You're late

Wm.Vallicella: Government Overreach Stymied "... I hereby introduce 'obamination' to refer to those abominations perpetrated against the populace by big government, whether perpetrated by the POMO prez himself or by any liberal fascist. Every obamination is an abomination, but not conversely."

Out of the ballpark, or Stupid 'Atheist' Tricks VIII

Another great one from Michael Egnor: Ed Brayton: "Apparently, hurting the feelings of the religious is a crime in that county".

Reclaming the future

... or, Reclaiming your people and your future from the Culture of Death --

Alan Roebuck (at The Orthosphere): Advice to the Single Young Man (in spite of his reference to "game" and the "manosphere", it's a good read)

A fruit of leftism-feminism

Bob Parks: An Innocent Man Escapes Jail Time In NJ -- Thank God! Watching the video, every rational-and-honest being can see just how close those cops came to murdering than man in cold blood. I consider it a minor miracle that they did not.

Thank God that the second video surfaced. Thank God that the prosecutors, for a change, had enough regard for the truth and for actual justice, or at least regard for their own reputations, to behave as though they understood that a "criminal justice system" that is about anything other than justice is about injustice.

Behold the blatant dishonesty, the intellectual dishonesty of those cops ... and indeed of any number of others in that police department, for it was only with a massive collusion within the department that this bogus case could be sent to the prosecutor: for, not only did they lie in the reports they deliberately wrote and filed, not only did they lie in moving those lies through the "criminal justice system", not only were they willing and ready to lie in court, after having sworn before God to speak only the truth, but they lied at the very time they were abusively arresting Mr Jeter.

"Stop trying to take my gun!" "Stop resisting! Stop resisting!" "Why are you trying to get my fuckin' gun? Git off my gun!"

The whole purpose of these lies about him to his face -- and for punching him in the face before that -- was to try to provoke Mr Jeter into doing something that they could parlay into an excuse to kill him. I believe that with the militarization of police departments over the past couple of decades that police are now *trained* to try to provoke "over-reactions" by "civilians" and to aggravate confrontations.

The "liberals" and other leftists will, of course, blame conservatives and "racism" -- by which they mean all whites except themselves, for they alone are holy -- for all of it, including the behavior of the black cop, who appears to be the one *started* the lying abuse of Mr Jeter. But, in truth, it is the "liberals" and other leftists who are the root of this sort of thing.

There are many leftist-inspired social currents that come together to generate these sorts of incidents, but the currents I want to bring to your attention have to do with feminism ... and with the "sexual revolution" that no one is willing to abandon, even as they see its destructive fruit right before their eyes.

Think about this whole report. How did the incident start, how did these cops get involved? It started when Mr Jeter's "girlfriend", with whom he (foolishly) lives, called on the cops to take her side against him, to act as her "muscle" in some shouting-match she was having with him.

"No charges were filed, and Jeter says he left after briefly talking to officers" ... he left *his* house after his "girlfriend" called the cops to help her abuse him ... and then the cops followed him and staged and escalated a confrontation, attempting to goad him into doing *anything* to resist the injustice they were committing upon him, so as to have an excuse to murder him.

Now, certainly, there will always be some number of bully-boys within any police department, much as there will always be some number of pedophiles within any public school system. But this goes deeper than bully-boys in uniform. Whence come the social permission-and-approval to treat *every* man as automatically guilty of "abuse" anytime any "strong, independent woman" wants to play the "I'm just a poor little women, oh won't you protect me from that mean ol' meanie!?" card?

This is the fruit of leftism, and of feminism in particular. This is the fruit of the "sexual revolution" ... this is the fruit of almost everyone going along with the lies of the "sexual revolution". Ultimately, this is the fruit of American men, in general, deciding that treating American women, in general, as sluts (denying them even the dignity of being whores) would be a good thing, and of American women, in general, going along with that.

Women, it takes two to tango. Men can't treat you as sluts unless you already are sluts. If you want to stop being so miserable, you're going to have to be women, and not just females. Among other things, you're going to have to stop being sluts; you're going to have to let go the idea that you, alone of all women, have the magical pussy that gives you the power to control men.

