Living in the past

The other day, I happened to read some article (as I recall, it was a publication, not merely a blog post) in which some hypocritical "liberal" (that's a redundancy, isn't it?) opined about Paula Deen's persecution that she is "living in the past".

And, you know, maybe she is ... if she expected fairness and justice from her fellow "liberal" sock-puppets of the leftists.

Anyway, I can't find the article I'd read, but I did find this Facebook comment, which has the virtue of expressing its irrationality in a few sentences, rather than taking many hundreds of words to assert the same thing. Here is the comment and my response to it --

Ajibade Fasina-thomas:

Paula Deen should be pitied. She is living in the past. In fact, she needs a psychological deliverance. She probably doesn't know the United States of America has a sitting BLACK President in the White House. Poor sod.

Let's see -- *she* used the word 'nigger' privately 30 years ago [it was actually 26 years ago, in 1987] in reference to a black thug who had put a gun to her head. Whereas *you* seem to imagine that because there is now an AFRICAN interloper occupying the White House -- whom she actively and openly campaigned [to put there] -- that her use of a slur 30 years ago about a thug who had been threatening to murder her means that *she* is "living in the past."

Really! Just who is "living in the past"? Just who "needs a psychological deliverance"? Just who is truly the "poor sod"?

Still, I have no sympathy for the woman personally -- she is a "liberal" and she actively worked [for years] to bring about and empower the immoral "liberal" political culture that now finds it convenient to destroy her.

Update -- Paula Deen's Robber Comes to Her Defense

In which we learn that I am a 'sexist' of that ilk

The shriekers at Victor Reppert's blog just can't seem to get enough of agreeing amongst themselves that I am wicked vile evil! Consider this -- B.Prokop:

Dan,
I slammed Ilion, et.al., for their sexism nearly two years ago on this very website in one of my finest rants ever - a real classic:

"Papalinton and his fellow-travelers, who are forever going on about religion's so-called 'Bronze Age thinking' were aiming at the wrong target. They should have set their sights on the Stone Age thinking of the likes of Ilion, 'Gimli', et.al.

What nonsense! Worse, what slop, what filth! You people should crawl back under your rocks.

I'm sorry, but I can't muster up even a modicum of politeness here. These were the most insulting, degrading comments ever to grace this website - far worse than anything Loftus ever dreamed of spewing out. I felt sullied even reading them. I will not even try to engage with such idiots! What's the point when they have amply demonstrated that there's nothing to engage with?"

Damn, but it makes me feel good just to re-read that tirade! (and that's just a sampling of the full posting [as far as I can see, it's the entirely of the post]) I don't often get to indulge in a justified bout of good ol' fashioned righteous anger.

The thing about "good ol' fashioned righteous anger" is that far too many persons conflate self-righteousness (and self-righteous hypocricy) with it, as we shall see.

B.Prokop:

... and you know what's funny? I can't even find the original comments that led to that gem of an outburst (and I've looked). I believe it was early in 2011. I just remember that Ilion and company had crossed the line in their disparagement of women, and I couldn't sit still for it.

So, a mildly amusing point -- this shrieker, this advocate of mass-murder (for to advocate leftism *just is* to advocate mass-murder), this wicked fool who likens me to Satan because I forcefully oppose the leftism he espouses, claimig it to be Christianity, keeps a record on his PC of his "classic" slams of me ... and isn't bright enough to also record the URL with the slam.

Fortunately, the ever-helpful 'Crude' -- who had decided a couple of years ago to hop onto the band-waggon (what I mean is, long before the deal about Rush Limbaugh supposedly calling Sandra Fluke a 'slut' or 'whore', I recognized where 'Crude' was going, even if he didn't) -- supplied the link to that righteous rant

I must be really terrible, right! I must really be a wicked, evil, vile [caution: Magickal Word ahead] sexist, who crawled out from under a rock, right?

