Contemptible Coward

This post is to mock the contemptible cowardice of John C. Wright, published science fiction author (*) ... ... and pussified poseur

Check this out --


Explanation follows --




(*) Science fiction author: form your own opinion

Will code for food

As of yesterday (2016/11/29), I am unemployed. On the bright side, at least the monkey of having to justify my continued employment by taking those stupid MicroSoft certification tests every few years is off my back.

Coming soon to a North Pole near you

Jihad Watch: Germany: veteran Santa Claus fired for opposing child marriage

The volcano gods are angry!

Douglas Wilson: Babylon and the Bolshevik Buttercups

But surrounding the whole thing, there has always been a mysterious bipartisan consensus, one dictated by an imperious zeitgeist, promulgated by the entertainment complex and media, and studiously obeyed by all the politicians. This zeitgeist was enthusiastically pushed by the left and sullenly obeyed by the right, and the whole culture steadily followed after it. When it has made enough of an appearance to be given a name, it has been called political-correctness.

If you want to know what powers this zeitgeist has, look no further than the immediately honored demand—driven by hidden chthonic powers—that a hapless congressman from East Toad Flats (R-AR) be found guilty of a career-ending gaffeous blunder because someone at the state fair barbecue recorded him telling a blonde joke. The cry goes up in the village and into the volcano he goes.

So this brings us to the recent presidential election. A mistake that many are making with regard to all of this is that they are trying to interpret everything in terms of policy. Now as I said at the top, policy matters and the new president will have to institute particular policies. He will have to govern, in other words. ...

But don’t let that distract you from what is really going on. What is really going on is a gigantic collision between the insiders and the outsiders. Nothing is more obvious than that the decree went forth from the zeitgeist that Trump was to be thrown into the volcano, as so many before him had been, and the villagers refused.

In case Gentle Reader is unaware, Wilson was/is a NeverTrumper.

Genetic 'explanations' for human behavior

As I've mentioned in passing, I'm 59 years old. As with most older people, I can no longer focus properly on close work, such as when reading a book; no doubt most of this is due to age, but I expect that part of it is because I have spent most of my life staring at computer screens. Also, I understand that for most people, this inability to focus properly generally becomes a problem at about age 40. In my case, I began noticing it at around age 52 or 53 ... and, to this day, cheap (i.e. $1.50) reading glasses, at the lowest level (1.25) take care of the problem for me.

On the other hand, my mother needed glasses before age 30 and my father not long after. My twin sisters needed glasses from childhood. Our brother is somewhere in between (but closer to my condition that to the girls').

So, two human beings, both of whom had faulty vision from a relatively young age, produced four children (with three genetic profiles), two of whom (having a single genetic profile) had worse vision that either of the parents (*), and two of whom had better vision that either of them, and at least one of those has vision that is at least one or two standard deviations better than average.

So, given how useless looking at peoples' genes would be in telling one physical facts about their children, such as what the children's vision would be like, how does it even begin to make sense to "explain" human behavior in terms of genes, especially when one ignores culture to do so?



(*) My sisters had three children each, and only one of the six needed glasses as a child.

Coming soon to a front yard near you

Jihad Watch: Italy: Muslim migrant arrested for sexual assault of eight-year-old boy playing outside his house

What do you think are the odds that this rapefugee will soon be let loose like the pool rapist in Austria?

The quandary of consent

Karen Straughan (YouTube): The quandary of consent (part 1)

Karen Straughan (YouTube): The quandary of consent (part 2)

Taqiyya vs Truth

Kathy Shaidle: Two “Muslim headscarf victim” stories, one fake, one real

FAKE: Muslim woman claims Trump supporters pulled off her hijab, later admits she made up the story.

TRUE: Muslim girl takes headscarf off in shopping mall, other Muslims beat her up, send her to hospital.

"The media" will trumpet the first story ... and somehow forget to tell you it was a hoax; and they will never tell you the second story.

A better job than I could manage

Nikki Green (YouTube): Star Spangled Banner MAGA -- she hit a few flat notes (including in the easy parts), but still does a much better job than I ever could hope to do. I simply cannot sing, much less sing that song.

The not-so Artful Dodger

Or: Play stupid games, win stupid prizes

YouTube video: Millennial Protester useful idiot from UCSD Gets Hit by Car on I-5 Freeway

Generic Statements

Willaim Vallicella: Generic Statements

Everyone of normal intelligence intuitively understands the distinctions Vallicella draws here. But, oft times people play stupid so as to create a distraction.

Meanwhile .... it's still the same story

Jihad Watch: Bataclan bars Eagles of Death Metal from reopening show at site of jihad massacre

The band Eagles of Death Metal was playing when the jihadis began their mass murder in the Bataclan, where they killed 89 people. But because Eagles of Death Metal frontman Jesse Hughes has suggested that “Muslim staff at the Bataclan were involved in the gun and suicide bomb attack there on November 13, 2015,” he has been barred. “They came, I threw them out — there are things you can’t forgive,” said Bataclan co-director Jules Frutos.

Indeed, "there are things you can’t forgive"; apparently, murdering your patrons isn't among those things.

Three Seven stories that are really the same story

Jihad Watch: Hillary stokes riots, says Muslims, gays “scared to death” after election

Jihad Watch: California: Muslim Uber driver rapes 17-year-old passenger

Jihad Watch: Sting reopens Bataclan, site of jihad massacre, with “Inshallah”

Jihad Watch: Virginia Republicans visit mosque to address concerns about Trump

Jihad Watch: NYC: De Blasio administration promises Muslims it will “fight back” against Trump

Jihad Watch: Muslim cleric urges Americans “not to be affected by the radicalism of their president” and ISIS supporters hope to “inflame the dissension and troubles” in US over Trump victory

Jihad Watch: More than half of French population lives in constant fear of jihad massacre

OK, so that's eight individual links.

Hillary 'Count Every Vote' Clinton and the Popular Vote

Steve Feinstein at American Thinker: Hillary Wins the Popular Vote -- Not

Followup --

Steve Feinstein at American Thinker: Counting absentee votes

Diversity Pokemon

V the K at 'Gay Patriot': Urban Hipster Leftists and Their Obsession with Diversity Pokémon

also ...

'Cyril' commenting at 'Gay Patriot' --

3.The best FB post ever made on an election night, by some user “Harambe” on November 8, 2016, 8:38pm — I almost choked out of laughter.

Enjoy, verbatim:

“It’s so quiet in the Hillary camp, you can hear an email get deleted.”

also ...

V the K (again): This Guy Just Won the Internets

I saw this ad

... for a cool-looking shirt (*) (here). And then, I remembered: dammit!


(*) even at pushing sixty, I could see me wearing that (**) ... except for the implied politics

(**) which is kind of funny, because I'd never at any point in my life have worn anything tie-died, and again because of the cultural-political implications

Meanwhile, this is the humor article I had started to read when I saw the ad -- Babylon Bee: Police Calm Millennial Protesters By Handing Out Participation Trophies

Make America Slightly Better For At Least A Little While

Criticus Ferox at Rightly Considered: Attack Until We Crack

I hope everyone has been enjoying themselves. But let’s get real now. While Trump’s victory was a tremendous achievement, the situation remains extremely grim. The election results demonstrate that basically half of the current population of America is in the grips of the left, either as zealots or complacent followers. This is the product of years of indoctrination through every major sector of American culture – the institutions of education, the arts and entertainment sectors, and the news media – which are all firmly under the control of the left. This election doesn’t change that one iota. Unless the right figures out a way to take over those institutions – something they have never done and that no one is even seriously talking about – the historic American nation is doomed. Without accomplishing that as well as dealing with the demographic issues that will tip the electorate permanently to the left, it’s far from clear that Trump will even be able to win re-election in four years, let alone put America on some kind of path to greatness. We are not even close to making America great again. The accurate campaign slogan would have instead been: Make America Slightly Better For At Least A Little While. Doesn’t have quite the same ring to it, does it? ...

Attack until we crack? No! until they do. And then attack some more.

As for separation, Hell no! This is *our* country; let's not surrender *any* of it to the leftists. They are insane, let them die in the outer darkness of their insanity.

The *reason* that for over the past century the left have been wining their culture war and destroying the historic American Nation is because the right have not been fighting back, but rather constantly retreating. Look: we rightists have been lying to ourselves, albeit with a different lie, just as much as the leftists have been lying to themselves. Their lie is: If we force everyone (except The Leaders, of course) to be slaves of The State (which is to say, The Leaders), then Utopia will arrive and everyone will be free. Our lie is: If we surrender just this one more time, then they will finally leave us alone and free to live as we see fit.

The Utopia the left's useful idiots think they want can never arrive until Christ rules directly. The peace of being left alone by leftist busybodies that we rightists want can never arrive so long as there is even one leftist in a position to impose his vision of himself as The Anointed upon anyone else.

