Sunday, September 11, 2016

Hillary Clinton is the picture of health

Oh sure, all that 'she's actually really sick' talk was just crazy conspiracy theories. Clearly.

What's the over-under on her shitting her pants on stage during a debate?

Saturday, September 10, 2016

What's Wrong With Phyllis Schlafly

Something to keep in mind, as we honor Phyllis Schlafly.

She went all in for Trump.

To put this in perspective: What's Wrong With the World honors a right-wing hero whose final act was to defy them.

I think I picked the right side in this particular intellectual battle.

Monday, September 5, 2016

Phyllis Schlafly dies - leftists celebrate

To the surprise of no one, at this point.

Just a little reminder that my decision to regard leftists, particularly Christian leftists, with open contempt was in part a result of refusing to ignore their desire that 'my side' die.

Saturday, September 3, 2016

Meanwhile, in the political arena

So, if Trump was polling poorly a month ago, and he's pulling ahead now, does that mean FBI investigations into Hillary turned everyone more racist or what?

Tuesday, August 30, 2016

Why Lothar Lorraine is part of the problem

I don't like liberal Christians. Not exactly shocking to anyone who frequents this blog. I can name a handful of exceptions - Victor Reppert remains a man I hold in high esteem, whatever my disagreements with his politics. Bob Prokop, on a good day, is at least someone I can drop my guard with. But it's a short list, and even the list of 'conservatives' I like is forever getting smaller as I keep having to cross names off the list (see: #Nevertrumpers and their creepy globalist bible.)

Which brings me to Lothar Lorraine.

See, Lothar's a funny case - he was, really, the last left-wing Christian I was talking with (Reppert and Prokop aside) before I hit the brakes and decided that no, there is no possibility for peace and cooperation between our respective sides. Lothar will insist he's always been exceptionally polite to me, and I will admit that he has been. I breathed fire at his blog in the past - I've not been there for ages - and at his commenters. Granted, I was dealing with some shitty individuals, but I know that people like their regulars and don't appreciate it when someone like myself scares them off.

The point is, I won't say that Lothar's mistreated me personally. Which makes me seem rather rude for including him in the list of 'liberal Christians' I hold in contempt, right? Shouldn't I be seeking out common ground and trying to put our differences aside?

Here's half of the problem with Lothar, and with - really - liberal Christians as a rule. Their liberal politics are not opinions that they have. They are, instead, fundamental components of what amounts to religious law in a faith which is all-consuming, which knows no borders or bounds, and which they work to make all ultimately subject to.

So Lothar, despite not being a Catholic, will cheer on and encourage people to undermine my church, openly hoping for the day where the first lesbian bishop blesses a gay wedding for three women, one of whom made sure to get an abortion at the last minute to make sure she fit into her wedding dress. Every movement towards this is met with cheers by Lothar, because - ultimately - his religion demands it, because it is thoroughly a conquering religion, and its points of conquest are wholly political in nature. "Social justice", from shore to shore, regressive and twisted though it may be. Christ, by the way, is quite optional in this scheme. That's not an important component in this aspect of his religion. Atheists, even evangelical atheists, are allies on this scheme.

I am not going to call someone a friend or an acquaintance when they treat me personally, 'face to face', with civility, yet are unceasing in giving aid, comfort and encouragement to people openly trying to rob me of my culture and my faith. What can I say - it's a sticking point.

Now, despite this, I give credit where it's due. Lothar is no drone, and that sets him apart from other liberals. He will question liberal dogma, and many cannot. And for a while I drew encouragement from that. How can I not? It's fascinating.

Until I realized something. The second half of the problem, and the one which stopped me cold.

Lothar will (say) criticize Black Lives Matter. It's true, and that's remarkable. And he will face a torrent of left-wing hate for doing so. He will stand up against it. All good so far.

The problem is that when time comes to defend himself, people like myself turn out to be his shields.

In order to retain his liberal credentials, Lothar turns up the heat against Trump supporters - like yours truly. 'Hey,' he says, 'I'm still on your side! Look how I can condemn Trump supporters as racists who hate blacks and hispanics! He's a nazi! See? See? I'm still a good liberal - look how I take a verbal whip to these people we both hate!'

