But technically, Darwinism is not science, because it rests on non-empirical assumptions about matter not open to empirical proof or disproof. You cannot hand me a telescope and show me the apeman giving birth to man, or man giving birth to superman. You cannot even breed peas and make them into something other than peas.
Three laws of Thermodynamics (note, LAWS, not theory). Evolution says order came from chaos, and order is ever increasing. Thermo says that order is ever decaying.
Butterfly collectors are pretty bad at math, so they don't care. (that is an old joke by the way.)
Recently it was also revealed that Disney’s live action version of their masterpiece BEAUTY AND THE BEAST, taken from a traditional fairy tale, will introduce the sidekick of the antagonist to be a sodomite whose wish is not to serve and aid the object of his admiration, but to kiss and caress. This is aimed at a general audience, including children.
Now, as a means to promote a change of opinion, no one book or film is likely to accomplish much, and these things are sure to lose customers and create ill will among their loyal customers, including me. So money is not their motive.
There is a message to the fiction. The message is this: the normal male friendship that obtains between Sancho Panza and Don Quixote, Frodo Baggins and Sam Gamgee, D’Artagnan and the Three Musketeers, Robin and Batman, is now defined as unreal. There are two kinds of love recognized to exist: family love, which is very commonly used now to refer to strong bonds of friendship between team mates, and sexual love, which includes everything else. There is no room for friendship.
The institutions of maidenhood, marriage, and motherhood have not escaped the curse of madness. Most obviously, our nation has become psychotic on sexual topics, that is, the consensus opinion has suffered a total break with reality. A measure of this break can be seen in that even fundamental distinctions between male and female are abolished. These include questions of whether men can be brides and marrying other men, or use the women’s locker room in schools, or girls pretending to be boys can join the Boy Scouts.
Anyone who refers to reality, that is, any sane man saying a sane thing, on these topics is shouted down, vilified, demonized, and called phobic, homophobic or transphobic, that is, accused of having a psychopathological fear of homosexuals or transvestites.
The irony is that the insane call the sane insane. And that is insane.
Our nation’s current sexual psychoses spring from decades of neurotic decisions concerning abortion, contraception, and no-fault divorce. The pleasures of the marriage bed, which are quite clearly natural, pleasurable, and joyful, become unnatural when the intimacy of marriage is eroded. Prostitution reduces these sacred and intimate ecstasies to a commodity; Pornography makes the commodity public. Contraception so reduces the moral hazard of fathering a bastard that the merely prudential argument against out of wedlock copulation is muted. And no nation could so divorce itself from nature as to contemplate making it lawful to murder offspring in the womb unless a passion as strong as the sexual drive were behind it.
[...]
The oil pipeline was symbolic. It is meant to placate Gaia. The government funding for abortion is symbolic. It is meant to placate Moloch. The riots in the streets when bankers meet is symbolic. It is meant to deflect the cargo planes from the White Man to the Borneo Islanders. The protests by women dressed as their own genitalia is symbolic. It is for Lilith and Hecate. The love of Islamic terrorism in this generation, and the love of Soviet terrorism, mass killings, and orchestrated starvation in the last generation is symbolic. It is for Satan.
Christendom is the only place in human history where witchcraft and fortune telling has ever been outlawed, and once men were forbidden from trying to rule nature by magic, then and only then did their faith that a rational God made a rational universe, hence their faith that every effect has a cause, give them the mental outlook needed for science to be possible.
Great truths need few words to say them:
Here is the secret to Leftwing psychology. The men among them think, not like women, but like neurotic women gripped in self loathing. They hate themselves, so they hate being women, so they hate babies and the whole process of reproduction. They hate themselves, so they hate motherhood and murder unborn babies. They hate themselves, so they hate the policeman and the soldier who protects their lives. They hate themselves, so they want recreational drugs to be legal, not to mention assisted suicide. They hate themselves, so they hate their nation which has bestowed absurd amounts of freedom and luxury upon them.
They hate themselves, so they hate the God who made them.
when the so called freethinking rebels win, they impose a politically correct uniformity of thought far less free and far less interesting to read and far more preposterously hypocritical than the old established pieties, which at least had experience, common sense, and authentic human emotion on their side, not to mention divine revelation. At such at time the only manly response to the bold nonconformists (all strangely in perfect lockstep with each other!) is to become superversive, and write books upholding not just Motherhood and Apple Pie, but the Virgin Mary and Eucharist.
And the orcs will choke on the wholesome lembas, and spit them out like ashes.
These orcs, in the final analysis, are enemies of humanity, the free market, and freedom; they are the foes of God and Man. For them to claim science fiction as their particular bastion is beyond risible and well into the terrain of the absurd. SFF is the one literature which never will accept the mental uniformity of falsehood these anti-Mothers crave.