If only there were some way

Every four years, scads of (generally washed-up) celebrities "threaten" us with the promise that if X (you know, the guy with the 'R' after his name) wins the election, they are going to abandon these United States.

And then, when he does, they never do.

If only there were some way to induce them to keep their promise.


Additional thought:

Notice that they *never* promise to flee to Mexico, which is full of Mexicans, but rather to Canada, which is full of white people. I guess they must be racists.

A feminist slogan I can get behind

A woman's Hillary's place in in the White Big House.

alternately ...

Hillary for ambassador to Libya.

Sad, wrinkly, used-up, nasty old skank offers hummers for votes ...

NY Daily News:... gets no takers.

Viewer discretion advised ...

... for those with weak stomachs (or who don't want to admit that the Democratic Party is wicked/morally evil) ...

The Rebel Media (on YouTube): Occult "Spirit Cooking" email reveals Podesta's "diabolical values"

Concerning the brother and sister-in-law of John Podesta -- Married, With Art -- "... "They were horrified", Heather recalls, a grin spreading across her face."

Look: there is something seriously wrong with people who get a kick out of shocking other people.

Of course you didn't ...

... because you're a collectivist racist bigot conspiracy-theorist blinded by your Jew-envy.

Vox Day: "I was just surprised; I know Israelis think very differently than US Jews, but I didn't realize their view on US politics were almost polar opposites."

Coming soon to a swimming pool near you

Gentle Reader may recall having read last summer of an incident in Austria in which a Moslem rapfugee, one 'Amir A', anally raped a 10 year old boy at a public pool and then loitered around until the police showed up to arrest him. Gentle Reader may recall that at trial, his defense argument was that he was undergoing a "sexual emergency", as he hadn't penetrated any body(*) in four months.

In the piece linked below, Mark Steyn discusses the recent overturning by Austria's highest court of the conviction of 'Amir A', the rapist, on the grounds that maybe he just didn't understand that his anal raping of the 10 year old boy was not "consensual".

The problem here is not mainly Islam, though Islam is certainly a serious problem. The problem is leftism; to be more precise, the problem is leftists: it is leftists, in all their sub-varieties, who are destroying the Western nations. Deliberately.

Mark Steyn: Descent into Evil


(*) do note that I wrote "any body", not "anybody". For, after all, never mind consent, Muzzies experiencing a "sexual emergency" aren't too particular about whether those bodies are human or even alive.

The Democratic Party

The Evil Party Democratic Party Platform (PDF format) to summarize: "Left! Kill! Left! Kill! Left! "

EDIT 2016/11/06:
Here is Victor Reppert, allowing his "liberal" politics to drive his morality:

I have a problem with the deeply un-Christian character that Trump consistently exhibits, and even without apocalyptic thinking here, he is deeply problematic from a Christian standpoint. And this is independent of the fundamental divide between liberals and conservatives.

When you say that you have the right to approach women sexually without permission, and that wealth and position of power gives you permission to do so, then you have something deeply un-Christian. I am not saying that this can't be repented of, but someone who has said those things has to really walk these attitudes back in ways in which Trump has not.

Here is my response:

VR: "When you say that you have the right to approach women sexually without permission, and that wealth and position of power gives you permission to do so ..."

That is not what he said, and you know that that is not what he said. He was laughing about (boasting about) how his wealth and fame gives him the opportunity to take advantage of one of the most common ways in which the sinfulness of women is manifest.

Meanwhile, and even aside from her own personal-and-well-known wickedness, Hillary is a Democrat -- Hillary is for murdering children and making you and me pay the murderers; Hillary is for forcing all doctors and nurses to participate in murdering children; Hillary is for persecuting Christians.

There is no such thing as "voting for the man, not the party"; to vote for a any politician is to vote for his party, all of it. The Democrats are the party of abortion (and treason, let us not forget that).

Anyone who votes for *any* Democrat for *any* office is guilty of the abortions the Democrats facilitate; unless one repents, anyone who votes for *any* Democrat for *any* office is already condemned by God.

When you stand before Christ in judgment, and he asks you about your active support of the Party of Abortion, do you *really* imagine that he's going to let you justify that by pointing to your support of the other sinful policies of the Democrats?

The Republican Party

The Stupid Party Republican Party Platform (PDF format)

I'm not going to duplicate their preamble. It does start out good ... and turns into a SOTU speech. I don't mean that the statements are false, just that they become clutter.

From the platform itself:

Protecting Human Life

The Constitution’s guarantee that no one can “be deprived of life, liberty or property” deliberately echoes the Declaration of Independence’s proclamation that “all” are “endowed by their Creator” with the inalienable right to life. Accordingly, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to children before birth.

We oppose the use of public funds to perform or promote abortion or to fund organizations, like Planned Parenthood, so long as they provide or refer for elective abortions or sell fetal body parts rather than provide healthcare. We urge all states and Congress to make it a crime to acquire, transfer, or sell fetal tissues from elective abortions for research, and we call on Congress to enact a ban on any sale of fetal body parts. In the meantime, we call on Congress to ban the practice of misleading women on so-called fetal harvesting consent forms, a fact revealed by a 2015 investigation. We will not fund or subsidize healthcare that includes abortion coverage.

We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life. We oppose the non-consensual withholding or withdrawal of care or treatment, including food and water, from individuals with disabilities, newborns, the elderly, or the infirm, just as we oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide. [and on and on]

And it does go on and on and on.

So, bad as the Republicans have become in recent years, they are still officially opposed to the Abortion Regime. BUT -- and the reason for my "[and on and on]" summation -- the Republicans are not really conservative, and they are not really for a return to the Rule of Law of the US Constitution. Look at what I have quoted above: "We will not fund or subsidize healthcare that includes abortion coverage" Under the US Constitution, it assuredly is not the place of the Federal government to "fund or subsidize healthcare" period, irrespective of the false inclusion of abortion as "healthcare".

As you can see for yourself by reading on from what I have quoted, the Republican Party isn't really opposed to feminism, and thus is not really opposed to leftism; for feminism *is* leftism. The Republicans, like "conservatives" in general, express their surrender to feminism by their abject refusal to hold any women accountable for anything she has chosen to do ... and by their vicious attacking of any man who dares even to suggest that women are moral agents equally with men. No matter what, no matter how many lives are destroyed, women must always be the "victims" (of men) in need of rescue. All this does is guarantee that huge numbers of women continue to make destructive choices.

The Conservative Party

Platform

PREAMBLE
The Conservative Party firmly embraces in the concept of American Exceptionalism. America is a country of a distinguished founding, unique historical experience and has a grand path to the future. We also believe the United States has contributed more to the political, economic and financial betterment of the human condition than any previous collection of nations. The Conservative Party’s Platform affirms this belief.

OFFICIAL PLATFORM ...

A concise preamble; there is something to be said for that.

Also, the specific bullet-point items of their platform are good.

The Constitution Party

Platform and Resolutions

We declare the platform of the Constitution Party to be predicated on the principles of

THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE,
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES,
AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS,

according to the original intent of the Founding Fathers. These founding documents are the foundation of our Liberty and the Supreme Law of the Land.

The sole purpose of government, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, is to secure our unalienable rights given us by our Creator. When Government grows beyond this scope, it is usurpation, and liberty is compromised.

We believe the major issues we face today are best solved by a renewed allegiance to the original intent of these founding documents.

Amen.

Platform, Preamble

The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States.

This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on a foundation of Christian principles and values. For this very reason peoples of all faiths have been and are afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.

The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries.

The Constitution of the United States provides that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” The Constitution Party supports the original intent of this language. Therefore, the Constitution Party calls on all those who love liberty and value their inherent rights to join with us in the pursuit of these goals and in the restoration of these founding principles.

The U.S. Constitution established a Republic rooted in Biblical law, administered by representatives who are constitutionally elected by the citizens. In such a Republic all Life, Liberty and Property are protected because law rules.

We affirm the principles of inherent individual rights upon which these United States of America were founded:

* That each individual is endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are the rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness;
* That the freedom to own, use, exchange, control, protect, and freely dispose of property is a natural, necessary and inseparable extension of the individual’s unalienable rights;
* That the legitimate function of government is to secure these rights through the preservation of domestic tranquility, the maintenance of a strong national defense, and the promotion of equal justice for all;
* That history makes clear that left unchecked, it is the nature of government to usurp the liberty of its citizens and eventually become a major violator of the people’s rights; and
* That, therefore, it is essential to bind government with the chains of the Constitution and carefully divide and jealously limit government powers to those assigned by the consent of the governed.

They'll be the death of us, yet.

William A. Jacobson at Legal Insurrection: New object of hate: Guy who complained about older women in Yoga pants

Women, I mean.

Look, the poor guy didn't even use the totally accurate word 'slut' to denote women who wear yoga pants in public. He just said that they look ridiculous, which is true as far as that goes, and asked them to show some decorum.