Well, let's see how wicked, evil, vile I really am, shall we? I had made two posts, the second and third in the thread; the leftist's "righteous rant" is the fourth.

My post #1, addressing Victor Reppert's OP

"I have never held a job a woman couldn't do as well or better than me."

Really? None at all? Not even your current job?

"When your survival is under constant threat, the question of "How can we survive" comes before the question of "What is fair?" With industrialization, this changes."

Ah! In other words, if men invent and build machines so that the sort of physical strength natural to men (in contrast to the sort natural to women) is no longer so necessary to get the public work of society done, then women can be egalitarianly "equal" to men.

"With industrialization, this changes."

Are you sure you don't mean "post-industrialization"? You know, offices and bureaucracies and such? Rosie-the-Riveter (my grandmother was one) was an anomaly.

The truth is, women are "equal" to men in the egalitarian sense you're talking about precisely because men are constantly holding their hands and constantly trying to protect them from the consequences of their own ill-advised decisions … while everyone pretends that women, in general, are strong and independent.

My female relatives, going back for generations, tend to be strong and independent … and in the present age, they no more “fit in” than I do.

"When your survival is under constant threat, the question of "How can we survive" comes before the question of "What is fair?" … So, I'm not inclined to be too hard on past cultures for their sexism. But I am hard on people who want to carry sexism into the present day."

Dude! Our society is dying of all these “strong and independent (pseudo) women” and “sensitive, supportive (*) (pseudo) men” … whom, together, never seen to get around to either themselves becoming adults, nor of rearing up a new generation of adults to take their places.

(*) concerning “supportive” (so-called) men - why is it necessary that men be “supportive” if women are so “strong and independent”? Does not the role designated to modern-day men give the lie to the whole egalitarian myth?

The thought behind the first question (Really? None at all? Not even your current job?) was something like this: then why doesn't that institutionally sexist university fire your gold-bricking ass and hire -- for less money -- a woman who can do the same, or better, job?

My post #2

Gimli: "Intellectually, both sexes are equally capable."

Even that isn't accurate. Women cluster toward the middle of the intellectual curve ... a lower proportion of women are either idiots or geniuses ... or, in other words, there are proportionately more male than female geniuses, and more male than femal[e] idiots.

Thus is my wicked vile evil thoughtcrime laid bare for all to see. That's it! That's my wicked, evil, vile [caution: Magickal Word ahead] sexism -- simple truth that runs counter to the current leftist dogma/narrative. For, indeed, my wicked vile evil thoughtcrime, my "disparagement of women", wasn't even about women ... it was about the set of leftist lies and hypocrisies known as feminism, and about the un-men who peddle feminism.

Nevertheless, "[W]hy is it necessary that men be “supportive” if women are so “strong and independent”? Does not the role designated to modern-day men give the lie to the whole egalitarian myth?"

Further, why do the very women who most loudly assert how "strong and independent" they are *always* run to mere men to remediate the consequences of their own ill-advised choices?

The truth is, it's "Neanderthals" like me who treat women as equals, while the "sensitive and affirming" types, like B.Prokop ... and Victor Reppert ... constantly patronize the entire sex.

The short answer is because the blood of someone else is on him

Douglas Wilson: A Planet Full of Sexual Pirates --

A commenter in the earlier post about Exodus International is checking to see if I am ashamed of Leviticus 20:13 yet, which I am not. ...

We know this, in part, because of the passage in Leviticus, and others like it. Backing away from such passages is backing away from a possibility of salvation for those trapped in same sex lust. The demand that we back away from this is a demand for us to stop loving homosexuals, and to start hating them. The homosexual movement, as it is playing out in America today, is a loud concerted demand that the church agree together that God’s revealed pattern of law and grace is not for homosexuals. Unbelievably, many quarters of the church are going along with it — withholding the gospel from homosexuals in the name of loving them.

