Saturday, December 9, 2017

Trumping the papacy

The problem for Pope Francis, post-Trump, is that the president inadvertently spilled an awful lot of bluntness and honesty into our water supply, and a lot of people have been drinking pretty heavily from it. So when the Pope goes about openly trying to cut connection with traditional church teaching - indirect and roundabout, lest he go too far and provoke the Holy Spirit to throw him off a balcony courtesy of a zealous underling - there's far less of an urge to excuse the whole thing.

"Oh, we just don't understand the Pope."

"It's the media! The media isn't reporting him accurately! They want us to believe he's a heretic!"

"It's not HIM. It's his advisers! Ohhh, that Kasper. That Marx!"

Yeah, I know the feeling, I understand the motions people feel they need to go through. And I know the sigh of relief many - and I mean many - otherwise traditionalist-leaning Catholics will feel when he finally kicks it. "Oh, he's dead? Requiem in terra pax, and FUCK him." is going to echo off quite a few walls when the time comes and the burden of loyalty is lifted from them with regards to this particular blight.

But for many of us, the blessing of this new moment of sincerity in communication ('toxicity' as it's called in the mainstream) makes it hard for us not to say what we damn well think. And I suspect many a Catholic, and a cleric, bemoan this state of affairs. Life was easier when cuckservatism was the name of the game, and a demanding left could be pacified by sacrifices from the timid right.

But when both left and right growl and throw punches, what's a coward to do?

Sunday, December 3, 2017

Just an image post

Found this on Imgur.

What I love is that someone obviously added that text at the top, having absolutely no idea about the context of the original pic/edit.

I love it.

Saturday, December 2, 2017

I'm not interested in defending bad clergy.

I side heavily with the traditionalists in the Catholic Church. On sexuality, on the death penalty, on all the nasty, controversial, modern conflicts of Catholic moral teaching, I'm orthodox. Even on the touchier subjects, like evolution and creation, my sympathy with traditional teachings (and modern views which heavily incorporate traditional teach) is express.

But I don't include nobility-LARPing among that.

I'm talking about the tendency to describe cardinals and bishops as "Princes of the Church", and all that implies. Or the stern lecturing I sometimes get from Catholics who tell me that the Pope is "your sovereign" and my very soul depends on my treating him with the utmost respect, the most scrupulous of personal loyalty. That, while I am perhaps not duty-bound to follow his political views, and I can resist any de facto immoral commands from him, I nevertheless must treat him with great respect and love at all times, never questioning his intentions, and never standing in judgment of him.

My response is simple: yeah, I'm not doing that.

Francis is a terrible Pope. His advisers are terrible people. That recently-dismissed US priest had him dead to rights when he talked about how the main accomplishment of Francis was making all the rotten-hearted turncoat clergy (I'd add, "And Catholic bloggers") in the Church reveal themselves and thus raising the possibility that a future Pope may kick them all out. Which, I surmise, he could probably do just by ordering that health plans and hospitals for the Catholic clergy no longer cover HIV-related illnesses.

Yes, I'm suggesting a lot of them are not just gay, but sexually active heretics besides.

Again, I know the some people - some good people! - would be horrified by this. I'd be condemned as a liberal (or a protestant!) for having this attitude, which is funny since the Pope seems to have a rather celebratory attitude towards both of those things. Pardon, but I disagree. I'd go so far as to say, I think otherwise good people do harm to the Church by promoting it.

And so long as I'm letting that out, I may as well say: my opinion of many Catholic bloggers isn't much better. I value Feser and Mike Flynn and various others. But I think Mark Shea and Simcha are pretty awful, and would do everyone a service if they gave up blogging altogether and found another hobby. (For Simcha, I recommend something other than cooking. For Shea, something other than eating.) The combination of sanctimonious political rage and mediocrity is downright Loftusian, with the success to match.

It doesn't get much better when I read the Anchoress or, the house-trained pet of the New York Times, Douthat.

I bring all this up just to make it clear where I stand on these things. I came to peace long ago with the idea that the truth of the Church is compatible with the existence of an absolutely rotten Pope (and thus, certainly Cardinals.) Well, we've got one.

I always wondered what it would be like to experience that!

Monday, November 27, 2017

Objectivism and charity

On a whim, I decided to check out what the objectivist line on charity is. Partly because I remembered Ayn Rand's view wasn't quite as horrific as I expected (people make it sound like she actively desired poor people be gassed just for being poor, and all charity was quasi-sinful.)