And the response? Typical modern female -- "How dare some man to whom I'm not sexually attracted and whose particular attention I am not soliciting by a bawdy display of my body-as-sex-object dare to notice my brazen display of my body-as-sex-object! And how DARE he express an opinion *I* have not given him permission to express!"

Look, women: You don't get to wear the uniform, and then, when someone notices the uniform, cry that you were just playing dress-up.

Look, men: If your woman is dressing and behaving like a slut, that's because she *is* a slut ... and she's looking for a replacement for you.

The Suicide of Thought

John C. Wright: Part One: the Murder of Euclid

John C. Wright: Part Two: the Treason of the Clerks

John C. Wright: Part Three: Strolling Down the Bookshelf

John C. Wright: Part Four: Sawing Off the Branch

John C. Wright: Part Five: Science Envy

John C. Wright: Part Six: Everything is Nothing but Reductionism

John C. Wright: Part Seven: Black Robes and White Labcoats

John C. Wright: Part Eight: The Matter of Materialism

John C. Wright: Part Nine: Anti-Christianity

John C. Wright: Part Ten: The Suicide of Thought

About that 'male privledge'

JudgyBitch: What would happen if no men showed up for work today?

Without ultrasound

a comment at Vox Popoli: "This is going to be an election the old fashioned way, without ultrasound. We're just going to have to wait and see whether it's a boy or a girl."

When I'm Dictator of the World, all pollsters will be executed whenever they raise their heads.

A campaign poster I can get behind

Still better than Hillary

Attila the Hun
Vlad the Impalor [sic]

Still better than Hillary

Burn the Witch!

Douglas Murray at The Spectator: Louis Smith’s ‘show trial’ on Loose Women is emblematic of our dimwit-run times

... Because of course if Smith and a friend had made some joke about Christianity not only would it not have made it to The Sun, it would barely have made it to social media. But thanks to more than a quarter of a century of internalising the Rushdie fatwa, even the most liberal parts of our society have volunteered to become the Spanish Inquisition of Islam.

When we read about societies in history which destroyed people for heresy we usually gasp in amazement. Yet here is a case of someone breaking a heresy of our own society because of beliefs which aren’t in any way central to our society and the result is to try to destroy the person’s career, ensure they can’t work again, publicly humiliate them, call them all the most damaging names possible and make them grovel to get back even a semblance of their old life. This is a sickness. And the fact that this type of show trial is on public television in the middle of the day and that the judges and jury are four ‘loose women’ make it only more emblematic of our dumb and dimwit-run times.

Grasp the distinction to which he points -- when our [insert pejorative of choice here] ancestors persecuted heretics, the heresy in question was generally one that was inimical to their society; when we "enlightened" moderns persecute heretics, it is the orthodoxy being defended that is inimical to their society.

There is a pattern here, it one will see it: the pattern is that everything the leftists do, all their enthusiasms, are inimical to their society.

Priorities!

William Vallicella, commenting on David Gelernter: Why No Women in the National Football League?

Why No Women in the National Football League?

Because we take football seriously.

David Gelernter:

Since when did we decide that men and women are interchangeable in hand-to-hand combat on the front lines? Why do we insist on women in combat but not in the NFL? Because we take football seriously. That’s no joke; it’s the sad truth.

We take panem et circenses seriously, but not the defense of the Republic.

On the other hand -- and mind you, I speak as a man with absolutely no interest in sports of any sort, who does his best to avoid all sports "news" -- the NFL clearly doesn't take itself, nor it customers, nor its future, all that seriously.

Things every Atheist cultist says

Dean's World: Things every Atheist cultist says

This is so funny!

a short YouTube video: Trump and Hillary: Time of my life - LuckyTV

His title pretty much sums it up

Dalrock: Do as you please with their wives, so long as you respect her in the morning.

It has been telling that Republican outrage over the audio of Trump describing his attempt to cuckold other men is almost entirely focused on the fact that Trump spoke crudely in describing the way women threw themselves at him. Cuckoldry they don’t mind, but describing slutty women with disrespectful language is unacceptable!

Trump had claimed he pushed a married woman to have sex with him and said he could grab women “by the p****” because he was a celebrity. A recording of his conversation with then-”Access Hollywood” host Billy Bush was published by NBC News and The Washington Post on Friday.

“No woman should ever be described in these terms or talked about in this manner. Ever,” Priebus said in a statement released that night.

As the saying goes: "You know who rules you when you know who you cannot criticize [or speak the truth about]"


edit --
Or, to channel Ann Coulter, the number of women Donald Trump has left unconscious to drown in a submerged car is *still* zero.

The Perplexing Argument of Atheistic Materialism

William J Murray (at Uncommon Descent): The Perplexing Argument of Atheistic Materialism; wherein Mr Murray discusses the perplexing self-congratulatory behavior of so many internet 'atheists'.

... Perplexing. Perhaps they irrationally see atheism and materialism as heroic views that saved them from emotional distress and can also save the world from its ills, and so they have a devotion towards spreading those views and “freeing” others from what they experienced as harmful or hurtful beliefs. The problem is that if those views are true, their commitment and mission is necessarily worse than Quixotic; they are tilting at windmills as if they were giants even though they insist that giants do not exist. They argue here as if we have some supernatural agency like free will and the capacity to to force our chemistries into obeyance of rationality, even while insisting we do not. Atheistic materialists seem utterly unconcerned that their behavior is necessarily delusional – they act and argue as if the atheistic, material illusions of self, free will and rationality were real, causative commodities and not just side-effect sensations generated by ongoing chemical interactions.

William J Murray (at Uncommon Descent): The Ubiquitous Miracles Of Our Existence -- "We’re blind to the miraculous because the nature of our very existence is miraculous."

All you need to know to understand why Western post-Christian societies are dying

J M Smith at The Orthosphere: Nothing Sacred

After the Republic

Angelo M. Codevilla (on the Claremont Institute's Claremont Review of Books): After the Republic -- [/sarcasm directed at the "alt-right"] Pshaw! What does a Wop know about either Constititionalism or the American Republic? [/sarcasm]

An irony of 'liberalism'

Laura Rosen Cohen: Can Someone Remind Me Why Australia Needs a Grand Mufti?

Trump can't be Hitler ...

If he were, George Soros would be collaborating with him. here on (the evil) FB

Like the frogs of Egypt

Another good one from Douglas Wilson: The Ponies Are Free

Apparently, Obamacare doesn't cover 'pneumonia'

Google: Clinton+Pneumonia

Or does it now?

Do Aztecs and Christians worship the same God?

William Vallicella The Debate That Won't Go Away: Do Christians and Muslims Worship the Same God?

... So the conceptions of God in the two religions are radically different. But how is it supposed to follow that Christians and [Aztecs] worship numerically different Gods? It doesn't follow! Let me explain.

Suppose Sam's conception of the author of Das Kapital includes the false belief that the author is a Russian while Dave's conception includes the true belief that he is a German. This is consistent with there being one and same philosopher whom they have beliefs about and are referring to. One and the same man, Karl Marx, is such that Sam has a false belief about him while Dave has a true belief about him.

Now suppose [Atl]'s conception of the divine being includes the false belief that said being [demands, or at least requires/needs, unending blood sacrifice, and on an industrial scale] while Peter's conception includes the true belief that God [offered himself once and for all as the only fitting blood sacrifice]. This is consistent with there being one and same being whom they have beliefs about and are referring to. One and the same god, God, is such that [Atl] has a false belief about him while Peter has a true belief about him.

What I have just shown is that from the radically different, and indeed inconsistent, God-conceptions one cannot validly infer that (normative) Christians and (normative) [Aztecs] refer to and worship numerically different Gods. For the difference in conceptions is consistent with sameness of referent. So you can see that Fr. O'Brien has made a mistake.

Or, alternately, we *could* allow ourselves to see that William Vallicella has made the same mistake he constantly insists upon making.

You know, it's one thing to say that Protestants and Catholics worship the same God, despite that Catholicism just can't seem to get that "once and for all" bit; it's quite another thing to say that Moslems and Christians worship the same God, when nearly every statement of Islam touching on Christ is *explicitly* formulated as a denial of a Christian statement.

But nota bene: Difference in conceptions is also consistent with a difference in referent. It could be that when a Christian uses 'God' he refers to something while a Muslim refers to nothing when he uses 'Allah.' Consider God and Zeus. Will you say that the Christian and the ancient Greek polytheist worship the same God except that the Greek has false beliefs about their common object of worship, believing as he does that Zeus is a superman who lives on a mountain top, literally hurls thunderbolts, etc.? Or will you say that there is no one God that they worship, that the Christian worships a being that exists while the Greek worships a nonexistent object? And if you say the latter, why not also say the same about God and Allah, namely, that there is no one being that they both worship, that the Christian worships the true God, the God that really exists, whereas Muslims worship a God that does not exist?