Now what I have written above is the grand theme of the New Testament. It is all gospel, and that is what we were told to lead with. This message is what we are to use to tear down strongholds. When we do that, we may turn our attention to other lesser matters. So why needn’t the blood of a homosexual be upon him, as Leviticus says? The short answer is because the blood of someone else is on him.

... and the continuation: One of Those Circus Ponies

In which we learn that I am a 'misanthropic loner'

Periodically over at Victor Reppert's blog, certain fools who congregate there like to have freak-out sessions about Yours Truly. The most recent one started in this thread and spilled over into this thread.

In the second thread, it's mostly 'Dan Gillson' who just can't seem to let the matter rest -- in the first thread, the shriekers eventually (and amazingly!) concluded that I'm not quite so awful as they themselves frequently assert, but Mr Gillson just can't seem to let it go for now.

This is kind of boring, but nevertheless let's lay out some of the background for the meat of this particular post.

Dan Gillson said --

Ilíon's penchant for calling people "girl" or "girlish" betrays his single, sexless life. Perhaps if he didn't display his male chauvinism so readily he'd find a suitably insular, irrational mate.

This is, of course, just one more example of the very dishonesty about me that I had previously (in the two threads) spoken of. I don't have a "penchant for calling people "girl" or "girlish""; rather, I sometimes -- and infrequently, at that -- refer to some supposed men who behave and/or "reason" like junior-high girls do as 'girls' or 'girlish'. An infrequently made rhetorical point is not "a penchant". Moreover,

That's *exactly* the sort of thing a girl would say!

I have called certain of the pathetic persons like to freak-out and/or lie about me 'girl' because they have the psyche of a junior-high girl.

It is, after all, a characteristically feminine immaturity to judge masculine worth in terms of “getting some”: thus, I (sometimes) call males-with-psyches-of-girls, well, 'girls'.

Dan Gillson plays injured ingenue --

Please point out to me which statements that I've made about you are provably false, and I'll retract them. Until you do that, you can't say that I've lied about you without being a liar yourself.

Now, this is a game he's playing, and it's one I refuse to play. Generally, I ignore this sort of thing ... if I don't ignore it, I mock it

It would be easier for this poor little hurt ingenue to point to a single thing he has said about me that isn't dishonest in some way. To make even that easier, here are two Google searches: search 1 and search 2 The results have a great deal of crossover, but they're not identical (nor are they all-inclusive -- this very thread isn't in either list). To make it even easier, he could just limit his search to two recent threads: this very one and the prior one.

Retracting some specific falsehood this p(r)issy little girl has posted about me will never solve the problem, for the problem is his attitude. I mean, even aside from having the mind-set of a junior-highschool girl; that's a life-sized problem. But, with respect to me, his problem is that be *needs* me to be wrong (about everything), and he *needs* me to be a wicked, evil monster -- but, of course he does, he's a girl -- and until he fixes that, he's going to keep lying about me.

Rather than play that game, I mock it because as sure as night follows day, the gamester can be counted on to double-down

1. I honestly believe everything I've said about you, because you honestly manifest irrationality, insularity, incompetence, unsubtlety, … etc. So the problem isn't that I'm being dishonest, the problem is that you insulate yourself from the truth about you.

2. Vis-à-vis my attitude, trust me: it's peachy. I'm likable, funny, kind … you know, not a misanthropic loner.

3. I have the mind-set of a twenty-nine year old, physically active, working, married male. My wife wouldn't have married me if I had the mind-set of a junior high girl, nor would my boss employ me, nor would I have such a diverse, sophisticated group of friends. Trust me Ilíon: I've gotten what I deserve because I've worked for it.

4. I don't need you to be wrong. I just like it when you are because I can amuse myself at your expense.

So, having some background established, we come at last to the point of this post, my treatment of the above quoted post; this started out as a post to be made on Reppert's blog, but I decided to expand it and post it here --

intellectually dishonest ingenue: "1. I honestly believe everything I've said about you ..."

