Search This Blog

Thursday, January 31, 2019

What's After Infanticide?

KTCat: What's After Infanticide?
"... isn't the right question. The right question is: What isn't?

Continue reading ...

Saturday, January 12, 2019

Jobs ... and Jobs!

Concerning the "jobs" temporarily furloughed by the government "shutdown" --

All jobs, everywhwere in the world, either generate wealth or consume wealth. Some jobs directly generate wealth. Some jobs merely consume -- destroy -- wealth created elsewhere. And some jobs (such as the ones I have often had) themselves directly consume wealth, but yet are still net wealth *preservers* because they make wealth-generating jobs more efficient or prevent loss (wealth-destruction) elsewhere.

Some jobs which merely consume wealth are nonetheless necessary.

There is no government job, anywhere in the world, which directly generates wealth. So, the two-fold question about any government jobs is:
1) "Does it preserve more wealth than it consumes?"
2) "If it merely consumes wealth, is it nonetheless necessary?"

Continue reading ...

Thursday, January 3, 2019

I *told* you is was coming soon to a city near you

Jihad Watch: New York City: Muslim Community Patrol now patrolling Muslim neighborhoods which references this -- New York Post: New York Muslims have a new security patrol group

Continue reading ...

Monday, December 17, 2018

The Same Coin ... and Change!

Men insisting that they are women -- and using the power of the state to compel the rest of us to pretend as much -- is just the other side of the coin of feminism, which teaches women to insist that they are men -- and to use the power of the state to compel the rest of us to pretend as much.

This

and this

is just the other side of this

==================
Edit 2018/12/30:
Rather than directly link to two recent videos of SJWs in action, I direct Gentle Reader to Shadow to Light: Social Justice Temper Tantrums

Continue reading ...

Friday, November 30, 2018

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.


Continue reading ...

Wednesday, November 28, 2018

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.

Continue reading ...

Thursday, November 8, 2018

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".

Continue reading ...

Monday, October 22, 2018

Sovereignty ... or Not!

FrontPage Mag: THE MIGRANT CARAVAN INVASION

In typical leftist fashion, the leftists and Democrats (but I repeat myself) are using these people's *lives* as fodder for their political agendas of:
1) destroying the Trump Administration in the short-term; and,
2) destroying the USA in the longer-term. As they imagine it, they win no matter what happens.

There are really only two possible responses to this invasion, with three possible outcomes, the first two of which are "wins" for the leftists; the leftists and Democrats have convinced themselves that the third possible outcome cannot happen --

1) The Administration huffs and puffs, and the "migrants" call their bluff, and because it was nothing but huffing and puffing, the Administration does nothing to protect and enforce the sovereignty of the USA; the "migrants" continue their invasion.

The upshot of this is that *as a practical matter* the USA ceases to exist as a sovereign state -- a "win" for the leftists -- and, baring a successful War of Independence 2.0 by the American people themselves, we are swamped by further foreign invasion, until we no longer exist as a people.

2) The Administration is serious about protecting and enforcing the sovereignty of the USA, and so uses lethal force to stop this invasion -- killing as many of the invaders as necessary, irrespective of sex or age; the leftists and Democrats cry crocodile tears over the deaths of people they *intentionally* set up to be killed.

2a) If this is what happens, the Democrats believe that can parley those deaths into mass domestic outrage at the "crime" of killing "defenseless" invaders, and thus bring down the Trump Administration. If they are successful, this also spells the end of the USA, just slower that in scenario 1).

--- The (sub) scenario which the leftists and Democrats believe will not happen is this:

2b) The leftists and Democrats cry their crocodile tears over the deaths of people they *intentionally* set up to be killed ... and, rather than stirring outrage at our own government, the American People reply: "Go to Hell, Commies!" If this (sub) scenario plays out, America may yet survive.

Continue reading ...

Saturday, October 20, 2018

That Guy, Over There!

When you think about it, the Democrats have *always* been the party of "If you vote to give me control of the government, I'll use governmental force-and-violence to take the wealth of that guy over there and give it to you", on the one hand, and "If you promise to use governmental force-and-violence to take the wealth of that guy over there and give it to me, I'll vote to give you control of the government", on the other.

The mordantly amusing thing about Democrat voters is that they *never* figure out that *they* are some other Democrat voter's "that guy over there".

Continue reading ...

Friday, October 12, 2018

The Senate ... and The Constitution!

O.M.G. ... the US Constitution *forbids* an Amendment to create "proportional representation" in the Senate.

One may recall that the one of the drums the leftists are pounding is about how "unfair" and "undemocratic" it is that North Dakota has equal weight in the Senate with California and New York; and that they seem to imagine that they can "fix" this "problem" by decree. To which many on the right have responded to the effect that, "No, you can't do it by decree ... but you're welcome to try to amend the Constitution to get the result you desire."

Well, it turns out that the US Constitution forbids such an amendment --

ARTICLE V: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Again: "The Congress ... [may] propose Amendments to this Constitution, ... Provided ...that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate"

So, it wouldn't be enough that California and New York might agree to deprive North Dakota of its equal vote in the Senate; North Dakota would have to explicitly agree to deprive itself of this fundamental equality as a Sovereign State of the Union.

h/t Francis W. Porretto at Liberty's Torch
The presence of that clause in Article V, the Amendment Article, excludes the equal representation of the [S]tates in the Senate from the possibility of amendment. This is beyond dispute. The Senate, in other words, was created to guarantee that each [S]tate would have a voice in the Senate equal to any other [S]tate. The electoral system for choosing a president reinforces this oft-neglected aspect of the Constitution: it was intended to protect the small [S]tates from abuses perpetrated by the large ones.

The phrase “checks and balances” should come to mind at this point. My Gentle Readers have no doubt been muttering that phrase for some time already. Lesser intellects might consider suing their civics teachers.

The Framers knew full well what they were doing. The very last passage of the Constitution emphasizes the importance of the [S]tates as elements in the Constitutional design:
ARTICLE VII: The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.
The Constitution was conceived and ratified as a compact among the [S]tates. The [S]tates retained nearly complete internal sovereignty. Their equal representation in the Senate was intended, in part, to preserve that sovereignty, the exclusions in Article I, Section 10 being the sole exceptions. This aspect of the Constitution’s design is sometimes cited as an argument for a [S]tate’s power to nullify federal laws on the grounds of federal overreach.

The federal government has done many unConstitutional and extra-Constitutional things since the Wilson Administration. Some of them have been undeniable encroachments on [S]tate sovereignty. (Where, for example, is Congress given the power to legislate a federal penal code? But that’s a subject for another day.) This latest talk - of amending a part of the Constitution explicitly protected against amendment! - merely indicates how far Americans’ knowledge of the deliberately designed-in features of our Union has slipped.

ps: Repeal the 17th Amendment!


Continue reading ...