From the site:
Answer:  Objectivism holds that there is nothing wrong with charity, so long as one is pursuing one's own values in providing it. As Ayn Rand said, charity is a marginal issue: it is not especially noble to engage in it, but if pursued prudently and seriously, and not at the cost of other important values, it can be a source of good for one's society and ultimately one's self. Objectivists tend to view their donations to causes as investments in some kind of improvement: a better culture, a better city, etc. But like investments, these require attention to make sure they are paying off.
I'm not an Objectivist of course - I'm too theistic, too classical, too religious. But I think Objectivists tend to get a bad rap. The problem is, they get a bad rap because they seem - practically to a man - hellbent on coming across like dickheads.

Seriously, just look at that quote from the Atlas Society. "Charity is fine so long as you get something out of it." Thanks for the tip, Flintheart Glomgold. You dick.

Ironically, the Atlas Society's depiction of the Objectivist view on charity... isn't even charitable. No matter how cold the view of it may be, it could be presented more sensibly, less caustic, while sacrificing none of the honesty of its presentation. But Objectivism seems to function as a lint trap for a certain kind of person who just rubs people the wrong way by nature. Go figure.

Saturday, November 25, 2017

Trump is defying basic expectations of a president - just like his supporters wanted

People who wail about how deeply unpresidential Trump is seem not to understand that this is a large part of his appeal for his base. Many of us love that he shows deep disrespect to journalists, politicians and entertainers - because we don't think these people deserve much respect anyway.

We love that he isn't yet another Republican sap trying to 'unite' the country, ie, submit himself to the criticisms of people who hate him and his supporters.

We love that he does not pretend to be 'above it all'. We love that he doesn't pretend for a moment that an idiot judge who throws down a stupid ruling is anything but a partisan hack seeking to preserve political spoils.

We love that the act has come to an end. And we love the idea that the cultural changes he is making to the presidency, to discourse, and to politics in general may be impossible to ever reverse.

Even now, so many people can't accept - or at least refuse to publicly accept - that these are features, not bugs, of a Trump presidency.

Wednesday, November 8, 2017

Fast thoughts mid-week 11/09

* First, a casual hello to everyone out there in philosophical blogging land who I don't get to talk to much lately. Grod, Brandon (he never comes here, ha!), etc, etc. You know your names. Pardon my absence, but I still lurk and watch a lot of your arguments, and it continues to impress and inspire. Good to see Ed doing so well too.

* I see the latest headline involving the Pope has him lecturing about cell phone use. I find that encouraging, because if we can keep him talking about fortune-cookie level petty shit for the rest of his papacy, maybe he'll stop doing damage to the Church.

* Latest abomination in science is injecting rats with tiny human brains for the scientific reason of "why the fuck not" and "we're already funded". Hey, here's an idea for a horror movie: these rats track down and find the women and chop-shop docs who aborted them, and tear them to pieces a la Willard. I'd go see it, and I hate movies.

* Here's a statistic you're not gonna hear anyone quoting: "Atheists are responsible for some of the largest mass-shootings in the US." Someone tell Dawkins, maybe it'll give him another stroke, and then we won't have to endure him embarrassing himself with yet more shitty jokes as he lectures the US on gun control. (And the NRA member who shot the monster? He deserves a medal. Here's the thing: with Trump, he may actually get one.)

* By the way, one of the best parts of the Trump administration? It's nice to have a leader who sounds like a human being. I know, I know, people miss the previous joke we had who did a Flowers for Algernon imitation whenever he lacked a teleprompter. I prefer this, mistakes and all. Trump is, if nothing else, certifiably human and he doesn't try to be anything else, and we don't have to pretend he's anything else. Fun as it is to call him God Emperor.

Thursday, October 19, 2017

Who blew Harvey Weinstein?

You know, for all the explosive coverage of Harvey Weinstein, I notice there's one question no one - and I mean no one - is asking.

What actresses blew Harvey Weinstein to get ahead in the business?

I'm not asking "What girls did Harvey Weinstein force himself onto."  Nor am I denying that happened - in fact, that's part of the point here.

I'm asking, "Which girls eagerly blew this guy, thinking that it would do wonders for their career?" Which girls blew the guy that everyone knew was a grabby and at least workplace-dangerous pervert?