The scientific evidence, such as it is:
All human genes have been traced back to two ancestors, the first called “Mitochondrial Eve”, the second misnamed “Y-Chromosomal Adam”. The fact that there is one woman and one man who gave their genes to all is established by the evidence, the “scientists” then do backflips to say that there were actually several thousand individuals, even though they can show no evidence of that. They cannot claim more than that with the evidence they have, and even that is a stretch. Those several thousand fictional individuals are invented to allow them to claim that the Bible is false. Being not backed by evidence, they are, scientifically speaking, falsified.
The woman's genes are traced, using rather iffy methods (the dates may be way off), to an ancient time period, the mans genes to a less ancient time period. This causes the scientists to shriek “see, we told you that story of Adam and Eve was false, they lived at different times!” To this I reply NOAH. The Bible lists one time period when there was one woman who was the mother of all women, and two periods where one man was the father of all men, although in the case of Noah, the father of all surviving men. The second, later man's genes would overwright the first mans genes in the genetic record. The women in the ark were all from different mothers, the men, only from one father (plus the father himself present).
Thus the scientific evidence, which is different than “what scientists believe” (which is not science) validates the Bible as speaking literally.
And the only way one species can evolve into another is if it was planned by a planner, which is the whole problem with evolution. In the case of man, it was simply not planned, and did not happen, since what would God do with a half sentient creature, send it halfway to heaven or hell?
To get a new species, you could, as a planner, have one male and one female born with the same mutations, in the same area, and then have them mate with each other. The chance of that happening randomly is too small to even consider. It is a mute point with "human evolution", since it did not happen, animals and plants are another matter.
You see, according to the Darwinists, nothing outweighs self-preservation except for race-preservation, on the ground that whatever genetically coded strategy of survival promotes the most selfish gene (selfish here meaning designed to preserve and promote itself with the greatest tenacity) by definition is the code most likely to be carried along in future generations, repeating itself. It is the ultimate conservative.
However, ironically, this genetically selfish behavior is a hindrance to the process of evolution as evolution is usually described. It is only by eliminating the selfish gene, creating mutations, and then weeding out the unfit, that evolution, as it is usually described, can take place. It is the ultimate radical.
(I must pause to comment that was is described as Darwinism is usually unrelated to Darwin, and more related to Nietzsche, Hegel, and Marx, who had a mystical belief in endless upward progress either toward the superman, the absolute, or the socialist paradise. Darwin never spoke about evolution, only about descent with modification, which is a sound theory regarding the creation of breeds, but in recent years has begun to seem doubtful in the minds of candid biologists regarding the creation of a new species, much less a new genus, family, order, class, phylum, kingdom. The random mutation theory, which is not Darwin's theory, does not seem to be a feasible mechanism to explain the stability of species in some geological strata, versus the sudden explosions of species in the precambrian and others.)
The only moral principle taught to the eager yet impressionable youths is that ‘slut-shaming’ is wrong (‘Slut-shaming’ an Orwellian term used to refer to what was once called prudence, temperance, wisdom and chastity).
The only moral principle taught to young women is that it is wrong, inexcusably wrong, to admire moral principle.
The Twenty Firsters think the source of the problem is the lack of characters in popular literature who represent minorities, and, in the case of superheroes or other longstanding characters, the lack of actresses or minority characters portraying roles originally depicted as male or white. I have heard this conclusion announced on many, many an occasion, but never once with the alleged chain of reasoning upon which it is based mentioned, so I am in no position to judge its soundness, or even judge whether it even attempts to be sound.
So to solve the imaginary problem of a lack of minorities playing white character roles, and the even more imaginary problem of violations of the civil rights of those who commit acts of sexual deviance, our elite class has taken it upon themselves to use the popular culture, first, to benumb us to sexual deviance until we all think (or pretend to think) it is licit, healthy, and normal, and, second, to use the popular culture to have blacks play white characters. As I said, the point of this escapes me: the effect is to make us acutely conscious of their skin color, and ever more acutely aware (and, for our weaker members, resentful) of the special privileges shown the protected classes who enjoy antidiscrimination privileges under our laws.
[...]
Again, on THE ARROW, when a nine-months pregnant woman and the father of her child visit the obstetrician’s office, the doctor cheerfully and understandably refers to the father as ‘your husband’ and the man immediately says ‘boyfriend’ and the woman ‘ex-husband’ and the doctor simply smiles, as if neither of these conditions were shameful or questionable, as if it were not shocking, not appalling, not gravely morally repugnant, and not unthinkably stupid to bring a baby into this world without the father and mother being married to each other.
[...]