Well, you *could* say, as I do, that the being whom Moslems worship does indeed exist and is not God.

In sum, difference in conceptions is logically consistent both with sameness of referent and difference of referent.

You don't say! Might that be why -- contrary to Vallicella's prestntation of him -- Fr. O'Brien noted not simply differences between the Christian and Moslem conceptions of God, but also explicit Islamic repudiations of key Christian concepts?

Summary

Most of the writing on this topic is exasperatingly superficial and uninformed, even that by theologians. Fr. O'Brien is a case in point. He thinks the question easily resolved: you simply note the radical difference in the Christian and Muslim God-conceptions and your work is done. Others make the opposite mistake. They think that, of course, Christians and Muslims worship the same God either by making Tuggy's mistake above or by thinking that the considerable overlap in the two conceptions settles the issue.

My thesis is not that the one side is right or that the other side is right. My thesis is that the question is a very difficult one that entangles us in controversial inquiries in the philosophies or mind and language.

Well, Vallicella does love him some entanglements and "inquiries" -- he loves nothing more than to keep jawboning a question while never arriving at an answer.

The Street Called "Hate" Runs Both Ways

Kathy Shaidle: An open letter to those Jewish ladies on Facebook who REALLY hate Christians -- "... Anyhow, don’t worry: If you really cared about this, you would just go visit this pastor and his congregation and I’m pretty sure that after about 5 minutes, they wouldn’t like Jews as much any more!"

Yeppers. Some Jews are as irrational and as hate-filled toward Christianity and Christians -- and as irrational in their hatreds -- as the people who "((()))"


EDIT: Of course, the *other* thing about Miss Shaidle's open letter is the tribalism of Catholics in America (in this context, Canada counts as being part of America), including (or especially?) the ones, such as Miss Shaidle, who are only culturally Catholic. In a very real way, "non-observant" Catholics mirror "non-observant" Jews when it comes to waving the tribal banner.

Mother Theresa on Prayer

Bob Prokop posted this during yet another interminable thread on Victor Reppert's blog

Dan Rather once interviewed Mother Theresa. It was always a delight to watch cynical journalists interview Mother Theresa, because she would invariably make them look like fools. He asked Mother Theresa about prayer:

"What do you say to God when you pray," he inquired.
"Nothing," replied Mother Theresa. "I just listen."
"What does God say to you?" he responded, rather derisively.
"Nothing," replied Mother Theresa. "He just listens."

That's what prayer ... can become. We are still, silent, and we listen to God listening to us. And the more time we spend ... in silence, the more we will begin to hear God listen, the more aware we will become of His presence in our lives.

That is so true -- "Be still, my soul, and know that he is God." Prayer, like worship, is loving God, and participating in his Love.

Son of Bel

My email inbox delivered to me a new comment posted by 'Ray' to a recent thread on Dalrock's blog, most of which I duplicate here:

I am not a Protestant. Stop building boxes for others, there, Boxer. I will decide what I am, and what I am not. And writing the truth is not an insult, except to those who don’t like the truth. You pretend that’s a waste of time. Apparently you were invested enough to comment, though, hm?

Speaking of the truth, and of friends, my friends are those who follow the One Lord and love his Scripture. You’re against feminism but you’re not in that category? Then you aren’t my friend or ‘family’. Red Pill don’t mean shit.

Dalrock’s OP is a link to writings by somebody calling themselves ‘Supreme Dark Lord’. No real Christian would ever support or advance such a person . . . except that folks desperately want to be liked and accepted, don’t they? They want to be on the Cool Team with the popular edgy Dark Lord and his Grouplings. So they ally themselves with their sad “Supreme Dark Lord” and pretend it’s all a joke. But billing yourself as Lord in this world is no joke.

Your beloved Dark Lord is surnamed Beale, which means “Son of Bel.” I don’t think you’re a Christian, so wouldn’t expect you to understand, but any Christian or lover of Scripture knows who Bel is. It is not Jesus Christ. Therefore I’m unsurprised when Supreme Dark Lord Vox, Son of Bel, places the names of Jews in parentheses, to intimidate. He pretends his motivation is nationalism and the health of ‘Western Civilization’, which he will fix — but your Supreme Dark Lord sneaks around the Continent with some very anti-Christian elements. His tactics are overtly anti-Semitic, his political friends are zealously anti-Semitic, and yet ‘Christians’ ignore this, because they don’t have the courage to stand against the Group. They want to be Big Players like their hero, Son of Bel, and get lots of attention. Be Movers and Shakers. And I see that today, their supposed ‘opponent’ is busy giving them exactly what they desire, more publicity for ego-aggrandizement, and for the advancement of their cause, which is not the Christian cause of building the Kingdom of Christ on Earth.

“Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Bel? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols?” (2 Cor. 6)

You are either with Bel, or with Christ. There is no in-between, and you cannot promote the works of Bel, and of Bel’s servants, and still pretend obedience to the Lord. I mean the real Lord, not some arrogant, cowardly punk with Little Man Syndrome.

Other than 'Ray's' faulty etymology of Vox Day's surname, I agree with what he wrote (and the reasoning) -- Vox Day (that is, Theodore Beale) *is* an anti-Semite, and he is not a Christian, and he is, in fact, in direct opposition to Christianity: that is, he is indeed a "son of Bel".

Vox Day may call his politics-and-economics "alt-right", but it's just the same old leftism that has been quashing human liberty, and human lives, for the past century -- "alt-right" is just the new name for fascism (unlike the leftists, who use that term to mean "people I don't like", I am using it correctly).

'I thought Soros was a Republican'

In the commbox of a recent post by the crudé-minded individual:

the crudé-minded individual: I'm pointing out who leftists are in bed with. Social justice on display, loud and clear: it's another tool of a billionaire atheist who collaborated with the nazis.

What do you think of Soros, Bob?

Bob Prokop: Ha! Prior to your comment, I thought Soros was a Republican. So I guess whatever I think of him is wrong!

I can't ever seem to convince you - I don't think about politics much at all. Whole days go by without my worrying about them at all.

Well, I for one, am willing to believe that B.Prokop doesn't think too deeply about political matters.

How could anyone paying even a scintilla of attention to current events ever imagine that Soros is a Republican and/or a conservative? As best I can see, the "reasoning" goes something like this --

Apparently, what B.Prokop knew about Soros is this:
1) he is *very* wealthy

possibly, he also knew this:
2) he is a *very* wicked man.

So, of course -- even without 2) -- Soros must be a Republican.

One of the amusing things about this is that Soros pulls the strings (via funding) not only of the current Social Just-Us Wankerism which has B.Prokop reconsidering his commitment to leftism, but also of the (slightly) older (and slightly more rational) leftism of which B.Prokop approves and which he promotes ... when he's not pretending to be above politics.

A feminized culture breeds feminized 'men'

What is the difference between a dude who insists that he is a woman and may (or may not, as see 'Jenner, Bruce') have the amputated dick to "prove" it, on the one hand, and a dude proudly flaunting his copious tats and piercings, on the other hand?

Degree.

The thing about "body modification" is that it displays that one has a feminine (in the "toxic" sense) mindset. Those pathetic guys running around with their "sleeves" and "gauges" are not showing the rest of us what tough and manly guys they are ... they're showing us what pussies they are.

Think about this. How do men generally compete for the attention of others (and for social status)? How do women generally compete for the attention of others (and for social status)? Men generally do it on the basis of their acts, of what they accomplish; women generally do it on the basis of their bodies, of what they look look like, of how thay have decorated their bodies. This is why women spend a lot of time and effort drawing attention to their bodies (*); this is why everyone looks askance at a man who has obviously spent a lot of time and effort to draw attention to his body (**).

Now, one of the things about trying to draw attention to your body is that this works best if your body is beautiful. Women generally have it oven men in that regard; very few of us men look like David Beckham. So -- this being the age of post-modernist revolt against beauty -- if you can't be pretty, then be ugly (***): thus, the ever-escalating cult of "body modification".

So, pity -- and scorn -- the tatted-up dude, for he hates that God made him a man (and he refuses to be one).


(*) and get so very angry when:
1) the "wrong guy" notices the very body they have deliberately put on display;
2) the "right guy" fails to notice (or fails to approve either the body or that it is on display) the body they have so painstakingly put on display for him.

(**) and because everyone *does* look askance at a man who has obviously spent a lot of time and effort to draw attention to his body, those tatted-up dudes have to pretend that they are doing it for another reason, such as "to express my individuality" ... you know, similar to how in times past women *had* to have clothes totally unique to any other woman's. The point here is that even in the publicly expressed rationale for their self-mutilation, they display their feminized non-masculine mind-sets.

(***) and, in fact, *because* this is the age of post-modernist revolt against beauty, even if you are pretty, you'd better make yourself ugly; thus, David Beckham (and his wife).