Reminder: Weinstein's turn to pariah status is extraordinarily recent, not to mention sudden. As of a few weeks ago, he was a powerful Hollywood figure. There's no shortage of pictures of women smiling happily as they glom onto him. No shortage of video clips of actresses praising him or thanking him. No shortage of quotes to the same effect.

And we've got every reason to believe that his behavior wasn't exactly a secret. Actors and actresses knew. They talked.  They excused, and they even went to bat for him.

So, how many girls did Harvey a favor - jumped at the chance to do him a favor - to get ahead?

And what should we think of any self-described feminist who eagerly played this game, with a guy like this, if they in fact did so?

Wednesday, October 18, 2017

Church Militant gets what so many miss

So, here's the story. The Jesuit's America Magazine - "The Catholic Magazine with the lowest white blood cell count!" I believe is their tagline - decided to interview Milo Yiannapolous. I guess someone went "Oh, this is an outspoken politically active gay guy who just got married and he's Catholic? I bet he aligns with our outlook." and just went in on this blind. Anyway, the result was both interesting and hilarious, so naturally the magazine rejected it. All well and good, Milo posted it on his site and everyone had a read. Probably with greater circulation than if the magazine actually followed through.

So far, so good.

What's surprised me is that Church Militant decided to run the interview instead.

And then, when people reacted to it - they stood by their decision and offered four reasons why they decided to publish the interview.

I'll leave it to whoever shows up here to read - it's good stuff - but what's funny, and encouraging, is that Church Militant... these radical Catholic traditionalists, all stuck in the old ways... managed to see the value in at least discussing Milo's views, and presenting them. They see something there, no matter what sins he confesses to. They see the value of a gay guy who outright rejects the idea that the Church needs to conform its teachings to his outlook - and who sees the value (even the salvation) the Catholic Church offers.

I suppose it's wrong to say 'they see the value of a gay guy'. They see the value of someone who's got charisma, who's witty, who's conservative, and who is actually aggressive. They see a guy doing the job that no bishop, no priest, no Pope is willing to do, and directly locking horns with feminism and saying, "There is nothing of value you have to offer."

And let me tell you... more than a few people have started to listen to right-wing arguments on sex and life and culture due to this kind of engagement. Everyone knows that feminism is oppressive, everyone knows that SJWs are oppressive. Yet it's falling to guys like Milo - and typically, some more troublemaking priests, at best (now and then a bishop like Poprocki) - to actually go on the attack.

You find him too fallen? Too vulgar, at times? Too off-putting?

Too fucking bad. The conservatives were too 'respectable' or too damn untalented or too afraid to do what was necessary. So the fringe have picked up the reins.

Saturday, September 30, 2017

What's Wrong With The Principle?

If you told me as recently as three weeks ago the WWWtW's admins would soon be found justifying protest and defiance during the National Anthem, I'd have bet against you.

It turns out - all it takes to justify that, or even celebrate those doing it, is for Trump to attack people protesting during said anthem.

I remember when they used to say that opposing Trump was a matter of principle. It turns out, principles can be exchanged for some mighty petty payoff indeed.

Friday, September 8, 2017

A Philosophy of Mind Retrospective

I glanced over at Victor Reppert's blog to see the esteemed host arguing philosophy of mind with Keith Parsons. Some things never change. But it got me to thinking back of the many years I've spent on his blog, and what originally got me into it to begin with - clawing around, in a younger age, for insight and answers on questions of God, metaphysics, and the philosophy of mind. It used to occupy a lot of my thoughts (is that ironic? not sure), but lately it hasn't. I asked myself why, and I had my answer immediately.

It's no longer interesting, because the fight is over. And the anti-materialists won.

God, if you guys could only remember some of the claims. I remember, about a decade ago now, the resident atheist neurologist talking about these *exciting* happenings in neurology that were going to explain consciousness. Oh, they weren't ready for primetime yet - he couldn't even explain the gist - but it was exciting, it was addressing the hard problem and this and that. We just had to wait, and soon that check the materialists had written would be cashed. Any day now, any day..!

Complete load of crap, of course - nothing came of it, and nothing will. The hard problem is as hard as ever. The soft problems, as Feser has pointed out, are even harder than expected. The arguments came from all angles - some of them very old and updated for modern audiences, others more modern and sophisticated expressions of skepticism - but the replies never materialized. Dennett, once a rising star, has faded into academic shadows, respected by peers that nevertheless few others care about. Consciousness remains a mystery. Puzzles and problems raised by the anti-materialists have remained, grown, and largely are recognized as legitimate.