Does *anyone* believe -- does even this fool believe -- that I did not know all along that "Please point out to me which statements that I've made about you are provably false, and I'll retract them" means nothing more than "*Force* me to admit that I lie about you, and I'll pretend to strike some of those lies from the record"? As though the problem were merely what he writes about me, rather than the attitude that prompts what he writes.

Does anyone even imagine I was going to play that game?

I don't attempt the logically impossible, among which is included justifying oneself to those who *will not* be satisfied. Nothing I could ever say/write will compel the fools who lie about me to simply stop lying. Nothing I could ever say/write will compel those who wish to believe those lies to not do so; for instance, of an misrepresentation of something I'd written (used as a pretext to attack me), to simply scan up a few posts and see with their own eyes that I said nothing of the sort.

irrational little girl: "2. Vis-à-vis my attitude, trust me: it's peachy. I'm likable, funny, kind … you know, not a misanthropic loner."

Once again, this is *exactly* how a girl "reasons".

Some of the greatest minds in human history have been "misanthropic loners" ... which is, of course, utterly irrelevant to whether they were right or wrong in what they reasoned and concluded.

The same applies to me - whether or not I am a "misanthropic loner" (and I rather like that!) - is utterly irrelevant to whether I am right or wrong in what I say, and in the reasoning behind what I say.

Hint: I am right, and the (ahem) “reasoning” in which you people engage to (ahem) “prove” that I am not is *always* of just this sort of anti-rational emotionalism and/or appeal to other well-known logical fallacies. I am rational - and right - and my critics (to misuse that term in the manner it is so commonly misused) are neither.

sad, sad, little girl: "3. I have the mind-set of a twenty-nine year old, physically active, working, married male ... Trust me Ilíon: I've gotten what I deserve because I've worked for it."

A man would have called himself a 'man', not a 'male'. This sad little girl is a eunuch - he *fears* masculinity, masculine virtues, “masculine reasoning” (*), masculine speech -- and he himself wielded the knife.

Moreover, a man doesn’t need a woman to make him a man, to create or to "validate" (a feminized "men", such as this one, would say) his worth as a man. A man is a man because he’s a man, not because he’s (presumably) “getting some”. It is, in fact, a characteristically feminine immaturity to judge masculine worth in terms of “getting some”, as I previously pointed out.

Trust me, Gentle Reader, this fool gets what he deserves from me (***) precisely because he has worked for it.

(*) of course, logical reasoning is really neither masculine nor feminine (**), but the feminists and other leftists have so labeled and disparaged it … and so this girl fears and hates it, even as he tries to wear it as a mantle.

(**) despite that an antipathy toward logical reasoning is culturally accepted, or even expected, amongst the distaff sex - and especially amongst feminized “men”, with whom it seems to be de rigueur.

(***) I mean, when I even notice him; mostly I consciously try to skip over anything he posts: it’s just not worth my time.

self-blind little girl: "4. I don't need you to be wrong. I just like it when you are because I can amuse myself at your expense."

Would a man say/write such a thing, and right out in front of God and all the angels, no less? What a silly question! Noo, a man would not.

A man (or a woman, for that matter) might find it mordantly amusing that some fellow is so consistently, and so spectacularly, wrong - as this pathetic un-man asserts of me … which claim even his fellow un-men rather walked-back last week - but a man wouldn’t seek to “amuse myself at your expense”. This attitude is reflective of an abiding immaturity, and it’s a characteristically feminine immaturity, at that.

'Liberal fury'

Daniel Greenfield: Angry Liberals in America -- "Liberals like to mock conservatives as a bunch of angry white men, but there are more angry white men yelling at the camera in two hours of MSNBC than in two days of FOX News.
...
"Republicans," they spit with the venom of a Mohammedan rug merchant matching wits and saliva with his camel on a hot desert day."