Men, it takes two mature sexes to make a successful society, and one immature one to destroy it (*). Men, if you want to defeat the leftist war against men and masculinity, you're going to have to be men, and not just males. Among other things, you're going to have to give up, and repent of, your fornications, real and attempted; you're going to have to stop being pussy-whipped, you're going to have to stop deluding yourself that "getin' some" is the measure of a man.

(*) Also, contrary to what you have heard your entire life, it is not the case that "women civilize men". The truth is rather that men -- fathers -- civilize everyone. There is actually one truth in all the bullshit that feminists spout: patriarchy is the foundation of all civilization ... and that's a Good Thing. But civilizations cannot endure when their "men" refuse to mature and become patriarchs.

To both sexes: join the patriarchy, or die. There are no other options.

On the Wickedness of Socialism

Williams using the word 'evil' (for that is how everyone speaks these days), but the correct term is 'wickedness' or 'immorality'.

Walter Williams: Concealing Evil

It’s not that they hate the truth

Matt Walsh: Lying, coercing, manipulating, defrauding, and scheming — for marriage equality! -- "It’s not that they hate the truth — it’s just that they can’t find a place for it in the story."

Just to be clear: while that's an interesting line, and may even apply to some, I believe that the majority of leftists *do* hate the truth.

Matt Walsh: “Pro-choicers”: here’s why you cannot support abortion while opposing puppy murder


Matt Walsh: I’ve been divorced four times, but homosexuals are the ones destroying marriage

... with nothing to fill either

Fred on Everything: The Soul of a Curmudgeon

Better than chocolate

Mark Steyn: A Man Alone -- [warning: language alert] --

A few years back, I wrote about how The Joke, Milan Kundera's great novel of the pitfalls of ideologically unsound gags in Communist Eastern Europe, now applied far more to those of us in the western world. So, for Valentine's Day, a reminder to the menfolk out there never to fall for that old favorite from the small ads and dating agencies - the woman looking for a man with a "good sense of humor":

In 2011, Surgery News, the official journal of the American College of Surgeons, published a piece by its editor-in-chief, Lazar Greenfield, examining research into the benefits to women of . . . well, let Dr. Greenfield explain it:

They found ingredients in semen that include mood enhancers like estrone, cortisol, prolactin, oxytocin, and serotonin; a sleep enhancer, melatonin; and, of course, sperm, which makes up only 1%-5%. Delivering these compounds into the richly vascularized vagina also turns out to have major salutary effects for the recipient.

As this was the Valentine's issue, Dr. Greenfield concluded on a "light-hearted" note:

Now we know there's a better gift for that day than chocolates.

Oh, my. When the complaints started rolling in from lady doctors, Surgery News withdrew the entire issue. All of it. Gone. Then Dr. Greenfield apologized. Then he resigned as editor. Then he apologized some more. Then he resigned as president-elect of the American College of Surgeons. The New York Times solemnly reported that Dr. Barbara Bass, chairwoman of the department of surgery at Methodist Hospital in Houston, declared she was "glad Dr. Greenfield had resigned." But Dr. Colleen Brophy, professor of surgery at Vanderbilt University, said "the resignation would not end the controversy."

Dr. Greenfield was one of the most eminent men - whoops, persons - in his profession, and, when it comes to vascularized vaginas, he had the facts on his side. But, like Ludvik, the protagonist of Kundera's novel, he made an ideologically unsound joke, and so his career had to be ended. No apology would cut it, so the thought police were obliged to act: To modify the old line, the operation was a complete success, and the surgeon died. ...

You know, men, perhaps, just maybe, one very important reason that Western women, almost all of them, are so hateful (and so miserable in their "freedom") and so gleeful to see a man, any man, destroyed, is because *you* have been using women as sterile cum-dumps -- you have embraced-and-acted-upon the lies of the "Sexual Revolution", knowing them to be lies. You have willfully, indeed gleefully, made of yourself nothing more than a hard-on, and have turned women, all women, including the one you finally married, and your daughters, into nothing more than cunts. Fucking a sheet of rubber, even it there is a cunt wrapped around it, is not the same as making love to the wife with whom you have mutually committed your lives.

