe, legal", but ""rare"!? No, a moral person wants appendectomies to be as numerous as they need to be.

I have had an inguinal hernia repaired, as had my father and also a great-nephew; I have had an appendectomy, as has one sister. The other sister has had her gall bladder removed, as had our mother.  Certainly, it would be odd and strange were any of us to be talking about these surgeries for no specific and relevant reason, much less to be boasting about them. But, would it really be "creepy"? Would these surgeries really be something to be ashamed of?  Of course not! They have no moral content of themselves. In contrast, and except for the super-rare case of "saving the life of the mother", abortion *is* immoral, utterly and always; for the *point* of all abortions except that super-rare case is to kill a baby.

The flood of lawlessness and degeneracy which is destroying America has many streams feeding it; two of the most important are: the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Abortion Regime.  Either of those alone would have been enough to destroy the nation within just a generation or two -- and remember, both of those were set up within the lifetimes of millions of Americans now living. Do you *really* think that things can go on as they are for another 50 or 60 years?

It is not that "God is Gonna Get Us Because of Drag-Queen Story Hour", rather, Drag Queen Story Hour -- the deliberate grooming of children (*) into sexual perversion -- and much horror beside, IS the judgement of God upon this nation for its rejection of true morality and true law.

(*) You may have noticed that Drag Queen Story Hour is never held at Ye Olde Folkes Home.

The Quartering: "TikTok Abortion Vlogs Are Now A Popular Thing"

Matt Christiansen: "Whistleblower on Teen Gender Transitions, AZ Abortion Ban"

When is a "Deadbeat Parent" Not a "Deadbeat Parent"?

... when she is the "non-custodial parent" who isn't making the ordered child-support payments to the "custodial parent".

Do listen to the linked video.

Personal Anecdote: Back in 2000-2001, I worked as a contractor for the Ohio "Dept of Job and Family Services" -- it was an "open secret" that the "child support" collection/enforcement division was charging the "non-custodial parents" (i.e. fathers, almost always) a "service charge" (called "poundage") even though it was against federal law at the time to do so. When the State of Ohio was finally prosecuted for breaking the law on the matter, the recently installed top bureaucrat of the "Dept of Job and Family Services" took the fall ... even though Gov. Taft knew about this illegality the whole time.

Also, and as stated at some point in this video, it was common knowledge that among those few instances in which "child support" was ordered to be paid by the mother to the father, the incidence of "dead-beat mothers" was significantly higher than that of "dead-beat fathers".

You never hear about "deadbeat mothers" in the media, do you?

If you want to learn more about how it is government policy to destroy the lives of fathers, look up "Duluth Protocol".

Podcast of the Lotus Eaters: How American Family Courts Destroy Fathers’ Lives

When is a Person Not a Person?

 ... when the Powers That Be do not wish that person to be treated in law as a person.

Quote from linked YT video: =="Abortion (like a Clinton witness' cause of death) is homicide. And *like* homicide, it's a matter for the States to prosecute (ahem, unlike the Clintons)."==

Indeed, abortion *is* homicide, and like other acts of homicide, it is for the States to prosecute.

Yet, there is the 14th Amendment to the Federal Constitution, which states that: =="No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."==

Now, imagine that some State were to enact a law to deny some class of persons "the equal protection of the laws". Say, for instance, that New York State, whether by explicit statute or by prosecutorial action in some instances and inaction in other instances, were to deny "straight white males" having "the equal protection of the laws": Say, if a "straight white male" were to kill a black person while in the act of protecting other persons in public from the violent threats of that black person, the killing were to be prosecuted as murder, yet at the same time, some "persons of color" who assisted that "straight white male" in subduing the now-deceased violent black person were not prosecuted at all.

How, one might ask, could such a thing happen, even hypothetically? Why, in practice, it does happen in the very same way that abortion -- murder of pre-born (and sometimes in Current Year post-birth) babies -- is winked at: by denying the personhood of the persons whom powerful political interests wish to exclude from "the equal protection of the laws."

=====
Isn't it odd that when the Democratic Party were explicitly (*) the party of slavery, even they didn't go so far as their intellectual descendants do with respect to the murder of babies? The Democrats of 1860 didn't deny that slaves were persons, they merely denied that slaves were citizens. -- even in the deepest of the Old South, killing a slave could get one prosecuted for murder.

(*) In Current Year, the Democrats are implicitly the party of slavery -- the Democrats *never* gave up on wanting to enslave some persons: all that changes is the who and the whom.

The Rageaholic: Arizona BOOFS Baby Murder - Razör Rants

=====

EDIT (2024/04/14): I much doubt that Tim Pool reads this dusty little blog. Nonetheless, he recently had a segment in which he brings up the conflict I pointed out above between the 14th Amendment and abortion.

IF a pre-born human being is a person (and they are), THEN abortion is murder (and it is), AND thus the US Constitution *requires* the States to prosecute for murder: the abortionist, the abortionist's aides and office workers and financiers and any other persons connected to the abortion-mill, the woman who contracted the murder, and any persons who aided in the procuring of the murder.

BUT, IF a pre-born human being is NOT a person, THEN it is irrational and indeed unconstitutional to prosecute a person who murders a pregnant woman for *two* murders. In fact, IF a pre-born human being is NOT a person, THEN it is irrational and indeed unconstitutional to even prosecute a person who causes a pregnant woman to miscarriage.

TimcastIRL: SCOTUS Must Rule On 14th Amendment For Abortion, Otherwise CIVIL WAR

On Cat-Calling

There is a certain class of woman who is always bitching that men are always cat-calling her ... her specifically -- this sort always claim that *they* get cat-called constantly.

