Search This Blog

Friday, December 29, 2023

Nikki Haley's "Gotcha" Moment

So, the leftists are having a pretend melt-down because the RINO Nikki Haley -- who, by the way, is not a natural born US citizen (*) -- gave the "wrong" answer to a "gotcha" question about the "cause" of the so-called (**) US Civil War.

Here is the truth about the "cause" of the so-called US Civil War --

Slavery wasn't the cause of the "Civil War". 

The *cause* of the (falsely named) Civil War was the federal government's refusal to allow the Southern States to secede from the Union, as was their right to do, and to take all those sweet, sweet tax monies with them.

The main reason, though not the only reason, the Southern States wanted to secede was over slavery.  But secession is a wholly different matter from the war. 

(*) How odd is that?  Not a peep from anyone, much less the leftists, over the fact the Haley is Constitutionally barred from occupying the office of the presidency.

(**) The US "Civil War" was not actually a civil war.  In a civil war, two or more entities are fighting for control of the government of the same region.  The US “Civil War” was – like the American “Revolution” – a war of attempted separation.

EDIT (2024/01/04):

I suspect that there are two main reasons for Nikki Haley's ignorance of the cause(s) of the "Civil War":
1) Even most people of my generation are ill-educated, and would unthinkingly give the "right" (which is to say, factually wrong) answer. How much worse educated is the typical person of her generation?
2) It's quite possible that she never paid much attention to anything having to do the "Civil War", that she saw it as having nothing to do with her, as she is an Indian (dot, not feather) without roots in America.

Allow me to illustrate that last suspicion:

The last IT job I had before deciding to retire was in a 1.5-2 hour drive from home.  Since I didn't want to spend that much time on the road every day, I rented a hotel room on a monthly basis and came home only on the weekends.  Three or four years later, the hotel was sold to an Indian man (dot, not feather) in his 30s or 40s.  I presume he grew up in the US, as he sounded like any mid-western American. Though, his parents had thick Indian accents.

About a year later, he bought the property next door to the hotel. It had a business on the ground floor and an apartment on the upper.  He asked me to relocate to the apartment, as he thought my hotel room would earn him more money as a normal hotel room than as a long-term rental.

When he was showing me the apartment, he apologized for the swastika his mother -- a Hindu -- had drawn on the kitchen counter with some red substance. By the way, I was never able to fully scrub it off.  Now, as he was apologizing, it was clear that he didn't understand *why* Americans consider swastikas offensive.  He apparently thought it has something to do with the black-white racial divide; he said something to the effect that since I wasn't black, perhaps I wouldn't be as offended by it.

So, why did he not understand what a swastika signifies to Americans?  Why did he think a black American would be more offended by the image of one than a white American? The reason is that he doesn't see that history as having anything to do with him, and so he never paid much attention to it.

Amusingly, black Americans are the group *least* likely to take offence at the image of a swastika.  I, on the other hand, am in the group to take second-most offence -- an Evangelical Christian with Jewish ancestry.  I'm also not ignorant; I well understand that the swastika long pre-dates the mid-century mass-murderer with a funny mustache.

Continue reading ...

Thursday, December 28, 2023

Concerning the Thought of Yehezkel Kaufmann

The first linked video discusses the thesis of a certain Yehezkel Kaufmann, who was a Jewish philosopher and Biblical scholar.  I'd never before heard of Yehezkel Kaufmann, who died when I was a small child ... and yet I had all on my own come to much the same conclusions as presented in the linked video and in the Wickedpedia article on Kaufmann.

Here is a summary of my thought on the matter: That 'monotheism' -- when that term is understood to refer to Biblical religion (i.e. Judaism and Christianity) -- is not only not on the same axis as 'polytheism' and most pagan religions, but is not even in the same plane; that Biblical theism is utterly different from and distinct from the continuum into which 'secular' sociologists like to categorize religions. And furthermore, that, contrary to the desiderium of most atheists, atheism is actually just another form of the rankest of paganisms -- as atheism has no rational nor principled grounding by which to deny the reality and 'divinity' of say, Zeus; for, according to atheism, the rational embodied beings we call 'human beings' "arose" by mechanically deterministic necessity from non-rational mere matter, and ultimately from Chaos ... as likewise did the Olympians.