To put it another way, perhaps one very important reason that Western women, almost all of them, are willingly voting with their lives and actions (and votes in the voting booth) to destroy Western civilization is because *you* did so first, when you choose to use women as things, rather than to treat then as persons ... and as women.

A Gay-Rights Cave-In at Sochi?

Bruce Bawer (in FrontPage Mag): A Gay-Rights Cave-In at Sochi? -- "... Exactly what’s going on here? In the last few days, reading these and other peculiarly docile pieces in various left-leaning Western media – media which, until recently, could be fairly described as having been on the warpath over Putin’s assault on gays – one wondered whether some of that good old-fashioned Soviet-era Western-progressive “understanding” of Kremlin brutality had, all these years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, finally kicked back into gear. No, Russia is no longer officially Communist – but under Putin it’s close enough, perhaps, to set off the old acceptance, among leftist journalists and gay-left activists alike, of the need to break a few eggs to make an omelet. As for the American gay activists, at least one explanation for their apparent withdrawal from the Russia issue suggested itself: they needed to get back to the important work of harassing bakers who won’t make gay wedding cakes and photographers who won’t take pictures of gay weddings. [emphasis mine] With such solemn responsibilities, who has the time to stay focused on Putin’s crackdown on freedom – let alone care about gays in Africa who are being terrorized by cops and pummeled to pieces by sharia-crazed mobs?"

Ya' gotta pick your battles, man!

"Gay" "rights", much less "gay" "marriage", was *never* about rights; it was always, and will always be, about weakening America and about using any stick that comes to hand to beat on Christianity and Christians. "Gays" -- including Bruce Bawer -- have willingly made themselves into useful idiots to the leftists ... and the leftists will use them, and then discard them. Hell! if the hard leftists manage to pull off their heart's dream of rounding up Christians to send us to the death camps, they'll be rounding up the "gays" right along with us. Will that not be ironic?

Stupid 'Atheist' Tricks VII

I link, without further comment, to Nick J (who sometimes comments here): How to disprove ANY free will argument in 2 easy steps --

"1. Ask the free will believer to give an example of a choice they consider to be freely willed.

2. Ask the free will believer to say whether or not that choice was caused.

Congratulations; you’ve won!
If the free will believer says the choice was caused, the causal regression makes free will impossible.
If the free will believer says the choice was uncaused, that would mean the choice was random. Random thoughts are not what we mean when we say we believe a thought is freely willed.
You can easily apply this two-step refutation to any, and all, free will arguments"

The 'Democracy!' fetishists will not stand for this

via Vox Day: Europe's tide turns -- "Voters in Switzerland have narrowly approved a rightwing proposal to curb immigration. It imposes limits on the number of foreigners allowed in and may signal an end to the country’s free movement accord with the European Union. The initiative was approved by just 50.3% of the votes [emphasis mine] and was passed by a majority of cantons."

You just *know* that the 'Democracy!' fetishists are going to declare this vote to be totally invalid and not at all *really* "the will of The People" ... I mean, how could it be, given that *they* are The Voice of The People are they're agin' it? Of course, even had the vote been 100% for the proposal, they'd be saying that.

Oh, and by the way, when this co-called news article calls this "a rightwing proposal", what they mean is "to the right of Lenin and Stalin, in the same sense that Hitler, being a National Socialist, was 'to the right' of these International Socialists."

Between Heaven and Earth

Douglas Wilson: Between Heaven and Earth

Now that's commitment

... but is it credible? -- "A coroner's spokeswoman Thursday said Talley was found in his garage by a family member who called authorities. They said Talley died from seven or eight self-inflicted wounds from a nail gun fired into his torso and head."

The truth of 'X' ...

