FSTDT

For the PRC (Predatory Ruling Class), the neo-con propaganda outlet FOX News has, for the past 20 years or so, served the important purpose of keeping conservatives on a leash long enough to allow to them vent off their frustration, yet just short enough to keep them from wandering off into the land of total truth. The sole saving grace of the network was that, in allowing just enough cosmetic "conservatism" to air before millions of viewers, a percentage of the more astute elements of the massive audience would eventually wander off the plantation completely and join the ranks of the full truth "conspiracy theorists" TM. Indeed, during the late 1990's, your now fully enlightened Editor here passed through the FAUX News / Rush Limbaugh halfway-house before growing out of the "Left-Right" control cage altogether.

For that reason, in spite of our disdain for Rupert Murdoch's FAUX, we are nonetheless troubled by the recent and much-publicized rise of his de-balled sons (Lachlin & James) and their stupid and controlling communist wives (Sarah & Kathyrn). The scuttlebutt is that the contemptible, yet immensely popular, Bill O'Reilly was forced out by these beautiful women. O'Reilly's coveted 8 PM slot will be filled by Tucker Carlson, whose first guest as the new 8-PMer under the reign of the Bolshevik Bitches will be a man that O'Reilly once mocked -- the freakish trannie, Bruce Jenner (now referred to as "Caitlyn").

1. Kathryn made no effort to hide her love for Hillary and red-hot hatred for Trump & Bannon (She likes Ivanka though!)

2. Kathryn's "kinder, gentler" FOX will feature the degenerate freak Bruce Jenner.

Expect some of O'Reilly's elderly following to have heart attacks when Jenner appears with Carlson this coming Monday (April 24th)! But don't blame Carlson (who is actually not that bad) for having such a vile Satanic creature on his program. You can be sure that the Murdoch women, Kathryn in particular, are behind this obscenity. The Sisters-in-Law Murdoch had already previously amended the company's benefits package to include "expanded coverage for our transgender colleagues.”

Both Kathryn and Sarah are known to be "progressives." Of the two, Katryn (much like another silly little rich girl, Ivanka Trump) wields more power in her own right. She is a real fanatic when it comes to Trump-bashing, homosexuality, trannies and the Global Warming TM / Climate Change TM hoax. Since the Murdochs swallowed up National Geographic in 2015, that psuedo-scientific rag has continued to aggressively push the hoax while not allowing any real scientists to rebut the "settled science." The "philanthropist" Kathryn also worked for both the Clinton Climate Initiative and the Environmental Defense Fund. (here)

Old man Rupert once dismissed the Global Warming TM / Climate Change TM hoax as "alarmist nonsense." We expect this attitude at FOX News to "evolve" and eventually align with the views of the young Murdochs' National Geographic and Kathryn's beloved Environmental Defense Fund.

Now if you thought those National Geographic covers were bad, get a load of the EVIL boy-trannie child-abuse abomination that the next generation of the House of Murdoch recently put out. It's enough to almost make us want to plead with wretched old man Rupert Murdoch and that arrogant ass-clown Bill O'Reilly -- "Please, stay!"

Childhood psycho-sexual abuse --- coming soon to FOX's conservative audience.

The modern trend of men allowing their deranged women to rule over them is yet another symptom of the decay and decline of Western Civilization. Another high profile example of this alarming phenomenon is baby girl's Ivanka Trump-Kushner's uncontrolled White House antics -- such as her uninformed public support for the Global Warming TM / Climate Change TM hoax, "women's workplace issues," and her meeting with the baby butchers and baby body-part dealers of Planned Parenthood. Neither "The Donald" nor Ivanka's typically P-whipped Jewish husband, Jared Kushner, could reign in this spoiled little brat even if they wanted to.

And speaking of P-whipped, does it get any more pathetic than Pro Football Super Star and Trumpstein supporter, Tom Brady, failing to show up at the White House ceremony to honor the New England Patriots Super Bowl victory? You see, boys and girls, Brady's super-model wife, Giselle Bundchen, is an outspoken pro-abortionist, an anti-Trump tweeter, and a "Climate Change" TM libtard who is evidently embarrassed and fed-up with her husband's support for Trumpstein. We'll bet you dimes to doughnuts that the lovely Giselle put her high-heeled foot down and threatened to close down the candy store until pretty Tommy put an end to his public support for Trumpstein.

