Sunday, July 17, 2016

Brief thoughts 7/17/2016

Enthusiasm for the coup in Turkey - and remorse at its failure at the hands of a spontaneously uprising populace - gives a glimpse of the real state of 'democratic ideals' in the US. That Erdogan was elected (indeed, that he's pretty popular) doesn't mean a thing to people. All they know is that he's a muslim and wants greater muslim influence in Turkey, and thus he's not taking up our prized values. Like our respect for democratic political processes. This isn't to say I think Erdogan is a good guy, but I grimly suspect he has a clearer view of the world than many other leaders, and that he's a nationalist besides.

Fallout from Nice continues, with it being confirmed that the killer was an ISIS member, yet another local who radicalized extremely quickly. The response from the French authorities is apparently that this is the new normal and the proper thing to do is to just get used to it, and show those terrorists they're not going to react improperly to such mass killings. 'Improperly' apparently means 'vote for nationalists, protect their borders and the culture'. Earlier in the day, Hollande said that the real threat was right-wing nationalists, and it's fast becoming clear that leftists would rather die altogether than live in a world where their values were exposed as unworkable, to say nothing of wrong.

Fallout from Black Lives Matters continues as well, with yet another targeted killing of cops by a cop-hating, BLM-loving black man. Right now the left is in a state of growing panic, since every time this happens it becomes harder and harder not to criticize the very elements that give the Black Lives Matter engine its fuel. Let's face it: remove the cop-hating, white-hating elements from BLM and you're not getting nationwide marches anymore. In fact, you're not even getting a coherent message anymore.

#NeverTrump fizzled out, with its adherents reduced to hoping Hillary wins - and make no mistake, that's exactly what they're hoping. A Trump victory in November would mean they not only look foolish (half of their cries are 'he can never win!'), but their place in the party would probably be gone for good. Jeb Bush is already talking about the necessity of purging the party of Trump supporters and influence, in favor of replacing it with the most bland pablum I've ever seen. I fully expect that within a decade, Jeb will be in Mexico, renouncing his citizenship, no matter what happens. I've tried feeling sorry for him, but to put it bluntly, it's hard to feel sorry for people that pathetic.

Has anyone noticed that the fight has gone out of a lot of New Atheists? They snarl, they spit, but I think their morale has taken a nosedive, even with the continued irreligiosity in America. It has to feel like hell to notice that 'irreligion' and 'the spread of feminism, Islam-worship and general cuckery' go hand in hand. I think a sizable slice of anti-Christians find themselves on the Trump train, and are quickly dropping to a 'well they aren't as bad as atheism+ types' as a tradeoff. Meanwhile the atheism+ atheists are stuck with having to pretend Islam is a religion of peace no matter how many body parts fly through the air.

Interesting times and all.

15 comments:

JBsptfn said...

Well, as we have seen on the internet, these atheists don't really have a leg to stand on. A lot of them just fling insults and don't try to understand what Christianity is all about.

B. Prokop said...

Crude,

Are you going to go after Trump for his wife's plagiarism of Michelle Obama's speech with the same fervor you (justifiably) hit on Papalinton for the same offense?

Crude said...

Bob,

You're asking me if I'm going to go after Trump, for something his wife did, based on a paragraph of a speech neither of them likely wrote?

I'm reminded that you fervently attacked Trump for saying he had nothing to ask God's forgiveness for, furious that a man could express such a non-Christian sentiment, but you had absolutely nothing to say about the 'agnostic' Sanders. Nor, for that matter, about Hillary Clinton talking about how Christians will have to change their minds about abortion, gay marriage, etc.

You choose odd battles to fight.

B. Prokop said...

Do not confuse me with a Clinton supporter! She is most definitely not getting my vote this year. I have not yet decided who I will ultimately support, but he/she will for certain be a third party candidate. Clinton is not "pro choice" - she is "pro abortion". Huge difference, which makes her anathema. She'd like to increase funding to Planned Un-parenthood and wants to overturn the Hyde amendment. And Heaven only knows what sort of justices she would appoint.

But I stand by my assessment of Trump. He is a Bad Man, a blasphemer and a serial liar, and temperamentally unfit for the presidency. There is no good choice this election, and there will be no good outcome in November, no matter who wins. Either major party candidate will be a disaster for our nation.

There. Is that even-handed enough for you?

Crude said...

Nope. Because I know this game, which is, 'I dislike both sides equally. Watch my attacks focus on one.'

As I said, we had a conversation like this over Sanders. I recall your reaction at the time: denouncing Trump as a blasphemer because he said he had nothing to ask forgiveness for? That made him a blasphemer, wicked. Sanders, a secular jew? No comment.

Once again: you choose odd battles to fight.

B. Prokop said...

"Sanders, a secular jew? No comment."

That was, as you well recall, because I knew nothing about Sanders other than his name when you asked me to comment on him. I wasn't even aware he was Jewish, let alone "secular".

Crude said...

That was, as you well recall, because I knew nothing about Sanders

And I told you immediately, it was tremendously easy to verify - not exactly a secret.