And then, Lothar will turn on a heel and come to people like me and expect sympathy. He stood up to BLM! He's convinced they're wrong now! Because, in part, of how they treat him. Can you believe they still went for his throat even -after- assuring them all that Trump supporters are motivated by the desire to string up blacks and gas all the latinos and declare white supremacy?

I suppose I should say, bravo for your bravery in trying to face the mob by expressing your contempt and resentment of... me and people like me.

Once again: kind of a sticking point.

Which is why, despite the politeness, I talk about how funny it's going to be once swaths of geography in France and Germany (hopefully, the liberal Christian and irreligious regions) no longer have 'mayors' as their heads but Qadis, and their resident feminists find themselves beaten into burqas. That sounds cruel, and it is cruel, but so is aiding and abetting the likes of George Soros and, yes, Obama and Clinton, as they try mightily to hollow out my religion and the religions of my peers and turn them into pagan temples to whatever Social Justice mental illness is all the rage. No, I don't want 'dialogue' over this shit anymore, which always turns out to be treated as the terms of my cultural surrender. No, I don't want to 'agree to disagree' and act friendly when someone openly aids, abets and provide moral encouragement to people who would see me starving to death for my beliefs, and robbed of any church to call my home.

That said, I hold out hope. Because at this rate Lothar is going to - belatedly - find himself turning into a full-blown nationalist and member of the Alt Right. At that point, perhaps, we'll finally be able to truly be within overlapping intellectual circles enough to warrant some sincere courtesy. But for now, I'm afraid I'm all out of the fake stuff.

Saturday, August 27, 2016

Regarding globalist corporations and billionaire SJWs...

My attitude is: fuck 'em. Soak 'em too, for all I care.

It's weird that I have to say this, since I've made my nationalist and even protectionist sympathies known for a long time. I also think most arguments against the super-rich, which hinge on their accumulation of wealth, to be fundamentally flawed. In an ideal world, someone who manages to get wealthy via business acumen, hard work, brilliance and more, would have near complete control over their wealth. Of course, in an ideal world, they'd also spend that wealth ideally as well. On any given day, when we're talking principle, I err on the side of at the very least 'letting the wealthy spend their money as they see fit'.

I also do not live in an ideal world. I live in a world with Soros, Gates, and many other sorts whose wealth and their use of it is typically deployed to attack, frustrate, and undermine most things that are good and holy. Not even Churches are outside of their nasty little scope, since they see such things as just one more thing to influence and shape, even if they're on record as irreligious who are openly hostile to those Church's teachings.

This sort of thing invites a dilemma for me. See, despite all things, I try to be fair. I uphold free speech - even speech I find detestable. To give an example of what I mean... hypothetically, let's say Peter Boghossian - PeteBog, a guy I think is a nasty little rat of a man, a real shit by any measure - wanted to give a speech at a public university. And let's say, like Milo Yiannapolous - who I think is fantastic - students and rabble-rousers attempted to block him, rushing the stage, shoving and attacking his supporters in an attempt to try and shut down the event.

My response in both cases is the same: use force to allow them to speak. I will be more explicit: send in police, armored and weaponized, and beat down anyone who would not disperse to the sidelines to peacefully protest. Crack skulls if necessary, and I mean that literally. Call it one of the few more secular values I maintain; speech is sacrosanct in the public. Even people who I despise, I would protect.

But I'm not a universal zealot - I get practical when the topic demands it. The right of billionaires to corrupt and undermine whatever they please, to the point where they fund third party groups that will engage in violence, all while pleading innocence despite advising and directing these groups? To try and undermine borders to try and reshape whole countries, even countries they have no loyalty to? I'm not about to go to the wall for that one. And if tomorrow I wake up to news that a crying, pleading Soros has been snatched up by a foreign government, tossed into prison and his wealth confiscated, I'll laugh a hell of a lot more than I'll cry.

Wednesday, August 24, 2016

George Soros attempting to influence the Catholic Church

Now and then one could get the impression that I really dislike liberal Christians.

If you'd like to see an example of why, here you go. Courtesy of Lifesite News.