Your old-school Editor here at The Anti-New York Times has the utmost gentlemanly respect for the ladies. That respect does not extend to any "man" who allows a woman, no matter how blonde and beautiful, to de-ball and dictate to him. Unless and until men rediscover their balls and tell the Ivanka Trumps, the Giselle Bundchens, the Kathryn Murdochs and the Sarah Murdochs of our diseased and decaying society: "Shut up and sit down, you silly woman!" -- there will be no hope for the recovery of our collective sanity. Then again, in fairness to such men and in consideration of what our Marxist courts allow these wayward women to inflict upon husbands and fathers, many bullied men have no choice but to meekly accept the mischief of their wives -- or face alienation from their children.

Sick upside-down world!

Proverbs 21:19: Better to dwell in the wilderness, than with a contentious and angry woman.

Boobus Americanus 1: I read in the New York Times that the Murdoch sons and their wives are much more liberal than the old man.

Boobus Americanus 2: It would be nice if they overhaul FOX News and make it more objective. As it stands now, I can't stomach it.

Sugar: Hey Boobusss! Ya think your panssie-ass could stomach a ssubscription to the Anti-New York Times?

Editor: If Boobus can't even handle the watered-down half-truths of FAUX News, then he'd surely puke his guts up over the true stuff we put out.

In the Western world, today’s “conservatives” are increasingly libertarian when it comes to matters of sexual morality. Whatever good might come out of a Trump Presidency (full disclosure: I voted for the man), it seems unlikely that the nation’s appreciation for the importance of sexual morality will deepen.

Increasingly in our society, the expectation for any romantic relationship is that it must be sexual or get sexual without much delay – married or not. Going hand in hand with this, political progressives and libertarians both seem basically united on the idea that the choice of each individual is the controlling principle. As some on the Supreme Court told us in 1992, “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

This kind of thinking really does not seem all that alien from what the Trump-supporting “free speech fundamentalist” Milo Yiannopoulos has said:

Read what you want.
Watch what you want.
Play what you want.
Think what you want.
Say what you want.

That might not work in a marriage, but otherwise why the hell not? (marriage couldn’t be that important anyways, could it?) Political correctness can die the death it so richly deserves! The sky is the limit!

Yiannopoulos may say that some – by virtue of biological and psychological limitations – can’t be whatever they want to be, but with his emphasis on the individual’s rights, one is hard-pressed to argue why some, at least, shouldn’t give it a shot (please note I say all of this wanting to defend free speech to, while being concerned that not all of our speech is helpful).

And, tying this back to matters of sexual morality, why suppress human nature? Yiannopoulos regularly encourages college students to not hold back in exploring their sexuality with others. And, when asked here about Harvard’s men’s soccer team this past week – namely, about their recently revealed shared Google form treating their female counterparts as sexual objects – Yiannopoulos defended them to the hilt. One might think he could have said, at the very least, that the men’s behavior was to be strongly discouraged – even if the Harvard President had overreacted (read this and this for a balanced perspective). He didn’t say this though – he simply talked about our inability to overcome human nature: basically “men will be men”.

After all, as popular You Tuber Gavin McInnes says (language alert) all men act like this. And likewise, all men must surely know that they are incapable of waiting for sex – and they must be lying if they say they do! Guys like Tim Tebow (what has he accomplished lately?) are surely hypocrites, and evidently, most of the time, just aren’t manly enough to obtain the good things that come their way, grabbing them by the—.

But even if we perhaps should respect the real power of human nature here, we also cannot overcome the consequences of human nature. Even if you, by virtue of your social capital and financial resources, appear able to rise above some of the most socially deleterious effects of sexual licentiousness, many – particularly the most vulnerable – can’t. And all of this contributes to the fracturing and weakening of the family, which one would hope any conservative would understand. This glorification of our choices when it comes to matters sexual, of course, makes the goal of marriage – and the commitment involved therein – less and less of a possibility for many (listen to Jennifer Roback Morse here).

Yiannopoulos may have once written about the dangers of pornography in the past (see here and here), but these days, he seems to have left that concern behind (a necessary casualty of his message and newfound fame?). Now, ironically, it is some on the left (some!) who are bringing up the critical importance of this issue (see here and here for example). Speaking merely from a tactical standpoint, perhaps persons like Yiannopoulos should find a creative way to address this, before being outflanked by progressives concerned about the truth of these matters?

So, what does any of this have to do with the theory of evolution – and sophisty?! Hang on— we getting there right now—.

First of all, a popular meaning of the word sophistry is “the use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving”. It is a simply a matter of fact that men are capable of controlling themselves (though, if I may say, we seem to live in an age that likes to play with the fire of temptation).

Second, in the theory of evolution, all is about sex (and death): everything comes down to being able to pass on one’s genes to the next generation. Supposedly, evolution “designed” us for this.