I'd raather spread memes than genes, anyway

Via Shadow to Light --

Richard Dawkins (in prissy 'posh' Brit accent): (at the 4:03 mark) "As for me, I'd raather spread memes than genes, anyway." -- this is the same fellow who, not so long ago, expressed the odd opinion that Pope Benedict's life has been a pathetic waste ... because he'd missed out on lots of sexual activity.

In other words, while Dawkins now (*) claims that he'd "raather spread memes than genes, anyway" (**), and that's a good and noble way to live, if Benedict spends his life "spread[ing] memes [rather] than genes, anyway", his life is a pathetic waste.


(*) the same Dawkins who claims that the desire for, and expectation of, sexual fidelity is somehow immature ... and immoral.

(**) but, of course, spreading your genetic material everywhere, with persons not your spouse, as Dawkins advocates and which practice he apparently has long-since enthusiastically embraced, is not quite the same thing as "spreading your genes".

'I have set before you [this day] life and death ... therefore choose life'

Laura Rosen Cohen: Holy Crap this is Awesome: Israeli Company Invents "Seamless" Incision Closure Method -- Odd, isn't it? I mean, the difference between a 'culture of life', such as the Israelis (in this instance) or the Americans, and a 'culture of death', such as the Arabs in particular, and Moslems in general.

Arabs, and Moslems in general, like to tell themselves that they (i.e. Islam) will prevail over the Little Satan (Israel) and the Great Satan (America) because, "They love life, but we love death."

Indeed.

"I call heaven and earth as witness this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live:" -- Deuteronomy 30:19 (KJV)

This is the choice God sets before every culture and every individual.

Fantasies of the sexes

As surely everyone knows by now, the sexual fantasies of the two sexes (*) are quite different. Yet, there is a commonality, at least with respect to the most common fantasy of the sexes.

One of the most common fantasies of women -- it may even be the hands-down winner -- is the "rape" fantasy. Though, it's generally a strange sort of "rape", in that the "rapist" is utterly desirable in himself ... and that she is ultimately in total control of the "relationship".

In contrast, men never fantasize about raping women -- the idea fills us with horror. What men *do* fantasize about -- and this is without doubt the most common sexual fantasy of men (**) -- is not even having to put any effort into "getting laid".

So, here is the commonality between these two seemingly opposite fantasies -- women fantasize about being so sexually desirable that a (sexually desirable) man simply cannot/will not take "No" for an answer; whereas men fantasize about being so sexually desirable that a (sexually desirable) woman simply cannot/will not give "No" for an answer.

In other words, what both sexes are fantasizing about is being so sexually overwhelming -- of being so powerful, with the power being expressed in terms of sex -- that members of the opposite sex cannot control themselves around them. But only sexually desirable members of the opposite sex: for women don't fantasize about being "raped" by "creeps" or "losers"; and men don't fantasize about having "dogs" or "porkers" throw themselves at them.

Which is to say, the two common fantasies aren't so different, after all.


(*) Sorry, "liberals" and other leftists, but there are exactly two sexes amongst humans.

(**) Leftism, in its feminism guise, promised to make this fantasy reality -- and most men, the fools!, took the bait, willfully ignoring the payload, which is the leftists' intention to destroy marriage, and the family -- and men's roles as husbands and fathers, their roles as the heads of their families -- and ultimately to destroy our existing society.

The Establishment Clause - what is it really, what does it really mean?

This post is essentially a duplicate of a post I made on Jordan's LiveJournal blog. The context is my objection to misunderstanding of and/or misrepresentaion of the Establishment Clause in particular, and the US Constitution in general (starting here)

Mind you, the issue Jordan raises is very important. But, the reason this is even happening is because we -- we all as a society -- do not understand the US Constitution ... and most of us don't even care to understand it.