Wickedpedia: Yehezkel Kaufmann 
( )

Austen McMahan: An Introduction To Biblical Theism - Part 1
( )

Austen McMahan: An Introduction To Biblical Theism - Part 2
( )

Continue reading ...

Saturday, December 23, 2023

It's Christmas-time; And That Means ...

It's Christmas-time; and that means ... endless repetitions of popular "secularist" (by which I mean anti-Christian) "myths" (by which I mean lies) about Christmas.  Sometimes, these "myths" are even spread by people who claim to be Christians.

By the way, even as a "fundie" Christian, I was taught as a child -- in church -- that Christ clearly wasn't born on December 25, as there wouldn't have been "shepherds abiding in the fields, keeping watch over their flock by night" that late in the year.  But we still recognized and celebrated December 25 as Christmas.

Sometime this past summer, I had written a post covering much the same points as in the post linked below.  I can't find the post I made, so I suspect it was made as a comment to some foolish YouTube video spreading the "myth" ... and which was deleted when I decided that I'd had enough of the dishonest and dishonestly applied "community standards" of YT.  

So, anyway, I'll emphasize a couple of the points; but mostly, I refer Gentle Reader to the post linked below.

The "myth" goes something like this -- "The celebration of Christmas, and specifically its celebration on December 25, is actually an attempt by [The Catholic Church and/or Constantine following the Council of Nicaea] to co-opt the pagan festival of [Saturnalia/The Birth of Mithras/The Birth of Sol Invictus] in the popular imagination".

Now, anyone with a passing knowledge of the history of the period from 29 AD (when Christ was likely murdered .. which ultimately didn't "stick", as it turned out) to to 313 AD (the Edict of Milan, which legalized Christianity throughout the Roman Empire) to 325 AD (the First Council of Nicaea) to 380 AD (the Edict of Thessalonica, which established orthodox Nicene Christianity as the state religion of the Roman Empire) understands how absurd this "myth" is, in all its variants.

Rather than shooting those individual variants of "The Myth", I shall aim my guns at the root of all of them: the claim that December 25 was chosen by Constantine/"The Pope"/The Catholic Church of popular mythology as the celebration of Christ's birth so as to make it more palatable for the every-day pagan to switch to Christianity.

In 'Adversus Judaeos' (i.e. "Against the Jews" or "Answering the Jews"), believed to have been written before 200 AD, Tertullian says (Adversus Judaeos 8:18): "And the suffering of this "extermination" was perfected within the times of the lxx hebdomads, under Tiberius Caesar, in the consulate of Rubellius Geminus and Fufius Geminus, in the month of March, at the times of the passover, on the eighth day before the calends of April,120 on the first day of unleavened bread, on which they slew the lamb at even, just as had been enjoined by Moses."  That is, Tertullian places Christ's crucifixion on March 25, at the time of Passover, in the year we now designate as 29 AD. Also note that Tertullian places Christ's birth as 28 years after the death of Cleopatra, that is, about 2 BC.

There was a common belief in 1st Century Judaism -- and recall, the early Christians were mostly Jews -- that the lives of religiously significant persons began and ended on the same date; that is, that such persons both were conceived and died on the same date.  This belief is often referred to as "Integral Life" or "Integral Age". This belief is why, as is stated at the start of the linked article, the Feast of the Annunciation is celebrated on March 25.  That is, according to this belief, Christ was both conceived and died on March 25.

And what date follows 9 months after March 25?