In one particularly egregious episode of LEGENDS OF TOMORROW, our mixed-race and mixed-sexual-normalcy team visits 1950. The white male who likes certain features of the time, such as the low crime rate and fundamental goodness and decency of all and sundry, is not only browbeaten and humiliated by the scolding, scalding sneering teammates, they tell him that Blacks were mistreated in this era, as were women, as were persons suffering from disordered sexual appetites. Of course all this is an outrageous lie (most black families were intact back then, and, while it is true that in the Democrat controlled areas of the country, blacks had separate schools, bathrooms, and drinking fountains from whites, it is also true that bastardy, single-mom households, gangbanging, drug abuse, and black-on-black violence was not the norm for the vast majority of blacks) and of course the designated white male punching bag, who is a hero in every other scene of this hero squad story, here just ducks his head and looks sheepish. It is yet another reaction which is forced, stiff, absurd, and violates basic psychology 101 hence basic storytelling 101.
There are certain unwise jurisdictions that have, during my lifetime, experimented with overturning the common law precept that no man can rape his wife. The disastrous effects of bringing such lawsuits could be easily foreseen by anyone not afflicted with the brain disease called Leftism.
Such evil effects were foreseen before no-fault divorce became the norm, or contraception made legal by judicial fiat, as evidenced by the fact that the Christian teaching has always sided with wisdom and experience.
I say that if the inevitable side effect of votes for women is women swearing like sailors, being treated like dirt by their menfolk, and sleeping around like whores, with the secondary side effects of teen mothers, broken families, children like walking wounded in the divorce-torn hellscape of modern life, and abortion rates as horrific as pyramids of skulls collected by the Aztecs, then be damned to votes for women. If that is the trade off, it is a bad bargain.
The woman can vote, but she cannot keep a man from walking into the locker room when she is changing. She can vote, but she cannot vote into effect a law to prevent her daughter from killing her granddaughter in the womb for any reason or no reason. She can vote, but cannot vote for a state law to protect her from illegal aliens. She can vote, but a bureaucrat decides the nature and amount of her medical care, and whether she is forced to buy contraceptives and aborticides for employees. She gets no vote on those things.
Her great grandmother could chop down a tree on her own land and build a shed, or burn the wood in her own hearth, or slaughter a chicken, or bake and sell cookies, or give food to the poor, without asking leave or let from the government. By any rational measure, her great grandmother was more free than is she now, vote or no vote.
‘Dicks’ is a swearword. You are banned.
I never ban anyone for disagreeing with me, merely for breaking my rules of which I have only two: (1) no foul language (2) No Holocaust deniers.
I find that for some reason, Leftists cannot express themselves without swearing. Oddly, by insisting on civility, I am allowed to keep my comments boxes free from irrationality.
I did not know you were a woman. Naturally, I would have been more polite had I known. For that, I do apologize.
[From an earlier comment John posted on the same blog:]
The excuse the death cult uses is that wearing a balloon on your dick is a ‘health issue.’ As if sterility were healthy rather than the opposite.
Making women into men and men into eunuchs is a central part of the HG Wellsian evolution of the West into the land of soft and gender-neutral Eloi. If female suffrage is a major contributor to that, no matter its obvious merits in the name of justice, it the name of prudence it seems a bad idea.
If (and I speak only hypothetically) it were proven to me that female suffrage must inevitably lead to the culture we see around us, where Sandra Fluke, a 30-year-old law student, becomes the patron saint of forcing we Catholics to trample the crucifix and spit on images of the Virgin and pay for her fornication and harlotry and abominations, and if I were a woman of good character and stern moral fiber, I would like to think that I would be willing to forswear the vote as an act of sacrifice merely to prevent that future, a world where women like Fluke were allowed to represent womanhood, from coming into being.
[Discussing marital rape.]
Your comments make no absolutely sense. Women who marry have chosen, of their own free will, to give up their control of their body to their husbands. That’s what marriage means. Do you similarly complain about soldiers not having control over their bodies after they enlist? And as for voting, it is not a human right and says nothing about the worth of a human being. There are 7 billion human beings on the planet and only about 200 million are permitted to vote in the USA.
Women regard me as they choose. Unlike voting, that is their right. Many of them choose to support me for the obvious reason that they share my traditional values that have proven to be much more historically successful than the disastrous and societally destructive progressive values.
Imagine your brother and your sister both stagger back from a drunken orgy. The brother says that a woman threatened him and drugged him and forced him to get an erection and copulate with her. The woman had a gun and a knife and a daterape drug and was blackmailing him, and she was stronger and taller than he was. He feels humiliated.
Your sister says she was raped.
I suppose you could make the argument that the crimes were the same, if you did not care that the argument was mere sophistry. In reality, you need to go get a shotgun and kill the boy who raped your sister, or, if you live in a state civilized enough to have a death penalty, turn him over to the law for a quick trial and a slow hanging. Your brother, maybe you need to buy him a drink and lend him a sympathetic ear.
Please recall that Christianity is the only worldview that ever denied, undermined, and outlawed magic. For the superstitious to call the rational ‘superstitious’ is beyond irony.