Our Republic is dying because government at all levels are violating their proper bounds. Government at all levels are violating their proper bounds because far too many of us *want* them to do so, thinking to gain some advantage over our fellows. Government at all levels are violating their proper bounds because far too many of us who think ourselves 'conservative' just don't give a damn to understand what those proper bounds are -- we're content to believe the falsehoods (and active lies) we were taught in leftist-controled public-indoctrination centers, rather than to do the hard work of thinking and understanding, much less resisting statism.

Our Republic is dying of suicide.

Yesterday, I had asked Jordan:

What does "an establishment of religion" actually mean? What does "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" actually mean?

These words do not mean what leftism and secularism have told you they mean.

The US Constitution does not establish a secular unitary State -- that was Revolutionary France (and that turned out so well, didn't it?) Rather, the US Constitution establishes a non-sectarian federal state. Surely you understand the distinction I have drawn?

What does "an establishment of religion" actually mean?

Someone suggested: "An establishment of religion" is like saying, "an establishment of drinking". ie: a bar. "An establishment of religion" is, well, a religion. ie: Methodist.

Not even close.

To establish a religion is make some particular sect an organ of the state. Theoretically, a state might have multiple established religions, but in practice they tend to have but one. In Great Britain, the established religion is the Church of England/Wales/Scotland; in the Soviet Union, the established religion was atheism (as is still true in N.Korea, China, Cuba, etc).

The specifics that follow from any particular establishment of a religion depend upon the state, and the society it rules, and the socially-accepted theory of statecraft within that society … and nature of the religion itself.

At a general minimum, establishment almost always will involves using the violent power of the state to compel the state’s subjects to financially support the sect, generally whether or not those subjects are members of the favored sect. Often, the officials/bureaucrats of the sect are directly on the state payroll.

At the more expansive extreme, establishment of a religion may involve active suppression of, or persecution of, and/or mass-murder of, the state’s subjects who do not at least pretend to subscribe to the sect. So, for instance, in Tudor England, Protestants and Catholics alternately suppressed and persecuted one another via state violence, and later the established Church of England suppressed all other sects via state violence. And so, for example, in *all* secularist/atheistic states, from Revolutionary France through existing Communist states, state atheism suppresses, persecutes, and mass-murders all other sects via state violence (with a special focus of Judeo-Christianity, for those sects are the only real opposition to The State As God) - for the nature of State Atheism demands this persecution and mass-murder. And so, for example, in *all* Islamic states, non-Moslems will be, and ultimately must be, actively persecuted - for the nature of Islam demands it.

What does "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" actually mean?

1) Within the federal government as defined by the US Constitution, only Congress has the power and authority to make laws - the supreme court does not have, nor does any other court have, this authority; and, in fact, all federal courts, including the supreme court, are creatures of Congress (*).

2) At the time the US Constitution was written and ratified, several of the States had established religions (for example, Congregationalism in Massachusetts).

So, what "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" actually means is that Congress - the US federal government - shall make no laws whatsoever touching upon *any* ‘establishment of religion’. Thus, Congress shall neither:
a) establish a religion;
b) disestablish a religion.


(*) That bit in high-school civics class about the federal government being composed of “three co-equal branches of government” is bunk, deliberate bunk at that, and on multiple levels.



Edit 2014/08/24:
Starting here is an example of something I'm always talking about; namely that most people who think themselves conservative aren't, for they implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) accept the false premises of the leftists. And thus, they cannot really stand up to the leftists when they start demanding yat another pinch of incense.

In this case, 'Jordan' would rather maintain the leftist-and-atheist misinterpretation of the First Amendment -- for that misinterpretation and misapplication empowers atheists to use the federal government to harrass and silence Christians and/or compel them to violate their consciences -- than he wants to work to perserve his own liberty .... and his own life.

He's back

After suddenly ceasing to blog all the way back in 2009, Beastrabban is back with an astonishing number of items posted in the past month or so. I encourage Gentle Reader to explore his thoughts.

edit: Oh, my! 'Beastrabban' seems to have turned into a leftist.