I don't recall how, but somehow this subject came up last week when one of my sisters was visiting. Now, I've never cat-called anyone, nor have I ever seen anyone cat-called. Well, other than myself (*); I've been cat-called more than once in my life. My sister has also witnessed men being cat-called by women.

Sure, it's true that I have lived most on my 66 years in smallish towns in Indiana and Ohio. Years ago, for work, I had spent at least a week at a time in NYC/Newark, Boston, Atlantic City, Chicago, and KC. Perhaps had I spent more time in these major cities, I might have finally seen a woman being cat-called.

(*) EDIT: I spoke too soon. When I was in college, I was home for a spell while the roof was being replaced. The (trashy) women in the house next door were cat-calling, and worse, at some of the men up on our roof, especially one who was a good-looking blond. One of these women came outside in her bra and underwear and called up to the blond, "Does it bother you to see me like this?" Thank God they moved or were evicted soon after that.

On "Christ Is King" is Anti-Semitic

My take on the Daily Wire / Candace Owens "Saying 'Christ Is King is anti-Semitic" brouhaha --

Shorter version: "A pox on both their houses!"

Longer version:

I think that Candace Owens is a grifter. EDIT (as I wasn't clear on this): I do believe that Candace Owens was attempting a more genteel version of what Fani Willis did in standing in the pulpit of that (black-church) and trying to wrap herself in the Bible and in the cloak of martyrdom.

I think that Ben Shapiro and Jeremy Boreing are grifters.

I think that Matt Walsh has auctioned off his balls to DW. EDIT: Of course, he had that stupid tattoo (seeking recognition by decorating your body with "art" reflects an immature, and decidedly non-manly, mindset) even before he joined DW, so there is that.

I think that Michael Knowles too much plays the "Isn't it cute how I intentionally give off this ghey-vibe, even though I'm not. Tee-hee!" card.

I think that Andrew Klavan doesn't understand the Christianity he professes to embrace: it's one thing to love your son who has made the perverse things he does with his dick into his identity, it's quite another thing to joke about it as though it is no big deal, as though there were no eternal consequence to treating any sin as one's identity.

I think that the purpose of Daily Wire is:

1) to hoover up money from "conservative-ish" people into the pockets of Shapiro and Boreing;

2) (and, as with Dave Rubin) to act as a fifth-columnist to insinuate the Ghey Agenda into conservatism.

=====

On the "Jew thing" --

As I have mentioned more than once, I am a Christian, and I have Jewish ancestry. Specifically, my paternal grandmother's grandmother was a Jew. My Jewish great-great-grandmother's first husband was also a Jew, and they had Jewish children. After she was widowed, she married my non-Jewish great-great-grandfather, and they had children, their son being my grandmother's father.. Also, one of the Jewish descendants of my Jewish great-great-grandmother married my paternal grandfather's non-Jewish half-sister. Mind you, this was in the rural South -- everyone amongst my father's "people" (i.e. kith and kin) knew these things about our family.

I tell you those things because:

1) I am in no wise ashamed to have Jewish ancestry;

2) to give the anti-Christian Jew-haters the excuse they need to play the "Motivation Game" about my philo-Semitism;

3) to inform the Christianity-hating leftist-atheists-with-Jewish-grandmothers that I don't give a damn about the accusations they will inevitably toss at me.

SO --

Jesus of Nazareth claimed to be God-Among-Us. This claim is true, or it is false.

Jesus of Nazareth claimed that "No man comes to the Father, but by me." This claim is true, or it is false.

Now, if these claims are false, then:

1) according to the New Testament, my faith in Jesus is worthless, and I am still trapped in my sin;

2) according to the Old Testament, I am an idolater, or worse.

But, if these claims are true, then:

1) persons who *actively* reject Jesus *as* Christ are almost certainly still trapped in their sin (*);

2) persons who *actively* work to prevent others from accepting Jesus *as* Christ are assuredly still trapped in their sin. This applies to almost every Rabbi (**), for the main concern of most Rabbis is to keep their flocks ignorant about and fearing Christ (***).

(*) To say that "No man comes to the Father, but by me" is not the same as to say "No man comes to the Father, but by joining a human bureaucracy". What I mean is that Christ's own words inform us that some people who claimed to be Christians will be among the Damned, and that some people who did not claim to be Christians will be among the Redeemed.

(**) A person of Jewish ancestry can be a Buddhist -- no problem, the Rabbis still accept him as a Jew.

A person of Jewish ancestry can be wholly indifferent to the reality of God -- no problem, the Rabbis still accept him as a Jew.

A person of Jewish ancestry can be a demon-dabbling occultist -- no problem, the Rabbis still accept him as a Jew.

A person of Jewish ancestry can be a pornographer -- no problem, the Rabbis still accept him as a Jew.

A person of Jewish ancestry can be a rabid, fire-breathing, Judaism-hating atheist -- no problem, the Rabbis still accept him as a Jew.

But, let a person of Jewish ancestry be a Christian -- Whoa! That is a bridge too far!.

(***) A certain sort of "Jew" -- typically, they are leftist atheists, and they claim Jewishness only for the "victim points" -- like to gas on about the Jews being forced into ghettos in European cities. BUT, the truth is that it was the Jewish leaders themselves who demanded the setting aside of ghettos when they negotiated with non-Jewish rulers and magnates to establish a new Jewish settlement in one of the cities they ruled. And the day-to-day reason -- which is to say, the most important reason -- that the Jewish leaders wanted to segregate their fellow "common" Jews from the "common" Christians is that Christianity has always been appealing to Jews who want their worship of God to be deeper than ritual.