And by now, thanks to the internet, a larger audience than ever has heard the claims of promissory naturalism, and have lived long enough to know that they'll die before seeing the check paid.

Watching Keith Parsons do that sad little dance of 'well maybe it IS all physical after all', after all these years, just seems sad now. These were the foot soldiers in the army of reason, armed with the power of science, to dispel skepticism of the great materialist worldview? Some army that turned out to be. Some reason.

Still, it was the opposite of a waste of time, and the arguments are of value to this day. But as it stands, the tigers Reppert and Feser and others sought to fight, are now quite defeated. Other concerns need attending to, and thus my attention drifts (though both, particular Feser, remain extremely relevant in other contexts.)

Good job, guys. To all you anti-materialist intellectual warriors of the past, take a moment - in these days of nevertheless intensified insanity - to congratulate yourselves on a job well done.

Thursday, August 3, 2017

The Religious Trump Effect

The one nice thing about the Trump effect is this: it's, at least in my experience, been making it harder - a lot harder - for "principled religious conservatives" to be taken seriously. In fact, things are graduating into open contempt. And it's funny to watch 'principled conservatives' panic when they realize that trying to capitulate to the left while shaming the right not only is resulting in scorn from the left (they're used to it) but scathing hostility from the right.

Calling John McCain John Cuckstain is one thing. But watching milquetoast preachers get their intellectual backs to the wall - especially those who try the tiring-as-shit "I'm a REAL man, I ride a motorcycle, now let me tell you why feminism is a good thing..." preacher routine - has been absolute gold.

Christianity - Catholic and non-Catholic both - will advance once 'religious leaders' realize that their flocks can see through their capitulation routines for what they are.

Friday, July 28, 2017

Integrity and Character

As Obamacare is made the law of the land, because the Republicans found themselves too afraid to repeal the law that they've been fundraising and seeking re-election on for years... just remember this.

Donald Trump, who pushed and pushed hard to repeal and replace Obamacare, was the guy team NeverTrump said lacked the character to be president.

McCain, who voted repeatedly to repeal Obamacare until the very moment it was actually possible, was cast as the man of integrity and good character.

Give me the asshole with the temper and the foul mouth over the celebrated, principled cucks who not only love to lose, but whose principles can't even withstand actual personal tests.

Monday, July 10, 2017

Refusing to tarnish your principles

A refusal to compromise on your principles is, for a Christian, only admirable if your principles are commanded by God. Otherwise, the premiere example of someone who refused to sacrifice their principals regardless of the cost was Lucifer.

Friday, May 19, 2017

A sense of horror hanging in the air

While the show continues to go on - complete with ever more frantic, ever more speciously sourced leaks (we're at anonymous quotes of secondhand information about unconfirmed targets now), I think a certain sense of worry is starting to descend on our would-be ruling class. Specifically, that whatever story is playing out right now, it's not really following the script they've written.

Shades of the campaign all over again. Remember, when Trump was near-universally condemned for his comments about illegal immigration - that we weren't exactly getting heaps of law-abiding America Firsters crossing the border - there was this certain *script* that was supposed to be followed. Everyone on TV would condemn him, he'd apologize, the country would hate him, and then Jeb Bush would waddle his to a primary win. Or maybe Rubio.

Of course, that's not what went off. In fact, we had a whole primary campaign season of called shots by experts and elites, hardly a one of which landed, until the final insult was delivered courtesy of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. The crazy ol' bastard won, and his Deplorables had a champion.

So, after recount attempts and defecting elector attempts and more all went awry, a new strategy was cooked up: impeachment. Scandal. It'll be like Nixon all over again! The media will play along, they hate this guy. The GOP elite will play along too - THEY hate this guy!

What's unspoken is the fact that one more group needs to play along: Trump's supporters.

And they don't seem willing to budge.

Really, the utter skepticism (even contempt) of lurid accounts of Russian entanglements and obstruction of justice are regarded with a combination of disbelief and apathy by a large section of Trump's supporters. Oh, he worked with the Russians to fuck the DNC? Prove it. And more than that, who gives a shit? The DNC isn't the loyal opposition, kids; they're a group of people who despise the GOP. Oh, but it's improper to rely on foreign agents to influence elections? Funny, the Democrats seemed quite at home with that strategy - see illegal immigration and fervent hostility to vote fraud investigations.