There have been people who said to themselves “this universe looks to be made by God, I do not like that”. So, naturally, they wrote a physical book for other people who they believe do not physically exist and have it physically printed and distributed, a lot of work, a book that says “this book, and you, do not exist, it’s all a figment of your imagination”.
[H)ow many women would be willing, in return for immunity like a Church from income and other taxes, to lose the right to vote?]
*waves hand in the air* I would!
Heck, I’d give up my vote just for the sake of it being taken away from all other women as well. Even if the vote actually really meant something, you know, like it’s supposed to. Women should not vote; they are too susceptible to emotion, and if men are the only ones voting on behalf of their whole households that should encourage them to take greater responsibility for the good of their entire households.
Girls are allowed to cry and cower, because it is cute, and we gentlemen are supposed to protect them.
But women and naturally less suited for war and conflict than men. If the vote were restricted solely to men, perhaps the public debate over public laws would make fighting wars and fighting crime its primary, or even its only, order of business. Perhaps all these other things, housecleaning the environment, mothering the poor, schoolmarming the schools, would be done privately, not by the government.
Perhaps if women did not vote, they could see to the environment, the schools, and the poor through the institutions of the Church, which are better suited to charitable activity and feminine compassion than the hard and harsh swords and balances of townhall.
The Nanny State only exists in nations where all the Nannies were given a vote.
For better or worse, reality is conservative. Because of this, drama in any form tends to be conservative: readers still enjoy reading love stories and heroic adventures. Hence a book like Harry Potter, which is based on archetypes as old as cave paintings — wise men with long gray beards, evil serpents, trusted comrades, the unloved orphan (who, like Hercules or Moses, is chosen by fate to slay monsters or evil lords and save his people) — is innately conservative.
It is no surprise that more leftists buy books, including fairytale books, for their children, and pass along their political viewpoints as well. Leftists already live in Cloudcuckooland, which is next door to fairyland.
I suggest that some enterprising political scientist perform a similar study for any book-reading of any kind, not just books about schoolboy wizards, or, indeed, any idle pastime whatsoever. Leftism is found more among idle folk whose mental immune system is weak: among teens, among university professors, and among everyone else who does not work for a living.
Now, when I was younger and more libertarian in thought, I thought Conservativism and Leftism were political postures. I thought politics included mutual compromise for mutual benefit.
Since 9/11, all that smoke has been blown out of my eyes. Leftism is not a political posture. It is a cross between a mental disease and a death-cult. The only way to prevent Churches from being sued under antidiscrimination laws, or to keep clerks issuing marriage licenses out of jail, is to prevent gay marriage. The only way to prevent gay marriage is to keep the anti-sodomy laws on the books.
The barbarian is either at your feet or at your throat. If the Left were civilized, they would be willing and able to live in peaceful mutual respect and mutual toleration with their neighbors. For psychological reasons that seem to me to be inescapable, the Left cannot be civilized. Because the deeds of men are evil, and so they love the darkness.
Not to put to finer a point on it, but of course being an atheist makes you stupid. It can’t not make you stupid if you try to take it seriously and not just half ass it the way the new atheist clowns do. Atheism implies a certain metaphysics about the world, this is unavoidable as the atheist cannot consistently hold to a metaphysics that logically concludes their is a creator.
As a result, with the thin and sub-standard metaphysics they are forced to embrace, they are forced to constantly deny things about that cannot fit and cannot exist.
The usual one they start denying is morality but when followed consistently, you need to deny, knowledge, mind, consciousness, reason, logic and ultimately even the idea of composite objects. Why they choose this part to nihilistic madness rather than embrace a generic theism (Deism cannot provide the metaphysical foundation either) is beyond me, but they do.
And so, confronted with a century of being driven back, step by step, failure by failure, the freethinkers in my generation, who still were capable of reason in the long lost days of my youth, had to abandon the last branch of the tree where atheism could hide. Rather than confess that the universe must have a creator, and that therefore miracles must exist, and that therefore the reports of miracles in the Gospel are not automatically incredible, the freethinkers preferred to go full postmodern, and deny that truth exists. The only way to defeat the one historical question and the three philosophical questions proving and supporting Christian belief as reasonable, was to go full stupid, and deny that truth was true.
I don’t care if Dr Carson is a creationist or not. Indeed, my opinion of creationism goes up every time I hear of a rocket scientist or brain surgeon who supports it.
For that matter, George Washington was a creationist, as were all educated and civilized men before Darwin erected his rather tenuous hypothesis that species can change characteristics to a point where they form a new species, intersterile with their parent species via an blind process called by the oxymoron ‘natural selection’ (which is to say, unplanned planning; undesigned design).
This theory is not widespread because it satisfies scientific rigor (it does not) but because it pretends to offer a satisfactory explanation for the origin of man that is naturalistic and non-theistic (it is not).