This post is initially prompted by reflection on my recent statement that of the two (or three) Canadians I've known or met in person, two were 'dicks'. But, I don't explain that until the end.

The truth of [some concept or philosophy or world-system] doesn't stand or fall on the behavior of its adherents or promoters. Now, certainly, one can, and ought, observe and take into account to some degree the behavior of the adherents and promoters of [the concept or philosophy or world-system], but at most that behavior can arouse suspicion that [the concept or philosophy or world-system] contains some serious flaw - but, that suspicion may itself be false and based on mis-information.

Consider: in recent years, a number of Roman Catholic priests have been accused, and some convicted, of “pedophilia”, both in the US and in other countries - though, indeed, it was not ‘pedophilia’ as that term is medically and legally defined, but rather it was the homosexual molestation of pubescent boys and young men (the facts are constantly misrepresented because the "liberals" are currently playing up the official victim-status of "gays"). Should one thereby condemn Catholicism as being false? Or, should one thereby condemn Catholicism as having materially contributed to these condemnable acts - as a hypocrite such as Richard Dawkins does … when he’s not condemning you for condemning the homosexual molestation of pubescent boys and young men?

Of course not! (Gentle Reader surely knows that I have no use for the Roman denomination, but I do oppose unjust and false attacks upon it). Now, IF a majority of RCC priests were molesting boys and young men, then certainly that would justify the suspicion that there is something deeply wrong with Catholicism, but one would still need to examine Catholicism to see whether that were true.

And, when one does examine Catholicism, one sees that it condemns -- and offers no exceptions -- not only the homosexual molestation of pubescent boys and young men, but all homosexual acts, across the board. That is, while it is true that some RCC priests have molested young boys, it is also true that these acts are inconsistent with, and contrary to, Catholicism. So, to find the explanation for why some RCC priests have engaged in the homosexual molestation of pubescent boys and young men, and why some RCC prelates have tried to bury the facts and/or protect the molesters, one has to widen one's field of enquiry.

Does Gentle Reader know that in terms of percentages (and of sheer numbers), far more public school teachers than RCC priests molest children put under their authority? Does that information change what one thinks one knows about RCC priests and young boys?

Yet, when was the last time *anyone* ever put forth the claim that for that reason we should re-think the very idea of having public schools?

Does Gentle Reader comprehend that “comprehensive sex education” is nothing but a scheme to groom children so as to make them easier prey to sexual predators?

Yet, when was the last time anyone with a(n approved) public voice ever put forth the claim that we should do away with “sex education”?

The answer to both questions is never, it’s always that we should double-down.

Consider: throughout the past two-plus centuries, every time that leftists have gained control over coercive State power, the result has been mass murder: whether it is the French Revolutionaries depopulating the Vendée for resisting the murders of their aristocrats and priests; whether it is Hitler (he as a leftist, no matter that the Stalinists have branded him a rightist) murdering millions for the crime of being non-Aryan; whether it is Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Kim Jong, etc, murdering millions for being of the wrong social/economic class; whether it is American Progressivism justifying and facilitating the murders of millions of unborn children, both in the US and abroad … every damned time that leftists have gained control over coercive State power, the result has been mass murder.

Now, is this fact, all by itself, proof that leftism is murderous at its core? Well, no ... but it does and should arouse one's very strong suspicion that leftism is murderous at its core: but one still has to look at the content of leftism.

And, one needn't look far to find that, in contrast to molesting priests and Catholicism, mass murder is totally consistent with leftism, and indeed is all but guaranteed to happen when leftists control the State. For, at the core of leftism is the repudiation of the individual -- leftism not only denies the importance of the individual as an individual, but denies the very existence of the individual as an individual.