That people honestly think lurid tales of Putin will stir some kind of anti-Trump revolt. You can practically hear Egg McMuffin talking to his hirers. "These guys love Rambo, and they hate Russia! They still think Russians are communists!" Lo' and behold, not so much. At least not enough to make then entertain the thought of going all in on what is plainly a coup attempt.

Hard to blame them, anyway. What will they get out of it? "Restore dignity to the office of the Presidency?" Go fuck yourselves. We just had 8 years of a wannabe autocrat (who probably was born in Kenya anyway, and was either an atheist or a muslim and lying about it) sympathizing with black rioters and talking about how justified shooting victims 'could have been his son'. It was almost won by the world's least accomplished and most corrupt female politician since Marcos. But the black tie soirees will have more dignity with someone other than Trump in there? Tough.

Which leaves us in a situation, which is starting to look like a cook who notices the frog has left the pot, and is trying to tempt him back in by lighting the rest of the kitchen on fire. Make it hot enough, fast enough, and surely the frog will regard the pot as the best place in town, right? Surely the frog will do so before the fire's out of control and the whole kitchen is going to burn to the ground, right?

Stay tuned.

Sunday, May 14, 2017

The Requirements of Religious Freedom And the Proposition Nation

Claim: Religious freedom in America requires that religious traditions be given protections, even if most of society finds their beliefs and practices wrong/superstitious/even harmful.

Problem: Many muslims practice child marriage and justify it on religious grounds.

Conservatives and Liberals argue whether this means we must allow child marriage for all, or religious freedom for few/none.

The alt-right humbly suggests: maybe we shouldn't let people who practice that come to the US to begin with so this question is moot.

Being direct: it's obvious that some cultures and religious practices are utterly incompatible with American government. Why does no one admit this?

Now and then the argument surfaces about the 'proposition nation' where you can identify an American by the set of values they espouse and ideas they cling to, and these ideas can be had everywhere - from Bangladesh to Taiwan. But I don't think anyone takes this idea seriously. If they did, I'd have a question for them: what do you do with those American citizens who do not subscribe to that supposedly sacred list of ideas? If we're a proposition nation, and a lot of citizens reject those 'propositions', what then?

It's hard to get an answer for this, and it's clear why: we'll have to conclude our nation has been invaded. The Proposition Nation is occupied by people who reject the propositions, and these bastards are voting in our elections. They're even promoting their ideas above and against our nation.

Unless... we water down the Holy Propositions sufficiently. Enough to make sure that America's muslim and Somalian refugees, latin American illegal immigrants, west coast liberals and Trump supporters all accept the same propositions.

Not coincidentally, this also seems like the surest way to destroy a proposition nation.

Tuesday, May 2, 2017

A question for Ben Shapiro

Lest I take aim too much at W4, a simple question for the Shapiro-minded.
Our interests ought to prevail because our principles ought to prevail: limited government, individual liberty, God-given natural rights, localism in politics, religious freedom, freedom of speech and of the press, and so forth. If America ceased to believe those things or stand for them, we would not deserve to win.
Stirring words. I can mean that, you know; I can find some value in them.

But think about what this means on the local level.

Do we disown our family members for disagreeing with us about limited government, individual liberty, God-given natural rights, localism, religious freedom, freedom of speech?

Does Shapiro disown American jews who are pro-abortion, pro-big-government, and reject God's existence altogether, and more? (Hint: this is going to mean a whole lot of jews.)

Do American blacks, who are overwhelmingly opposed to the lion's share of that list, 'deserve to lose'? I bet you can come up with some creative interpretations of God's immanent justice if you walk down THAT little path.

I do not believe in utter clannishness. I believe there are limits to family loyalty, and tribal loyalty. I believe in kindness, by default, to those outside of one's 'tribe'. But there are limits because there are tight bonds to begin with. Shapiro knows them, and embraces them - ferociously. Our family and our tribe is our responsibility. If they are lost, we may fight them. We may even cast them out. But they are ours to look after - we do what we can to protect them, and to guide them right, and to keep that from happening.

Shapiro suggests a world where this is wrong - and worse, it's wrong for everyone BUT he and his. He and his go by a different set of rules, different considerations.