You had no comment. I mean, you were furious Trump called what Christians receive a cracker - the blood and flesh of our savior, Jesus Christ! - until I pointed out that Trump was talking about the freaking Methodists or something, which according to Catholics, really is nothing but a cracker. Again, no comment.

Like I said, Bob - I know these games. I know how they work. I wish you'd not play them with me.

B. Prokop said...

Crude, I am truly astonished by your last comment. Blasphemy is blasphemy, whatever the source. Protestants don't get a pass because they are heretics. By your reasoning, gnus are not being insulting when they refer to God as "your invisible sky fairy", because they claim to not believe in God.

Crude said...

No, because we're talking about bread and grape juice in a protestant church with no valid orders and certainly no valid consecrations.

Let me make this clear: take an episcopalian female bishop. Have her 'consecrate' the cracker. If you say that's the blood and flesh of Christ, you're the blasphemer here, not me. Consult your bishop if you doubt me. The Eucharist is specific to the validly ordained. For most protestants, that cracker is just a cracker in their own eyes. A symbol, and nothing more.

So when Trump calls it a cracker, he's uttering no blasphemy. He's uttering a bland truth any faithful Catholic would have to ultimately agree with. If he calls the Catholic eucharist a cracker, that's something else. And even then, intention and knowledge matters.

So, what are your thoughts on secular jews? Blasphemers of the devil who cannot be trusted with political office? (Easier for people to say now, since he's gone and endorsed Hillary, haha.)

B. Prokop said...

What is it with your bizarre obsession with Sanders? It's honestly starting to sound more than a bit disturbing. Are you desirous that American politics be Judenfrei? 'Cause that's how it's coming off. Why should I, just to satisfy your whim, bad mouth a politician who means nothing to me, whom I in no way support or ever have, and about whom I could not possibly care less. And now it seems he's totally irrelevant to everyone else as well. Do I need to start criticizing Walter Mondale and Bob Dole as well?

And as to one's religion disqualifying a person from office, there are a number of sects, membership in which would make a candidate a non-starter for me, as far as voting for them. Among such would be Scientology, Mormonism, Islam, the self-styled Westboro Baptist Church, and atheism. Jews I have no problem with.

Crude said...

Bob,

Cause that's how it's coming off.

Note my complete and utter lack of concern about insinuations like this.

Why should I, just to satisfy your whim, bad mouth a politician who means nothing to me, whom I in no way support or ever have, and about whom I could not possibly care less.

I'm pointing out that you're full of baloney. Trump refers to a protestant cracker as a cracker, and you say he's a blasphemer who denies the Real Presence. I point out, once again, that Sanders is an irreligious jew, and once again you have nothing to say. Because, I don't know, denying the real presence is complete and utter blasphemy, evil and out of bounds (even the real presence in a protestant symbol, which is itself blasphemy, but oh well). But it's okay when Bernie Sanders necessarily denies it, because it's anti-semitic to think otherwise.

I'd rather these kinds of games not be played with me. I'm not the right audience for them.

malcolmthecynic said...

What is it with your bizarre obsession with Sanders?

This has to be a joke, right?

You started off this thread by asking Crude his thoughts on the speech of the wife of a candidate, a speech she almost certainly didn't write, because it was similar to another speech THAT person didn't write...and because Crude tries to point out that there are other people besides Trump in the world, HE has the bizarre obsession.

You're a parody at this point.

Here are my thoughts on Melania Trump's speech: http://www.scifiwright.com/2016/07/clown-car-press/

Nobody cares.

B. Prokop said...

Then we'll just have to agree to disagree over this. But I never thought I'd hear from a fellow Catholic that defending the dignity of the True Presence was a "game". I quite frankly cannot understand your priorities here. But be that as it may, you (for reasons beyond my comprehension) appear to be able to overlook the offense. I cannot.

I guess that's where it will have to stand. But you have to stop assuming that anyone who thinks differently than you is "playing a game". I assure you that I am writing in deadly earnest here. Let me close by making my position as crystal clear as I possibly can. No games, no pretense:

I have never been so offended by a statement made by any American politician of any party as I was by Trump's blasphemous comments concerning the Holy Eucharist. Until he apologizes, unconditionally and abjectly, he is anathema to me. It is beyond me how any Catholic can support a person who could say such things without the slightest remorse.

And with that, I am done.

malcolmthecynic said...

But I never thought I'd hear from a fellow Catholic that defending the dignity of the True Presence was a "game".

This would all be much more noble and dignified if Trump ever actually said anything that had anything to do with the True Presence.

But as has been repeatedly pointed out, and which you've repeatedly ignored, he didn't.

Crude said...

I have never been so offended by a statement made by any American politician of any party as I was by Trump's blasphemous comments concerning the Holy Eucharist.

The Presbyterian mass has nothing but a little cracker and some grape juice. No Real Presence whatsoever. That's not Trump saying it - that's me.

If you think what I said was non-controversial, then Trump said nothing controversial.

If you think what I said is blasphemy, your problem is with Catholic teaching, not mine.

Just so we're completely clear here...

There is no True Presence in the Presbyterian Church. They eat crackers. This is Catholic teaching. To affirm the real presence there is to deny Catholic teaching. To call it the Holy Eucharist knowingly is blasphemy.