Who enstupidated whom?

Somehow -- given his commitment to "human bio-diversity" and genetic determinism -- I don't see Vox Day enthusiastically linking to this particular piece by Fred Reed: The Maya: Who Woulda Thunk It?

Don't they say, 'A fish rots from the head'?

From a recent Vox Day blogpost, 'fisking' the attempt of some SJW to "control the narrative", Mailvox: an SJW Narrative sale

A recent comment from HGL is an almost flawless example of this. Here is his attempt to reshape reality by doing what SJWs always do:

Meh, Wright had some talent befor castalua. I think what's telling is that although vox makes himself out to be the next big thing (constantly), his scifi posts get fewer and fewer hits and everyone ignored the hell out of him on Brad's blog recently. No one who matters is buying it.

Let's count the false assertions. I get five.
...
5.There are tens of thousands of people who are buying Castalia books. All of them matter. Regardless, the key thing to note here is the appeal to those "who matter", which is typical SJW-speak, because it permits them to disqualify everyone whose behavior falsifies their false narrative.

Sounds good (rational and honest), right?

So how do Vox Day's "Ilk" behave?

Here is 'Snidely Whiplish', trying to "control the narrative":

And yet you post a link to your idiot drivel there. Why? We're all fascists two steps from rounding up the Jews, why would you want even to speak to us?

Here is 'Dave Narby', trying to "control the narrative":

Here's a novel thought: Post your idea in the affirmative, first person.

You know, as if you were trying to make a cogent point and engage in actual dialog - as opposed to snarkily and self-righteously trying to virtue signal.

Say your sorry for being a douchenozzle first. I bet Vox will post it!

Here is 'Snidely Whiplish' again, both trying to "control the narrative" and using the Disqualify! tactic:

Post ing a link to your inane drivel, where you call us all idiots and German fascists one step from killing Jews, because we don't think "Free Trade" as it is practiced has benefited us.
You're a fool and tool of the corporate fascists, and you're damn proud of it.

Here is 'Snidely Whiplish' again, both trying to "control the narrative" and using the Disqualify! tactic: Here is :

I never called you a Leftie. Inane Libertarian, definitely. Cuckservative, probably.
What you said is inane drivel because you are inane and you drivel.

You're also a gutless gamma that can't stand the idea that Vox slapped your stupid bitch ass down when you tried to derail the conversation by mocking him. The passive-aggressive reposting it on your blog and posting a link here is the gamma tell.

And finally your "point" (that trade restrictions mean slavery and the enrichment of the elite) has been conclusively destroyed by actual experience. What has 40 years of Free Trade dogma done for the people of the US? Made them more free than they were?

Of course, being a little, useless, libertarian gamma bitch, you prefer your theory and "thought experiments" to actual experience and history.

Here is 'BGKB', using the Disqualify! tactic:

If you follow the link Ilion is asking to be banned for cucking.

For the humor of it, Here is 'lowercaseb', playing the "You're so Dreamy!" card:

wow...I took a peek at his blog and I thought for sure that was Catalytic Converter or whatever the name was of the last guy who kept writing giant missives on whatever blog he could find about how Vox was so unfair and how much he didn't care.

I'm still kinda new here, but they really are starting to sound all alike.

Here is Vox Day, just breaking my heart:

Banned and spammed, Ilion. You're done here.

What? I can no longer *see* -- and hold up for ridicule -- the foolish things he writes on the internet?

As of today, 2016/08/12, there have been 160 pageviews of the 'What a hypocritical asshole' post. Now, of course that is small potatoes compared to someone who is always boasting of his massive readership. To give the reader some idea of how unimportant my blog is, that 160 pageviews is 140-150 more than I would normally expect to see.

But here is the thing: however many actual persons those 160 pagewiews represent, at least some of them are going to be open to the idea that they ought to read Vox Day with a very large grain of salt. At least some of them are going to be open to the idea that if they pay attention, they can see for themselves that he constantly employs so many of the same intellectually dishonest tactics and techniques that he (rightly) condemns others for using. And, at least some of them are going to be open to the idea that if they *really* pay attention, they can see for themselves that his prescription for turning back the growing leftist tyranny over America is ... more leftist tyranny in America.

'Ilion, you are out of bounds here'

This is me laughing at that assertion.

Recently, Victor Reppert put up a post called "Joe Hinman turns Derrida on his head ". To that title, I responded with: "Joe Hinman turns logic (and grammar) on its head, why not Derrida, too?"

And Joe Hinman, being who and what he is, responded with:

Eric Sotnack who teaches Philosophy at Akron helped me structure the argument, So a professional philosopher who is an atheist thinks it's valid.

show me a grammatical error I'e committed. do you even know the grammar, spelling, and punctuation>?

Ignoring the first paragraph, which naturally had nothing to do with what I said, I responded with: "^ I leave it to Gentle Reader to supply his own guffaws."

This was too much for that professional "nice" guy, Victor Reppert (*), who decided to jump in with:

Ilion, you are out of bounds here. However you may disagree with him, especially on politics, we all know he is dyslexic and needs help with some mechanical issues in writing. My doctoral dissertation advisor, Hugh Chandler, was the same way.

I responded with:

I am never "out of bounds"; I say the truth that you do not wish said. Said or unsaid, reality remain what it is -- "Joe Hinman turns logic (and grammar) on its head, why not Derrida, too?".

It seems that you have as little respect for this particular prancing fool as I do, albeit differently grounded (**).

If he is dyslexic, then that is *his* problem, and it is up to him to take the care that what he posts isn't so scrambled that no one else has the faintest clue as to what he means.

And, in any event, his underlying problem isn't dyslexia, it's illogic ... and vicious leftism.

By the way, my immediate supervisor is dyslexic ... and he doesn't need anyone to run interference for him when we can't make heads nor tails of what he means to communicate to us.

Now, the thing is, I mostly ignore Joe Hinman, precisely because he is an irrational fool; but given Reppert's title, it was just too much temptation to resist my initial quip. I mean, Derrida (***)!

And the other thing is, Joe Hinman not only seems to be unable to ignore me, but he also seems to have a hard time resisting attacking me. This is what Reppert is alluding to with "However you may disagree with him, especially on politics"; you know, that old "even-handedness" for which "even-handed" people are so noted -- if Hinman says the most outrageous lies about me, that's just a difference of opinion, but if I laugh about Hinman's grammar-on-its-head disputation of my statement that he regularly turns grammar on its head, well, that's "out of bounds".

AND, actually, it's not true that "we all know he is dyslexic and needs help with some mechanical issues in writing". "All" includes me, doesn't it? I didn't know this claim about him.

And knowing it, I don't care.



(*) Who will *never* pipe up with the smallest of trillings when Joe Hinman (or any other leftist, or 'atheist') makes the most outrageous, and easily seen to be false, assertions about me or about any other anti-leftist.

(**) I think he's an adult and a moral agent who chooses to be a fool; Reppert apparently thinks he's a child below "the age of accountability" who must be shielded from the consequences of his own choices.

(***) Turning logic and language on their heads was Derrida's specialty and his claim to fame.

About that 'Reset' Button

Neo, commenting at Q&O:

Apparently, Hillary Clinton’s own “2nd Amendment people” have been busy shooting down this poor man, a former DNC staffer, Seth Rich, on the streets of DC as WikiLeaks now claims that Rich was the source of the leaked DNC emails.

The bumbling “experts” the Hillary campaign used to claim it was the Russians were completely wrong, as the former Secretary of State’s campaign risked inflaming relations with the Russians for domestic political purposes.

Hillary’s famous “Reset Button” with the Russians just keeps on paying dividends, doesn’t it?

Gateway Pundit: Julian Assange Suggests Seth Rich – Who Was MURDERED in DC – Was Wikileaks DNC Source!

One wonders how poor Hillary finds the fortitude to soldier on when people around her keep turning up dead.

The Washington Post: WikiLeaks offers reward for help finding DNC staffer’s killer

Edit--

On the other hand (and don't be all shocked if this comment is deleted)

If Rich really was the Wikileaks mole inside the DNC, then why not just say so? Rich is dead, so it's not like Assange really needs to continue protecting his source. Assange should fish or cut bait.

What a hypocritical asshole

Vox Day "If you're still foolish enough to swallow the false assertion that free trade is beneficial to America, perhaps you should consider if you believe any of the other lies you are being told by the same people."

Me (no link, as he deleted the post, as I was sure he would): "If you're still foolish enough to swallow the false assertion that [using government violence to compel the many who are not politically connected to subsidize the choices of the few who are politically connected] is beneficial to America, perhaps you should consider if you believe any of the other lies you are being told by the same people.

Fixed it for you."


Vox Day "I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, Ilion, and merely delete your comment. Never, ever "fix" my words or attempt to speak for me again.