I want the right to look after me and mine as well. Shapiro, and Lydia, and (if more meekly, perhaps) Jeffrey S will snarl and call me names. That will not shake me, since I have this idea in my head that what I am urging people to protect - urging everyone to protect, in fact - is worth defending, come what may.

I do not need Ben Shapiro's blessing to do this. No one does. And screaming 'Racist!' or 'Anti-Semite!' does not change the worthiness of defending those people. Not 'this ideal', but 'these people'.

Now there's an idea that may catch on...

Jeffrey S steps into the ring, does not last a round!

Credit where it's due. Jeffrey S's latest W4 post is a positive development. Or at least an object lesson as to why people like Jeffrey S are bound to either lose entirely, or swap out to the alt-right.

Check out the article. Basically, you have talk of writers who are starting to come around to this idea that America is... distinct. And rather distinct in terms of traditions, heritage, and even... *muttered, voice a little lower* *population* as well. A population which cannot be sacrificed or displaced without America itself being lost, or at least fundamentally transformed, in the process.

So, overtures are made to this simple and basic nationalism. And almost immediately, Shapiro and Goldberg are quoted to rain on this parade, insisting that nationalism means tribal, and loyalty to one's tribe is foul, wicked, and everything wrong with the world.

No one at W4 thinks of asking the obvious in reply - 'Wait, does that mean Israel is retrograde too? Should we shun tribalistic Israelis?'

Anyway, what starts out impressive on Jeff's part quickly turns pathetic. Having attempted to take a stand for the idea that a nation is a group of people (not mere abstract ideas), and that a group of people can be identified by a particular shared culture, language, and - even if things get fuzzy - lineage, the others at W4 move in for the kill.

A few quips about how it cannot *possibly* be the case that some people are more American than others, Jeffrey S remembers his place in the pack, and bows his head submissively:

I'll be the first to push back against a "tribal nationalist" who claims that my Japanese neighbor whose grandparents fought in WWII for this country, a third generation Catholic Mexican family in a southern Texas town, or a newly arrived evangelical immigrant from Kenya can't share American culture or values with me. It is always a question of prudence and careful control of numbers (and the actual process for getting in the country) not to mention the process of assimilation in the schools that helps these disparate groups from around the world become patriotic Americans.

From trumpeting the importance of kin and country, to be the first to defend a newly arrived Kenyan as being a True American. Poor guy. He didn't even last 24 hours.

Of course, Jeffrey S  tries to cling to at least some of his sentiment. 'Grandparents fought in WWII for this country' (love the qualifier!) 'Third generation Catholic Mexican family'. ... 'Newly arrived evangelical immigrant from Kenya'.

'Careful control of numbers'.

Sadly, I get the sense that Jeffrey S only has to be asked, in sarcastic tone, "Just how many blacks are too many, Jeff?" to have him panic, say "There's never enough!", and then ask David French for adoption agency brochures.

The problem isn't really his qualifications. Can a Japanese person assimilate and be American? I'd say so - though you may want to be careful about that. Can Catholics? I hope so, though at this point it seems like the Catholic Church has a lot to apologize for on that front, especially on the immigration topic. But by the time he's talking about newly arrived Kenyan immigrants 'sharing American culture or values with him', he's given the game away, and he's embraced de facto Proposition Nation talk. Because he's going to get called bad words otherwise, and kin and country aren't worth defending from that kind of ordinance.

Hell, why should that Kenyan even BE an immigrant, Jeff? Are you saying someone in Kenya is 'too African' to share your precious culture? ("David, hurry up with those brochures!!!")

And they wonder why they lose.

Thursday, April 27, 2017

When principles become another term for idolatry.

When the conservative huffs, "I have my principles, and I won't sacrifice them - even if it elects Hillary! Even if it leads to this church being destroyed!", the expectation is we're supposed to say, "Wow, you're admirable! You're not giving up no matter what is threatened!"

Here's the part that goes unrealized nowadays: a commitment to one's principles is only admirable if the principles are worth the sacrifice. When the principles aren't all that valuable at all, the zealous preservation of them isn't admirable - especially not for a Christian. It's just another form of idolatry.

Watching Christians insist that they will fight Trump to the last because he talked about pussy-grabbing once and also he endorses protectionism and THEY are proud free-traders? They've got principles like Peter Singer does. Fucking rotten ones. The man who tries to make Peter Singer forsake his principles, all else being equal, may well have my admiration.