The point is, irrespective of what we moderns may think of the "Integral Life" concept, the early Christians decided to celebrate Christ's birth on December 25 for Jewish-and-Christian reasons long before it was legal to practice Christianity, when being a Christian was still officially a capital offence, long before The Catholic Church of popular mythology even existed, long before "The Pope" would have cared to import pagan holidays into Christianity so as to cajole recalcitrant pagans to pretend to be Christians.

The point is, Christmas is the celebration and commemoration of Christ's birth, not of his birthday.

Roger Pearse: "March 25 – the date of the annunciation, the crucifixion, and the origin of December 25 as the date of Christmas?"

Continue reading ...

Wednesday, December 20, 2023

How Evolution Explains Sex Differences ... Or Not

Linked  Video Title: "How Evolution Explains Sex Differences"

I'm not going to waste a minute of my time watching this video -- the title alone, plus the fact that Gad Saad is an "evolutionary psychologist" (*), is all I need to know to know that the video is a waste of time and intellect.

But, in case you, Gentle Reader, are still intimidated by the asserted authority of the religionists of evolutionism, consider this:
1) definitionally, "evolution" operates only on genes, or more precisely, on gene expression;
2) thus, if "evolution" is to explain sex differences amongst human beings, there must be some important and enduring genetic difference between the sexes upon which "evolution" has acted over the eons, and the expression of which genes greatly influences the generally observable differing behavior and preferences of men and women;
3) but, in point of fact, due to the very mechanisms of sexual reproduction, the genetic differences between men and women are limited to a paucity of genes on the Y-Chromosome;
4) THUS, "evolution" cannot explain sex differences in humans.

(*) Straight psychology is lame and sketchy enough all on its own, but turn it into "evolutionary psychology" and you have a "science" without a subject of study.

Continue reading ...

Tuesday, December 19, 2023

Socialized Medicine, Again

Headline: "Canadian Woman Dies After Waiting 10 Weeks for Cancer Treatment"

 Well, it's not quite that she simply died, it's that she was murdered by the Canadian state.

Continue reading ...

Monday, December 11, 2023

On Tattoos

A man who covers himself with tattoos is *unmanly* -- he shows himself to have not the mindset of a mature man, but rather of an immature girl. For, rather than seeking recognition according to his deeds, by what he creates or builds, he seeks attention by how how decorates his body.

Continue reading ...

Social Media in Action

FascistBook has removed some post I made some time ago, in which I was commenting on a news item -- I have no idea which post or its specific content, as I couldn't find a way to read exactly what the post had been. I did figure out that it was about a "hate crime" hoax. Anyway, they accuse the post of violating their "community standards" against spam. In other words, it "offended" some damned leftist.

In trying to see what they were accusing me of, I also saw that my FascistBook account has "some issues" ... they're falsely accusing me of having posted "adult sexual content". In other words, I have posted something which "offended" some damned leftist.

Continue reading ...

Saturday, December 9, 2023

On "Our Brave Men and Women In the Military"

How are you going to defeat "woke ideology" when you subscribe to the foundational tenets of it? Notice how often Rep. Cory Mills pays the obligatory homage to feminism -- "men and women first responders", "men and women in uniform", etc.

Women do not belong in the military; women have no business as "first responders". The entire reason that the current military top brass is "woke" and is pushing "woke-anda" on the enlisted men is because of bowing to the feminist lie that women and men are interchangeable (and, soto voce: that women are superior to men) -- and thousands of "our brave men and women in the military" are going to die in the near future solely as blood sacrifice to the demon behind this lie. Similarly, the reason that one of the "cops" who "responded" to the recent break-in at my house was a 5-foot-nothing middle-aged woman who was almost as round as she was tall is because of bowing to the former feminist lie that "anything a man can do, a woman can do better".

Hell! According to The Current Thing feminist lie, men are better women than women are women.

Continue reading ...

Sunday, December 3, 2023

Again. This Is Socialized Medicine

Listen carefully to this report -- they have done / are doing just the *opposite* counting these medical murders than they did counting "deaths 'with' Covid-19[84]"

Continue reading ...