Third, and here is the meat of my point, in a recent edition of the Atlantic, an article called “The Case Against Reality” lays out the implications of the theory of evolution (spurred on by what I call the MSTM, the modern scientific and technological mindset) in a very helpful manner. An interview with cognitive science Donald D. Hoffman is featured, where he argues that “the world is nothing like the one we experience through our senses— the world presented to us by our perceptions is nothing like reality” (as the Atlantic sums him up).

In short, Hoffman believes that “evolution itself [is] to thank for this magnificent illusion, as it maximizes evolutionary fitness by driving truth to extinction” (italics mine). It is not accurate perceptions which helps us to effectively pass on our genes but “fitness functions,” i.e. “mathematical functions that describe how well a given strategy achieves the goals of survival and reproduction.” “Suppose,” he says, “there’s a blue rectangular icon on the lower right corner of your computer’s desktop — does that mean that the file itself is blue and rectangular and lives in the lower right corner of your computer? Of course not— And yet the desktop is useful.”[ii] Hoffman says that this is “conscious realism,” meaning that “Objective reality is just conscious agents, just points of view.”

And hence, evolution’s connection with classical understandings of sophistry is complete. Perhaps Christians taken with evolution should take evolutionists like Daniel Dennet more seriously when they assert that it is a “universal acid” that “eats through just about every traditional concept, and leaves in its wake a revolutionized world-view, with most of the old landmarks still recognizable, but transformed in fundamental ways” (see here).

The Sophists of the ancient world said that our base assumption should be that certain truth and goodness is unattainable. With change being the only constant and knowledge an illusion, everything is about building consensus through persuasion. The ethical sophist – assuming positing such a person is reasonable! – would persuade on the basis of arguing for things that are not true, but possible and perhaps probable—

How does this not sync perfectly with what Hoffman is saying, a “match made in heaven,” or hell, as the case may be? Can’t he – or anyone else – see the implications of this thinking for human reason itself?

Let’s break it down:

In brief, Hoffman, assuming temporal survival is what life is all about, says that it is our “fitness functions,” and not accurate perceptions, which help us to pass on our genes.
Therefore, it follows that being able to create grand, plausible sounding theories – whether they are true or not – also can be reduced to being about the survival value they have (in that they attract partners who know brains are valuable – and who can pass on genes).
Therefore, as long as one can avoid the impression one is totally disconnected from matters of concrete fact, disqualifying one’s self in other’s eyes, the sky is the limit!
As Hoffman says, our perceptions are “tuned to fitness, but not to truth”. Why would our capacity to construct narratives, our story-telling imaginations, not be as well? Why would this also not figure into the all controlling “fitness function”?
So, if this is the case, why believe the theory of evolution is true at all? It might be useful for passing on genes, but true?

And yet, of course, what Hoffman is doing in his interview – what he cannot avoid doing even if he might protest he is doing it – is putting forth a truth claim. Truth, in one sense, is “driven to extinction,” where, in another, it rises from the ashes reborn. “Believe me,” he is saying— “I am speaking with some real authority on these matters.” The ancient sophists played the same game— the truth is that we cannot not really know truth— what is important is that you listen to me, noticing how smart I am—

And so, as evolution and truth evolves, so does “our” (Not mine! Not yours I hope!) understanding of individuality, sex, and gender.

To state the obvious, given his assumptions, is that not just his “fitness function” speaking? And if he opposes me socially and politically and I fight back, evidently with my own fitness function that still falsely believes there is truth, just what hope for common ground do we now have?

I’m calling B.S. I’m calling out these new sophists for the danger to society and culture that they are. Absolute. Total. Nonsense.

Donald Trump

interpreter #fundie christianforums.com

The Last Trump #fundie disqus.com

James David Manning #racist #wingnut twitter.com

FarOutlier #fundie theamericanmirror.com

Michel Chossudovsky #conspiracy globalresearch.ca

Andrew Anglin #fundie dailystormer.name

Kyle Chapman (aka RealBasedStickMan) #fundie reddit.com

DavidFoxFire #crackpot

Danlboon #wingnut #conspiracy operationdisclosureofficial.com

Mike King #sexist tomatobubble.com

The Crowd Cheered On #racist realjewnews.com

CuckedByTRUMP #fundie reddit.com

Johann #racist realjewnews.com

pixelpusher #fundie rr-bb.com

Mr. Bond ft. Dido #racist youtube.com

Anonymous Coward #conspiracy godlikeproductions.com

Bennie Smith #fundie politico.com

David Stockman #conspiracy #quack lewrockwell.com

Various MAGA #wingnut #conspiracy #psycho wired.com

Nikita Casap #wingnut #racist #psycho edition.cnn.com

Aangirfan #conspiracy aanirfan.blogspot.ca

Nathan Rinne #fundie patheos.com