The fact that no scientific observation or experiment has ever confirmed this origin story for man makes it, as far as I am concerned, a dogma of faith taken on authority, but, unlike a religious dogma of faith, by hypothesis there is no authority on which to rely whose word we trust when he tells us it is by this means new species originate.
I don’t care if Dr. Carson thinks the pyramids of Egypt stored the grain of Joseph. I am deeply ashamed for our nation that our press put this matter before public attention, and that the public, including me, is wasting our time with it.
Do you object that I call it a myth? It is a myth. It is not science, it is not even scientific to believe in spontaneous creation of life from non life. Science is based on rational deduction from observations and predictions to confirm the deductions. Here, no observer saw or even has seen life emerge from non life. It cannot even be done deliberately, much less blindly by an natural process. If it were a natural process, we would see it going on around us at all times.
In short, I do claim that “all science is Christian science”.
[...]
So, can pagans do science? No, or yes only to the extent that they abandon pagan thinking and adopt Christian thinking, as the ancient Latin and Greek worlds did. What about heretics? Certainly they can, to the extent that they retain Christian thinking. A heretic is by definition a Christian of a sort, although the particular bent of a particular heresy might preclude it.
What about a post-Christian society, such as ours, or a never-Christian society such as Japan? It remains to be seen, I think, but the signs are not good so far.
My theory is that Leftists never wake up not because they are stupid nor because they are evil but merely because the question of whether a “narrative” is true or false bores them and fills them with ennui.
Political Correctness means judging stories on how efficient they are as propaganda.
Truth never enters their mental system at any point.
Truth is merely irrelevant to them.
We keep arguing to them about whether global warming truly exists or truly does not exist, and they merely blink at us with owlish, stupid, dull looks on their brutal faces, uncomprehending, because to them it is like asking if saying please and thank you is ‘true’.
Saying please and thank you is not true or untrue. It is merely polite, an accepted formality.
Likewise, here, to them, expressing loyalty to the Global Warming faith is merely polite, a matter of accepted formality.
Asking a Leftist to react to a fact, and to recant a false theory once it is proved false is like asking a eunuch to get an erection. He cannot do it. He lacks the equipment to perform the act and lacks the mental and physical ability to desire to perform the act.
When, if ever, has anyone on the Left ever for any reason condemned or denounced or recanted a false theory once it was proved false?
Love does not exist outside chastity, monogamy, and romance. These are unique Christian social artifacts. Marrying for love is unknown outside areas influenced by Christian thinking: absent the oath of matrimony, love is not true love, but mere lust, which is in many ways its opposite.
(Discussing Ms Marvel, a Pakistani-American Superhero.)
Meanwhile, the one and only person on the team with a clear religious identity is the Muslim girl. This is a religion which has, whether anyone admits it or not, declared war on the whole world, and has, whether anyone says so or not, adopted terrorism and stealth jihad as the main means to wage that war.
This is the same as if, during World War Two, a comic book made one of their heroines a member of the Nazi party. But one of the those nice Nazi party members who do not approve of Hitler, or the other official doctrines, written in the official literature, of the organization to which she willingly belongs. Such a comic character would appeal to the moderate Nazis whom we do not wish to alienate, since, after all, Hitler highjacked the noble institution and motives of the Party.
The Catholic Church in America, in the 1960s and 1970s, welcomed homosexuals into their ranks, and, enamored by then current psychological theories about the origins of the sin, thought that to comfort and hide the offender was the most charitable policy. Consequently, once the homosexual lobby made entry into the Church and rose in the ranks, over the next decades they diligently sought out and welcomed each other to join seminaries and holy vocations, covered up each others crimes and abominations, and so on. Hence there was a plethora of homosexual activity with young men, some of them underage under the authority of gays in the priesthood and other positions of authority.
The resulting scandal humiliated the Church and continued to be flung in the face of the priesthood and laity as a curse to this day. (It is ironic to note that the proportion of such scandals is far less than found among schoolteachers.) Why homosexual diddling with young and fair-faced boys is a horror and a scandal in the Church, but welcomed and cheered in society at large, and considered a constitutional right it is bigotry to oppose, I leave for someone more able to unwind the labyrinthine convulsions of modern non-binary logic than I to explain.
Having disregarded logic, reason, honesty and integrity as deceptions created by race or class or sex, the only thing left as a grounds for accepting or denying a proposition is one’s personal faith in the anonymous pundit making the proposition. The modern Left simply take everything on authority. Unlike a Catholic, who takes authoritative pronouncements of authorities on authority, the modern Left accepts the word of random and anonymous strangers in the press or in the scientific community, or take the word of pundits who claim to speak on their behalf. It is a crowd sourced magisterium.
Dear Mr DiMartino and Mr Konietzko,
I admire your creative effort tremendously. I watched your shows, bought your merchandize, and supported and lauded you. I made your work a part of my imagination and a part of my life, and introduced your show to my children.
And this is how you repay loyalty and affection?