You can speak for yourself. You do not speak for me even in jest. You are not my editor, you are not my employer, you are a guest here and you are expected to comport yourself accordingly."

Look at this pathetic (*) God-damned (**) -- and I mean that quite literally -- liar. He knows full well that I wasn't even pretending to "speak for" him.

And *I* know full well that (in this instance) "comport yourself accordingly" is Voxspeak for "don't you ever *explain*, in any venue where I can suppress it, what the protectionism I espouse cashes out to in practice".

Look everyone, in the end, Vox Day -- that self-proclaimed opponent of The State As God -- will be advocating full-on fascism (***) (not that he is that far from it even now), which is to say, The State As God (**).


(*) Have you seen and heard the man? In his "philosophy", he's sub-"beta". In his "philosophy", the mere sight of his mesomorphic mug, or fluting of his 12-year old girl voice, causes pussies around the world to fill up with sand.

(**) He is *not* a Christian, but he does seek to use semi-Christians to further a political agenda; he is *not* for the individual's liberty from government busybody interference; he is *not* for the individual's ownership of, and enjoyment of the fruit of, his own labor

(***) Shoot! He has already half way boarded the German version of that particular train. One may notice not just many of his "Ilk" (most of whom are functionally idiots), but also he himself employing the (((echo))) "meme". Because, after all, every problem in the world is traceable to (((Teh Jooos!)))

'Let's All Get Banned From Facebook' #1

Me (on Facebook): "I'm thinking I'll try to get myself banned from Facebook -- wouldn't it be great if everyone who claims to care about [and] oppose the on-going destruction of our civilization would do likewise?

Attempt #1 -- His name is BRUCE and he is not a woman."

By the way, leftists can state the truth about ol' Bruce, when they want to (see this comedian's routine 2:35 YouTube video -- "You most certainly are not a traditional girl")

But what sort of martyr?

Maureen Mullarkey at TheFederalist: Was Jacques Hamel A Martyr To The Faith Or To His Illusions About Islam?

Set aside, if you can, all horror at Hamel’s murder. Look past, please, all warranted sympathy for this good man and his terrible end. There remains a question: Was the priest a martyr for the faith or to his own illusions about Islam?

By all accounts a kindly man, Hamel served in a parish committed to the very illusion of ecumenical agreement with Islam that de Mattei abhors. The Belfast Telegraph reports the nuns gave reading lessons to Muslim kids in the tower blocks. Church authorities soared above such neighborliness. Courting dhimmitude, they donated the land beside Hamel’s church to local Muslims to build the mosque his two young killers attended. During Ramadan, the parish hall “and other facilities” were given over to Muslims. (In terms of Islamic jurisprudence, the mosque and the ground under it belong forever to the eternal ummah. The archdiocese has ceded a portion of Normandy to the caliphate. Allah be praised.)

In his last pastoral letter, Hamel called for communities to live together and “accept each other as they are.” But accepting Islam means recognizing its totalizing nature. Authentic acceptance is unsentimental. It is a prod to staying watchful. To befriend Muslims as individuals does not cancel the necessity to know Islam’s history, its millenarian ambitions, and its enduring theological imperative toward violence.

Christian charity does not entail any obligation to accommodate Islam’s muscular expansion in the West. One way to love the enemy is to defeat him. Yet Hamel’s parish was actively lending itself to Islam’s ascendancy. Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray is a lesson in the price Christianity pays for the fanaticism of profligate mercy.

Burn in Hell, commie pinko!

The Federalist (March 10, 2015 By Sean Davis): Ted Kennedy Secretly Asked The Soviets To Intervene In The 1984 Elections

This one, too -- TownHall.com: McCaskill: Trump May Have Violated the Logan Act With Russian Remarks

Isn't the bottled outrage of leftists just so precious?

All Lies Matter, II

David Warren: Confronting evil with joss sticks -- "...
The French president said it [the brutal murder by Moslems of a Catholic priest at the altar of a Catholic church where he had been officiating the Mass] was an attack on all French citizens, which presumably includes the citizen Islamists; our pope called the violence “absurd.” I find these lies in extremely poor taste. It was not an attack on all Frenchmen, but symbolically on a Catholic priest. And it was not absurd, but purposefully directed to that end. Father Jacques Hamel was martyred during the morning Mass. His throat slit, then by some accounts, beheaded; two nuns and two others at prayer also seized and tormented; and another throat slit; while a rant was delivered from the altar, in Arabic.

I am truly disgusted by remarks from Rome that we hope the elderly priest is at peace, and that we condemn “every form of hatred.” This reduces the teaching of Our Lord to the asinine. Reference to Islam was carefully avoided.

One wonders what atrocity the Islamists must commit, to make their point more explicit.

I really don’t care if they hate us. That is their opinion, and none of my concern. I do care that they are trying to kill us, on the basis of verses plausibly cited from the Koran. Would it hurt their feelings if we called them on this?"

A previous pope popularized (and, so far as I know, coined) the phrase "culture of death" to describe the suicidal direction that the post-Christian Western cultures have deliberately taken since turning their backs on the heritage, and religion, of their fathers; the current pope appears to have to have made his peace with the "culture of death" and to have dived headlong into it.

I'm so glad that as a Protestant and a Christian (*), I don't feel any need at all to contort myself defending that fool (nor the French one, for that matter).



(*) Yes, I went there. And, as Warren says of Moslems hating us, "I really don’t care" that (some) Catholics will get their panties into a twist -- hypocritically, in every case -- because I distinguish between Catholicism -- a bureaucracy which claims to own Christianity -- and Christianity itself.

While not claiming any "word from God" nor gift of prophesy, it certainly appears to me that the time is upon us when Catholics will have to choose: do you stand with Christ, or do you stand with the self-anointed "vicar of Christ"?

From the US supreme Court Venus (1814) and Wong Kim Ark (1898) decisions

Following is a recent post I made at 'Blog and Mablog' concerning natural born citizenship

Now, to go into some technicalities of the matter --

The US supreme Court, the Venus (1814) decision, quoting Vattel in its decision -- "The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."

In this quote, Vattel uses "natives or indigenes" to refer to natural born citizens.

That is, in this early supreme Court decision, the Court reiterated the commonly understood meaning of the phrase 'natural born citizen' to be "those [citizens who are] born in the country of parents who are citizens" and, as under the doctrine of 'coverture', a woman's citizenship followed from her husband's, the Court also reiterated that "... those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights"

The above was part of a lengthier discussion concerning natural born citizenship, starting here [edit: trying to supply links to sub-threads there is way tricky; I can't get it to work as I intend. I don't know whether this will be true in five minutes, but scrolling UP from the first link I gave presents (most of) the sub-thread, whereas this link doesn't]


EDIT 2016/07/28 --
From the Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 702, 703 (1898) decision --

A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.

Now, again, here the supreme Court is not setting a precedent, it is merely stating a fact of the matter. And that fact of the matter has not changed between 1898 and 2016 -- Ted Cruz holds US citizenship due to an Act of Congress which gave his (citizen) mother the legal right to claim US citizenship for him, via naturalization, on his behalf. Had he been born prior to 1934, she'd not have had that legal right and he'd have had to apply for naturalization himself once he attained his majority.


Ted Cruz is --
1) "A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States"
2) the "foreign-born child[ of a US]citizen"
3) a person whose US citizenship was acquired pursuant to an "enactment[ of the Congress] conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens" ... that is, via naturalization

ERGO: Ted Cruz is a naturalized US citizen and is thereby prohibited by the US Constitution from occupying the Office of US President.

====
EDIT (and off-topic) --
Wow! The misplacement of "only" has a distinguished pedigree. "A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized" should properly be "A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can become a citizen only by being naturalized"

Irony!

The irony, it burns! "Modern conservatism is one long attempt to gain the approval of people who despise you at the expense of people most likely to befriend you."

That's gotta sting "It took me a while to realize that sometimes the proper response to an ally saying something outrageous, or offensive, or event racist is not "DENOUNCE, OSTRACIZE, SACRIFICE" but, 'Yeah, I think they're wrong on this. So fucking what?'"

The other way they get their rocks off

Jihad Watch (linking to the UK's Daily Mail Online): US-backed Syrian “rebels” screaming “Allahu akbar” behead small boy as “spy”

I fully expect that they raped the boy before murdering him to make their snuff film.

Here is a comment that well expresses exactly what I was thinking when I saw the (pre-murder) photo --
"Look at their friendly smiling faces.

Take the little, soon to be brutally murdered, boy out of the picture and any immigration officer would only see nice young syrian refugees who need our help and support.
…
They’re amongst us already.

By the thousands."

THAT is the face of Islam ... smiles while preparing for brutal murder.

I'm smarter than Vox Day!