Under leftism, every individual human life is the representative of some class or other -- and the leftists get to define those classes and to assign or deny personhood to them. Thus, under leftism, if The Leader/Party says that 'Enemies of the Revolution' are non-persons, then they are utterly disposable, and whole districts of people may be murdered for daring to resist 'The Revolution'; if The Leader/Party says that 'non-Aryans' are non-persons, then they are utterly disposable, and whole nations may be murdered for the crime of being of the "wrong" race; if The Leader/Party says that 'kulaks' are non-persons, then they are utterly disposable, and entire strata of society may be murdered as scapegoats for the failed economic policies of The Leader/Party; if The Leader/Party says that 'fetuses' are non-persons, then they are utterly disposable, and millions of utterly innocent human lives may be snuffed out for the crime of show-casing the falsehood of the promises by which the "Sexual Revolution" was sold to a public that *wanted* those lies to be true.

So, what does all the above have to do with Canadians being (or not being) 'dicks'?

Well, of course, it has to do with the obvious fact that it would be irrational ... and immoral ... for me to assert that "all Canadians are 'dicks'" on the basis that two of the two (or three) Canadians I've known or met in person were.

But, there is more to it than the obvious -- one of those Canadian 'dicks' was our pastor, and an object of my natural boyhood hero-worship, for a number of years when I was a child.

One frequently runs across God-haters who use the horrible behavior of some (presumed) Christian or other as an excuse for dismissing Christianity without even the pretense of examining its content. One frequently runs across damned-fool (presumed) Christians who sagely nod their heads at this irrational illogic of dismissing Christianity without even the pretense of examining its content ... or even greater fools who offer the excuse in his place, whether or not he would himself, as though he has no moral agency of his own: "Oh! He's so *angry* at God ... some Christian must have done something to justify his anger (or hatred) of God!" ... No, you damned fool, you God-damned fool, he's angry at God because enmity with God is the state in which we all enter this world.

Now, in fact, Christianity explicitly teaches that we *all* are sinners; that we all have done, and will do horrible things; that not one of us can correct this problem under our own power, by our own wills. So, that some (presumed) Christian or other has done some horrible thing is exactly what Christianity predicts.

So, do you want to know about this Canadian 'dick', who had been our pastor when I was a kid?

When I was a young man, mid-twenties -- visiting my mother after she'd had a stroke -- he tried to get me to engage in homosexual acts with him (under my mother's roof, no less!); thereby confirming a suspicion I'd had for a number of years that when I was 10, and had stayed overnight with him (something my brother did frequently, but I had never done before, being a more retiring child than my brother was, and never desired to do again) when his wife and infant son were visiting her relatives in Michigan, he'd come very close to molesting me.

And then, a number of years later, preaching my father's funeral, the very man who had tried to get me to engage in "sex" with him had the audacity to publicly single out my three siblings and me as sinners in special need of attention. And I, being the sort who naturally avoids confrontation, said nothing publicly.

And yet, here I am, a Christian, and a foe of atheism -- for I know that Christ is Truth Itself, no matter what some (presumed) Christian does or does not do.

Evidence

Gentle Reader may recall the strange recent scientistic/evolutionistic theory (no, seriously!) that the human species is actually the result of hybridization between an ape and a pig? Well, maybe the idea is not so absurd, after all

Some will argue that this has nothing to do with anything

Jammie Wearing Fools: Disturbing: Adam Lanza PC Contained Info on “Rights of Pedophiles, Movie About Man/Boy Love, Instant Messages Concerning Homosexual Fantasies”

... Some will argue that this has nothing to do with anything. So then why should the rights of law-abiding gun owners have anything to do with the Newtown aftermath?

That's a more competitive title than you might think.

Mark Steyn, concerning the anti-Constitutional 'lawfare' being waged against him over his mockery of the very mockable warm-monger "scientist" Michael Mann -- "I Stand By Everything I Wrote"

I wanted especially to share the ending quip:

Yet amidst an avalanche of commentary in recent days perhaps the most penetrating legal analysis comes from Kevin Robbins:

Mark Steyn is probably the most dickish bastard to ever come out of Canada.

That's a more competitive title than you might think.

It is, indeed. I've known, or at least met, three Canadians in person, and two were 'dicks'. And, at the moment, I can't even recall who the third one was ... so, it's entirely possible that I've known or met only two and that they both were 'dicks'.