A children’s show, of all places, is where you decided to place an ad for a sexual aberration; you pervert your story telling skills to the cause of propaganda and political correctness.
You sold your integrity out to the liberal establishment. In a craven fashion you deflect criticism by slandering and condemning any who object to your treason.
You were not content to leave the matter ambiguous, no, but had publicly to announce that you hate your audience, our way of life, our virtues, values, and religion.
From all the fans everywhere worldwide let me say what we are all feeling:
Mr DiMartino and Mr Konietzko: You are disgusting, limp, soulless sacks of filth, you richly deserve to burn in hell forever, inch by inch, starting with the scrotum working outward, or starting with the eyelids and working inward, therefore it would be best to pray God treats you with mercy.
You have earned the contempt and hatred of all decent human beings forever, and we will do all we can to smash the filthy phallic idol of sodomy you bow and serve and worship. Contempt, because you struck from behind, cravenly; and hatred, because you serve a cloud of morally-retarded mental smog called Political Correctness, which is another word for hating everything good and bright and decent and sane in life.
I have no hatred in my heart for any man’s politics, policies, or faith, any more than I have hatred for termites; but once they start undermining my house where I live, it is time to exterminate them.
Sincerely,
A lifelong fan.
A Leftist, left to himself, will speak in elliptical and opaque phrases mocking with sly mockery all normal and decent things. However, if confronted directly, the Leftist will tell a bald faced lie, one that has no possible chance of deceiving anyone; and so shamelessly and openly will he lie, that the opposition is usually caught stammering and astonished.
Feminists don’t hate men? And the Earth is as flat as a pancake! Of course, of course.
This is because the Left are controlled by what I call the Unreality Principle, where they believe a mutual hallucination of mutual lies that they all tell each other.
This is done out of a sense of group loyalty and a reckless disregard for truth, or, rather ‘truth’ since truth is a concept for which they have nothing but contempt. When someone speaks an obvious truth, as feminists hating men, they all know it is untrue, but anyone in the rabbit warren willing to stand up and utter a completely lie contradicting the truth, he is a hero, because he shows he puts party loyalty above honesty, above honor, above trustworthiness, above all things.
A sane and normal man would feel a great shame for being forced to tell such a stupid and transparent lie: but for the Left, the most stupid it is, and the less convincing it is, the greater their sacrifice of self worth to the Party.
Many words have been spent debating in vain whether the Left are knowingly and deliberately aiding and abetting the destruction of civilization, or they are so drugged and dazed in fathomless stupidity as not to know it.
When one talks to a Leftist, and, at first, they seem sane and normal, as well educated as any man, or, at least, as well educated about recent matters. Of the past they know nothing.
And they are sane and normal on any topic except those touching their central insanity, the self-destructive philosophy they use to smother the conscience and to excuse themselves from any obligation or debt of fealty to the civilization in which they live.
Once that spot is touched, they utter word-noises without meaning, meant only to halt thought and halt debate, invariably an ad hominem attack to shut up any questions shining light on that spot.
I am more than a presumably rational individual, I am a champion of atheism who gave arguments in favor of atheism so convincing that three of my friends gave up their religious belief due to my persuasive reasoning powers, and my father stopped going to church.
Upon concluding through a torturous and decades-long and remorseless process of logic that all my fellow atheists were horribly comically wrong about every basic point of philosophy, ethics and logic, and my hated enemies the Christians were right, I wondered how this could be. The data did not match the model.
Being a philosopher and not a poseur, I put the matter to an empirical test.
For the first time in my life, I prayed, and said. “Dear God. There is no logical way you could possibly exist, and even if you appeared before me in the flesh, I would call it an hallucination. So I can think of no possible way, no matter what the evidence and no matter how clear it was, that you could prove your existence to me. But the Christians claim you are benevolent, and that my failure to believe in you inevitably will damn me. If, as they claim, you care whether or not I am damned, and if, as they claim, you are all wise and all powerful, you can prove to me that you exist even though I am confident such a thing is logically impossible. Thanking you in advance for your cooperation in this matter, John C. Wright.” — and then my mind was at rest. I had done all I needed to do honestly to maintain my stature as someone, not who claimed to be logical, objective and openminded, but who was logical, objective, and openminded.
Three days later, with no warning, I had a heart attack, and was lying on the floor, screaming and dying.
-Then I was saved from certain death by faith-healing, after which–
-I felt the Holy Spirit enter my body, after which–
[description of ecstatic visions and personal encounter with Jesus edited for space]
I was converted.
So I was prepared to say adieu to logic and reason and just take things on faith, when I then found out that the only people who think you have to say adieu to logic and reason in order to take things on faith are crackpots both Christian and atheistic.
Every non-crackpot thinks faith is that on which you rely when unreasonable fears tempt you to disbelieve that to which your reason has consented. If your father says you can dive off the high dive with no risk of death, and he has never lied in the past, and your reason tells you to trust him, it is rational to take his word on faith and jump, and it is irrational to let your eyes overestimate the danger poised by the height.