A recent Vox Day post is one of his interminable screeds concerning his social interactions with "gamma males", toward the end of which he writes: "Once more, Camestros provides us with sufficient evidence to safely conclude that if IQ is a reasonable measure of innate intelligence, his is considerably lower than mine. It's funny that despite being such a questionable metric, a similar percentile just seems to keep showing up no matter how it's measured.

[Bell-curve graphic result from the linked on-line quiz (*), according to which his English vocabulary is 30150, which is said to be in the top 0.01%]

Of course, my actual vocabulary is probably more than twice that, but then, we're not counting Italian, German, French, or Japanese vocabularies."

[Edit: Can you see me rolling my eyes? Having a massive Italian vocabulary has next to nothing to do with one's English vocabulary]

Normally, I avoid on-line quizzes, especially ones purporting to measure or reflect IQ. But I took this one (*). The quiz result claims that my English vocabulary is 30325 (also in the top 0.01%, obviously).

So, according to Vox Day himself, I likely have a higher IQ than he does.


(*) It's 50 multiple-choice synonym/antonym matches. [EDIT: If you dare, take the quiz and post the result in the commbox]

Here is a comment posted to the quiz, which seems to me to be the best explanation for a high score -- "... Also, I'm seeing in comments that people are trying to correlate their score with their educational levels (or brag that they got a high score with relatively low education). I would posit that one's score has less to do with formal education and more to do with how much one reads."

Myself, I understand -- and use in writing -- a much greater vocabulary than I use in speaking.

All Lies Matter

Douglas Wilson: All Lies Matter

Finding 'Lydia McGrew'

From time to time, I notice that one of the search terms that brings visitors to this dusty little corner of the internet is "Lydia McGrew", which fact is slightly interesting to me (if not to Gentle Reader).

Those who end up here due to a search on "Lydia McGrew" may, if you wish, add this little fact to your on-going opinion of her -- back in October of 2015, I strongly criticized a particular act of bitchiness (*) on her part toward a regular poster at What's Wrong With The World. As I knew she would, she deleted (**) the posts I'd made at WWWtW ... and at some time after that, added my user-name to their list of banned commenters (**).


(*) and let me be clear that I used the word 'bitchy' to describe her behavior, used in deliberately, and stand by it.

(**) women *hate* to have their behavior, no matter what it is or how outrageous, criticized by a mere man; there is *nothing* that enrages the average woman more than for a mere man to dispassionately criticize what she has done.

Morality ... and God!

Victor Reppert: "If the Christian God exists, doesn't he get to decide what is right or wrong? Or could an existing God be mistaken about, for example, whether gay relationships are right or not.

Consider the following scenario: God created the world, and decreed that marriage was the only proper place for sex, and that marriage was a relationship between a man and a woman. But, he got it wrong, and gay was really OK.

Is that scenario even possible?"

Legion of Logic: "Can God be wrong about morality? Can the creator of chess be wrong that bishops move diagonally?

The only way God could be wrong about morality would be if either he didn't create the universe, or morality somehow transcends both God and the universe. But in any scenario in which God created the universe and morality does not transcend both, then God can't possibly be wrong ..."

me: Moreover, if one posits that morality transcends God-the-Creator-of-the-Universe, all one has actually done is assert-without-reason that there is a God-Above-God-the-Creator ... and then we are right back to Square One with nothing "solved" from the point of view of the person who wishes to set himself up as competent to put God-the-Creator on trial.

==========
Morality exists if and only if there are persons -- which is to say, free agents -- for moral obligations obtain only between persons/agents. That is, a person does not have a moral obligation to a rock, nor a rock to a person, for only agents may have moral expectations which impose corresponding moral obligations upon other agents.

Moreover, morality exists if and only if there are persons in communion or relationship, for moral obligations obtain only between persons in relation to other persons. That is, the precise moral expectations and obligations between persons depend upon and follow from the relationship between them -- for example: if there are persons living on a distant planet, we have no moral obligations to them, nor they to us, because there is no relationship whatsoever between them and us.

HOWEVER, the reality of moral expectatons and obligations cannot be grounded in the relationships between contingent persons. To attempt to do so is just another way of denying the transcendent reality of morality; it's just to deny that there really is any such thing as morality.

Consider: if one person is a ruler and another person is ruled by that ruler, then those two persons are in a relationship which imposes certain, though different, expectations and consequent obligations on each. Now, add a third person, one who is also ruled by that same ruler. IF the moral expectations and obligations between ruler and ruled followed from the relationships between these contingent persons, then any commonality between the moral expectations and obligations obtaining between the ruler and the first subject, on the one hand, and between the ruler and the second subject, on the other hand, would be accidental/coincidental -- to discover/understand some fact of the moral expectations and obligations obtaining between the ruler and the first subject would tell you nothing about the moral expectations and obligations obtaining between the ruler and the second subject.

THUS, morality is, and must be, grounded in the relationship(s) obtaining between non-contingent persons.

----------------
And, by the way, I have just demonstrated that God is a plurality of persons -- while this is not a demonstration that God is precisely Three Persons, it *is* a demonstration that the Christian doctrine of the Trinity is not in conflict with what "unaided reason" can tell us about the nature of God ... or of ourselves.

At the same time (without getting into it here), reason also tells us that there is One God.

So, there is One God ... who is a plurality of Persons.

'Claim-staking'

The useful term 'virtue-signaling' has of late become ubiquitous -- "[James Bartholomew] coined the phrase in an article here in The Spectator (18 April) in which [he] described the way in which many people say or write things to indicate that they are virtuous. Sometimes it is quite subtle. By saying that they hate the Daily Mail or Ukip, they are really telling you that they are admirably non-racist, left-wing or open-minded. One of the crucial aspects of virtue signalling is that it does not require actually doing anything virtuous. It does not involve delivering lunches to elderly neighbours or staying together with a spouse for the sake of the children. It takes no effort or sacrifice at all."

Recently, I read someone asking whether there is a similar pithy term by which to denote the never-ending efforts of leftist cry-bullies to establish for themselves a place of social-and-moral dominance on the leftist hierarchy-of-victimhood totem-pole.

May I suggest 'claim-staking', or, in full, 'victimhood/victimocracy claim-staking'?

Defective tranny

a comment/joke on Vox Popoli

From the bottom of my (small-r) republican heart ...

God save the Queen (*): A Two-fer - Brexit: David Cameron to quit after UK votes to leave EU



(*) at least until Charlie kicks the bucket

Micah Tyler

Micah Tyler (YouTube video): You've Gotta Love Millennialss (h/t Vox Day)

Micah Tyler (YouTube video): Christianese

Micah Tyler (YouTube video): Missions

Sad News

Doug Benscotter (of the Fides et Ratio blog) has died

Teletubbieworld

Shadow to Light: Neil deGrasse Tyson’s Argument From Evil: Toothless and Useless --

The modern day atheist movement has only one argument to support atheism – The Argument From Evil. ...

The Argument from Evil boils down to this: If there is a God, we should all be Teletubbie-like creatures living in a Teletubbie-like world. Since we are not Teletubbie-like creatures living in a Teletubbie-like world, there is no God.

... From my perspective, this world, with all its evil, is better that a Teletubbie-like world.

So we are left wondering – Is the Argument from Evil the atheist’s way of expressing his/her desire to be a Teletubbie?

1) Moral evil -- wickedness -- results from wicked choices that moral agents freely make. So, what the childish so-called atheists are childishly insisting is that either:
1a) no one be *free* to make wicked choices -- yet, when they're not railing against God for allowing other people to make wicked choices, they're railing against him for forbidding certain acts (especially odd or perverse uses of the sexual organs) as wicked choices;
1b) or, moral agents be free to make wicked choices, but that the choices must have no evil consequences -- in effect, they're demanding that God make the world be irrational, by severing the link between cause-and-effect;

2) Natural evil -- injurious events that "just happen", without a moral component -- results from the fact of change: it is logically impossible for God to make a world in which change occurs and yet no change has any consequence for any other element in the world. Sure, God could have created a static world -- a *dead* world -- but *we* couldn't live in it. So, with regard to natural evil, what the childish so-called atheists are childishly insisting is that either:
2a) God place us in a world in which nothing ever changes, that is, a *dead* world;
2b) or, God place us in a world in which change does occur, but that no change ever have unwelcome consequences -- in effect, they're demanding that God make the world be irrational, by severing the link between cause-and-effect.

So, what it comes down to is that the 'atheists' are insisting that God can create only a world in which either --
a) there are no moral agents -- i.e. a non-rational world;
b) there are no causes -- i.e. an irrational world, in which events occur but don't cause consequences;
c) there are no events at all -- i.e. a static or dead world;

Implications!

In a recent post on Victor Reppert's blog, Bob Prokop explodes the common atheistic talking point that critical thinking leads one to embrace atheism --

"I'm curious what you think would be an acceptable demonstration of the claim that critical thinking leads to atheism. (I do think this is true, but I am wondering what you think would demonstrate it to you, and others.)"