I then discovered that the Christian world view makes sense of much that the atheistic or agnostic worldview cannot make sense of, and even on its own philosophical terms, is a more robust explanation of the cosmos and man’s place in it, answering many questions successfully that atheists both claim cannot be answered, and then, without admitting it, act in their lives as if the question were answered, such as how to account for the rational faculties of man, the universality of moral principles, the order of the cosmos, how best to live, etc.
Turning to my atheist friends, I then discovered none of them, not one, could give me even so reasonable an argument as I was expert in giving in favor of atheism.
They reasoned as follows: “God cannot possibly exist. Therefore any evidence that you encountered that God exists must be hallucination, mis-perception, faulty memory, self-deception, coincidence, or anything else no matter how farfetched and absurd. Since any evidence that you encountered that God exists must be hallucination, mis-perception, faulty memory, self-deception, coincidence, or anything else no matter how farfetched and absurd, therefore none of your evidence proves God exists.”
I found their perfect, childlike faith touching.
No matter what they saw, no matter what they heard, no matter how the world was against them, they would go to the lions rather than look at the evidence, lest their faith in their faithlessness be shaken.
But keep in mind most pervertarians are not homosexuals themselves, or have anything they stand to gain personally from abolishing marriage in the name of marriage equality. They are enemies of the Church, and have found a convenient stick with which to beat the Church: they can claim that laws against sodomy, or laws acknowledging marriage, are just like the Jim Crow laws the Democrats enacted in the South after the Republican Union smashed the Democrat institution of slavery. What the connection is between race-hatred, which is an irrational antipathy of a whole racial group of man based on a trivial external characteristic no one can control or change, and a moral opprobrium against sexual perverts, which a rational antipathy against those individuals who freely decide to transgress the bounds of law and of nature, is a mystery of the Democrat faith. It is a talking point, something said without substance, neither meaningful nor meant to be believed, merely an emotional appeal, like calling someone a bad name, or calling an atrocity by an nondescript euphemism. It is a word-fetish.
The proponents of what is called (with unintentional hilarity) gay marriage express the gaiety for which they are named by crowing and gamboling with delight that the Supreme Court has declined to do its core Constitutional mission of interpreting the law, and chastise and check the abuses of activist judges overruling the sovereign votes of the decent and sober majority.
They should perhaps rein in their gay celebrations: gay marriage cannot be justified either in law or logic. This means the law has just departed from the environs of law and logic.
The gay partisans should instead recoil with dread, for the thing, by being given into their hands, is effectively destroyed. Whatever meaning or sanction the pairs of homosexuals are seeking out of the pretense of marriage is destroyed by the very fact that it is a pretense, not a marriage.
Darwinism is not only correctly called a theory, it even more correctly called an unscientific theory, a philosophical theory, in that it is not open to disproof by normal scientific means of measurement, observation, experimentation; and it makes no testable predictions. There is no such thing as ‘Darwin’s Law’ parallel to ‘Newton’s Law’ because Darwin makes no predictions of outcomes.
When women move into a leadership role, their maternal instruct comes to the fore. Even queens and political leaders of the fair sex act motherly, and treat their followers like children. And to see one’s fellow man as children creates this same hatred and contempt for them, the same fear, which the craven liberal in this column attributes to any disagreement.
She reacts as if I am not smarter, older, better educated, a lawyer, a philosopher, a writer, with a genius level IQ. She reacts like I am a smart mouthed child who is boasting, and whose judgment that one way of life is better than another merits me a sharp slap on my knuckles with the ruler.
So there is no equality involved. Women either follow their men, or follow Big Brother, or act like mothers surrounded by a world of smelly and disobedience children whom they have no authority to discipline.
The first option is love; the second is hate; the third is weariness and despair.
Before political correctness, homosexuality was listed as a mental disorder by the officials of the psychiatric profession, and it was taught as such in medical school. It is as obvious as coprophagy,the desire to eat excrement rather than food: even if one does not regard coprophagy as a mental disorder, it is clearly an abuse of the organs of eating and digestion, and alien to the purpose logically implied by their design. It is not eating, but the opposite of eating. So, too, using the sex organs for homosex, for the opposite of sex, is likewise an abuse.
The Left did not take over the culture in an evening, nor in a summer, but after a century of hard and patient and tireless work, and it was the work of many hands acting according to one ideal, one vision, one philosophy.
It is, namely, the visions of hell, of gulag, of death camps, which make the Leftists salivate like Pavlov’s dogs. The Left are not repelled by the Holocaust, by the purges of Stalin or the genocides (yes, I mean genocide in the plural) of Mao, but erotically stimulated, attracted and allured to it, and they dream night and day how to get enough power over their fellow man to commit such atrocities again. They do not want to make an omelet: their pleasure comes from smashing eggs. If you do not believe me, go into any modern art museum. There you will see concrete visual depictions of their internal emotional and moral nature, the invisible things made visible.