It's not gonna happen, because there is simply no conceivable way that honest, critical thinking will ever lead to atheism.

Atheism demands that one close one's mind to the illogic of something coming from nothing (or else one has to redefine "nothing" to the point where it is actually "something").

Atheism demands that one overlook the fact that atheism necessarily means there is no objective morality, that good and evil are nothing more than subjective judgements of a mind that one can't actually trust to make such judgements.

Atheism demands that one ignore the fact that 99.9 percent of humanity since the Dawn of Time have believed in, worshiped, and prayed to God (or to gods). Atheists are required to think their tiny minority are "right" and the overwhelming majority of people are "wrong" about the most important of all imaginable questions.

Atheists must insist that all questions can be reduced to matters of empirical evidence and "science" - that art, literature, history, music, architecture, personal experience, all are somehow defective or fundamentally lacking, not quite worthy of trust, ultimately to be (negatively) evaluated against the one-and-only objective standard given the atheist seal of approval.

Atheists must never, ever allow themselves to realize that atheism means that everything is meaningless, that in the end of ends it does not matter what kind of life one leads, or even whether one is or is not an atheist - because a single microsecond after one's death, it is all as though it never happened, so who cares?

Atheists must never face up to the inevitable implication of materialism that individual identity does not really exist - that we are simply complex bundles of matter and energy, which, if its configuration is somehow altered or destroyed, becomes something else.

Atheists must believe that our noblest traits, our highest aspirations, our sublimest thoughts, are nothing more than electrical impulses and chemical reactions in a soulless meat machine, of no greater significance than combustion or sublimation. The love I feel for my family is simply a Darwinian survival mechanism.

I could go on, but you get the idea. Atheism is the very negtion of critical thinking. To the contrary, a case can be made for its being perilously close to insanity

Exactly!

Both the affirmation of the reality of God and the denial of the reality of God are statements about the very nature of reality, of truth, of reason, of morality, of meaning, of love, of beauty, of personhood, of agency, and of our individual selves (and of much else, besides; that list is not exhaustive). The question of the reality of God is the First Question, because everything else follows from the answer to that question.

At the very least, every one of the demands and entailments of God-denial that Mr Prokop lists ought to give one pause regarding one's God-denial if one really is engaging in critical thinking; and some of them are sufficient to demonstrate the falsity of God-denial. Thus, if one really is engaging in critical thinking, then one simply will not continue to deny the reality of God. So, far from critical thinkng leading a person to atheism, in truth it leads one away.

Consider just a few of the above entailments of atheism --

Atheists must never, ever allow themselves to realize that atheism means that everything is meaningless, that in the end of ends it does not matter what kind of life one leads, or even whether one is or is not an atheist - because a single microsecond after one's death, it is all as though it never happened, so who cares?

This is one of the logical entailments of God-denial that ought to cause one to seriously doubt that God-denial is the truth about the nature of reality. That is, this entailment itself doesn't show that God-denial is false (though other entailments do), but it does show that very few human beings -- including one's own atheistic-professing self -- are actually capable of *really* believing that atheism is the truth about the nature of reality.

No one -- including every self-professed atheist -- really believes that *everything* -- including atheism itself -- is meaningless. No one -- including every self-professed atheist -- really believes that it doesn't matter in the least what a person believes about the nature of reality. No one -- including every self-professed atheist -- really believes that it doesn't matter in the least how a person conducts his life.

Now, of course, the fact that no one -- including every self-professed atheist -- really believes this particular logically inescapable entailment of God-denial does not in itself prove that God-denial is the false view of reality. But it does expose a very serious cognitive dissonance involved in attempting to assert that atheism is the truth about the nature of reality -- if one doesn't believe the logically inescapable entailments of a proposition which one asserts, then one either doesn't really understand the proposition or one doesn't really believe the proposition in the first place. If one asserts that 1+1=2 and yet denies that 2+1=3, then one either does not understand what one is talking about, or one doesn't really believe what one has asserted.

It's a curiosity: atheism is odd, and possibly unique, in this regard -- atheism is a world-view the truth of which matters not in the least were it actually the truth about the nature of reality; the question of the truth of atheism matters only if atheism is not true.

Atheism demands that one overlook the fact that atheism necessarily means there is no objective morality, that good and evil are nothing more than subjective judgements of a mind that one can't actually trust to make such judgements.

This is another of the logical entailments of God-denial that ought to cause one to seriously doubt that God-denial is the truth about the nature of reality -- even the people who explicitly and publically assert that there is no such thing as objective-and-transcendent morality continuously demonstrate by their own behavior that they don't really believe what they have asserted!

Consider just one common example of their behavior belying their assertions --

Richard Dawkins (along with many other famous 'atheists') is on very public record of affirming the logical entailment of atheism that there are no such things as 'right' and 'wrong', that is, that there is no such thing as transcendent morality, and of affirming this as a logical entailment of atheism. Richard Dawkins (along with many other famous 'atheists') is *also* on very public record of asserting that this or that (e.g. rearing one's child as a Christian; being a "creationist"; punishing criminals because they have chosen to be criminals; being sexually jealous of one's spouse; and on and on) is 'wrong'. Richard Dawkins (along with many other famous 'atheists') constantly asserts that there is no "way things ought to be" ... and also constanly asserts that this or that "ought not be" -- this is a blatant self-contradiction: either he (and they) does not really believe the former assertion, or does not really believe the latter assertion(s).


Now, consider this immediate topic in light of the prior one.

Suppose it really is the case that there are no such things as 'right' and 'wrong', that is, that there is no such thing as transcendent morality. And after all, this really is a logically inescapable entailment of atheism.

And, suppose it really is the case that that *everything* really is ultimately and utterly meaningless, and thus it doesn't matter in the least how one conducts one's life. And after all, this really is a logically inescapable entailment of atheism.

Now, suppose those two propositions simultaneously -- for, after all, if atheism really is the truth about the nature of reality, then both propositions are true.

Does one now see how it is that so many 'atheists' constantly seek to shape public opinion by means of asserting self-contradictions?

Atheism demands that one overlook the fact that atheism necessarily means [that all our thoughts/judgements/conclusions are nothing more than the output] of a mind that one can't actually trust to make such judgements.

Atheists must believe that our noblest traits, our highest aspirations, our sublimest thoughts, are nothing more than electrical impulses and chemical reactions in a soulless meat machine, of no greater significance than combustion or sublimation. The love I feel for my family is simply a Darwinian survival mechanism.

If atheism is the truth about the nature of reality, then you cannot reason -- you cannot *know* anything ... including that you cannot know anything ... and including knowing that atheism is the truth about the nature of reality.

Everything that is coheres, and it cohers in God, and God alone: to deny the reality of God is to deny the coherence of reality. This doubtless explains why 'atheists' so readily retreat into irrationality as a means to protect their God-denial from rational critical evaluation -- contrary to their constant self-promotion, they are not committed to reason/rationality, but merely to refusing to acknowledge God.

Atheists must never face up to the inevitable implication of materialism that individual identity does not really exist - that we are simply complex bundles of matter and energy, which, if its configuration is somehow altered or destroyed, becomes something else.

This is one of the logically inescapable entailments of God-denial which shows it to be absurd, and thus shows it to be false, and thus shows its denial to be true.

When one encounters a God-denier saying such things as "Consciousness is an illusion" or "The 'self' is an illusion" or "There is no such thing as 'free-will'", that isn't just some blow-hard blowing hard (however much that 'atheists' tend to be blow-hards). These claims and other such claims are logically inescapable entailments of atheism.

And when one encounters a God-denier saying something like, "Well, I am an 'atheist', and *I* don't believe that consciousness is an illusion", then one simply is dealing with a blow-hard -- what this or that 'atheist' is willing to affirm does not alter the set of propositions which are logical entailments of atheism.

When one denies the reality of God, then logically and inescapably one has also denied the reality of one's own self: but this is absurd. Since one *knows* that it is absurd to deny the reality of one's own self, and since this absurd denial is logically entailed by the denial of the reality of God, then one *knows* that the initial or grounding absurdity is in the denial of the reality of God.

This is why I say that every 'atheist', as an 'atheist', is intellectually dishonest. This isn't just me being "mean"; this is me "following the logic where it leads" -- atheism is absurd (and thus is false); atheism entails obvious absurdities (and thus is seen obviously to be false); not a single one of the 'atheists' one will ever encounter has any rationally exculpating excuse for continuing to ignore the absurdity of God-denial; that is, every single 'atheist' one will ever encounter asserts the absurdity of God-denial knowing it to be absurd, and thus knowing it to be false.

As the Apostle Paul wrote 2000 years ago: men are without excuse in denying (and failing to love-and-worship) God. Pace Bertrand Russell, men do not deny the reality of God because they have "insufficient evidence". Rather, they deny the reality of God because they refuse to acknowledge the truth they already know.