We have truth, beauty, virtue, life, honesty, delight, joy, forgiveness, mercy, justice, reason, logic and sanity on our side, not to mention The Almighty. We are promised that things will get worse, apocalyptic levels of worse, before they get better, New Jerusalem Levels of better. Let not your heart be troubled. Fear nothing but the Lord.
If strict materialism is true, there are no angels to grant inspirations, but then again, if strict materialism is true, there are no thoughts and no people to think them.
Everything happens for a cause. The cause must be sufficient to explain the outcome: a firecracker cannot blow up Hiroshima. A work of art cannot be created by a non-deliberate or natural or blind because art is deliberate, insightful, meaningful. If it comes into my mind from somewhere, that someone from whence it comes cannot be my mind, but it has to be something like a mind, something (or, rather, someone) who is conscious and capable of artistic creative thought. The unconscious mind does not think since thought is consciousness: the two words mean the same thing.
The only two possibilities are that these inspired thoughts arise in me from a human mind or a divine one. If it were a human mind, there would be a physical cable or channel physically carrying the nerve impulses into my brain. Which is absurd. Therefore, etc., QED.
Please do not speculate that I have even the slightest superstitious impulse in me. The only people who are less superstitious than fanatical atheists (who do not believe in any supernatural powers) are fanatical Christians (who do not believe in any supernatural powers aside from the Omnipotent, and are strictly forbidden in any case to evoke them).
No, sir, take me at my word. I am being utterly honest with you. I know about my writing the one thing my readers do not know. I know how much is perspiration and how much is inspiration.
Materialists who think inspiration comes from the unconscious mind credit that part of your brain that does not have conscious thoughts with miraculous and godlike powers of creativity, nuance, word choice, rhythm, human insight, and so on. Humbug. Materialism is a crass superstition, as illogical as belief in a lucky rabbits foot, and a philosopher such as I will have no part of their nonsense.
No, the principle of Occam’s razor, that most scientific of principles, says not to multiple entities in a theory without necessity. When I write, I can see inside my head which ideas are the stupid and laborious ones I come up with, and which pop into my head as if from nowhere.
Theories of modern physics to one side, Einstein is right and Heisenberg is wrong, and God does not play at dice, and nothing comes from nothing. No entity and no event can come from a cause which is insufficient to create that cause, for the same reason that Rocs do not hatch from chicken eggs.
Hence, logically, if story elements, images, characters, plot twists, events, word choices and so on pop into my awareness in my mind, and I do not see their origins anywhere in my mind, then they come from outside my mind, from a source capable of understanding and producing great art.
An unconscious mind or unaware awareness sounds like a contradiction in terms, and the idea that an unaware awareness is aware of abstractions like plot and theme and symmetry and so on is nonsense.
So the source of thoughts found in me, if they did not come from me, come from an outside source. You may call it what you will. The ancient Greek called them the Muses, and I see no reason to demean them with a less dignified name.
Now, I am open to the possibility that spirits more righteous and upright than merely pagan goddesses are behind any of my writing that shows truly holy spirit in it, but at this point to speculate further may be beyond human wisdom, and is certainly beyond mind.
Darwin looks for an explanation of the origin of species and the teleology of the parts of animals, that is, to explain their design and the perfect fittedness of each organ to its purpose without a designer. He wants creation without a Creator in the same way Marx wants a story without a storyteller. What his theory predicts is not borne out by the evidence around us: where are the birds who only build half a nest, or the newt with only half an eye, who are halfway to evolving real nests and real eyes? Those things that are presented as transitional or preevolutionary halfway marks, such as light-sensitive spots or bird who mash down grass without weaving a proper nest, still evince a teleology, a that-for-the-sake-of-which, which the bird or critter in question did not himself decide or determine. Either the organs and instincts are purposeless, or there is purpose in nature. But nature cannot hold a purpose unless nature is an intelligent being, that is, a being capable of making self aware decisions, which is what a purpose is.
The only real doubts about God’s existence come from sin, from a psychological unwillingness to face facts. God is abundantly, transcendentally, painfully obvious even to pagans — because otherwise they would not have bothered inventing gods if they did not know, deep down, that they were made for worship, designed by a designer, built by a builder.
Modern atheism springs from the wealth and plenty of the industrial revolution, men who think they can live without God, who then go looking for excuses, flimsy ones, not to believe in Him: Marx, Darwin, Freud.
I understand rightwing atheists perfectly well, that is, people who disbelieve in God because they see no evidence for God. Leftwing atheist who disbelieve in God because they hate God, them I never understood, even back when I was an atheist. The rational men, theist or atheist, are natural allies against the irrational men, irrational atheists and irrational theists both.