Wednesday, April 26, 2017

What's Wrong With The Future?

Pardon my absence. I've been off getting in different kinds of trouble, away from this blog - and from some of my old hangouts. Bigger targets, more aggressive aims, work and life. That kind of thing.

But I poked my head back in to see that What's Wrong With the World is having a kind of post-defeat spasm, where they look around and what amounts to the ashes of an intellectual kingdom (in which they had, at best, a tiny fiefdom) and do their best to try and look all noble in spite of it all.

You know the drill. Woe and lament, but yet we persevere! For we are the Purehearted (ecumenical!) Knights of the Lord God, and we shall fight against Evil wherever it lay, and Lo' the Lord shall look upon us with our glorious *sneering* and... blah, blah, blah.

Bullshit, in other words.

But let me zero in on the juiciest bit.

I’m proud to be associated with my W4 co-contributors because they are such men. May their tribe increase, and may we be able to see, ten years further on, how we contributed to its increase.
First, I note the irony of the invocation of 'may your tribe increase', among people whose hallmark is 'regarding those who value their "tribe" to be wicked and evil'.

But more than that...  'increasing your tribe' is the one thing this lot - the entire "respectable, Old Guard conservative" lot - has been utterly incapable of doing... pretty much ever. As Vox Day has pointed out, conservatives conserve nothing in America. The left has stolen, one after the other, their corporations, their churches, and their culture. (Even Archie Comics is converged, for Christ's sake.) The alt-right and Trump right, meanwhile, has stolen their party, their voice, and - with the exception of the ones the SJWs stole - their children.

You can easily identify the sort of people who W4 represents, at any mixed conservative gathering. Just ask: "Who in the audience is post-menopause or can't get an erection without a pill?"

There's their tribe, ladies and gentlemen. Everyone else is going in a different direction. The children of the W4-styled tribe have left, either identifying as pangendered, or sharing dank memes on the internet.

That is where all their enemies have come from - some of the wicked and evil they're warring against know them as "mom" and "dad". Maybe it's painful to cop to, but I assure you... the brand of conservatism these guys are selling, has failed completely. Finally - if suddenly - they've even been robbed of the intellectual legitimacy they used to have, and they are not going to reclaim it. I've urged them to ask why that is the case, but time and experience has told me that THAT is what they'd really die than do.

The good news for the rest of us is - we now have alternatives. We continue to fight, we find new friends, new tactics, and for the first time in a long time there's something new - and good - in the air. Don't worry too much about those clinging to the corpse of Buckley. They'll be fine - coping with losing is one thing they've actually managed to get good at.

Saturday, April 22, 2017

Chelsea Clinton - Seriously?

Ask yourself this.

How many pictures of Chelsea Clinton do you think a magazine photographer takes before he realizes that there's no way to make her look less ugly aside from straight up photoshopping?

I know, I know. Cheap shot. Judge her character, not her looks.

But her character's ugly too! Is that really better to point out?

If we lived in a pure meritocracy this girl would be, at best, a dentist assistant. She'd be doing a cleaning and asking when's a good time for your next six month checkup. But as it stands she's already presumed as a serious contender for the presidency of the United States, and that is one of the clearest condemnations of our society that exists aside from abortion. Which she loves.

Friday, April 21, 2017

Deep inside the pro-life laboratory

What if no woman understood a fetus was a person but all men did somehow?
I would not be surprised to learn that, somewhere, there is a pro-life thinktank whose entire mission statement is "Find a way to condemn abortion in a way that exonerates all women but condemns all men."

This is just my experience with pro-lifers over the past couple years. I tend to go my own way with most arguments and ideas about these kinds of things, but the Trump candidacy finally made me tune in to what actual pro-life groups were saying about this - and it's a freaking clownshow.

Not every pro-life organization is guilty of this sort of thing, but here's what I've learned so far:

* Abortion is murder and horrible and we will all be remembered as horrible people by our descendants for this travesty.

* Except women. Women who get abortions are all victims. All of them. Because none of them could possibly understand a fetus is a child, and also they're scared I bet. None of them understand what they're doing. They're pressured into it.

* By men. Men who are evil and wicked and they know better. They're telling women to kill their own children because they're selfish and that's why they want a woman to murder their own child.

* Also the government. The government makes it so hard on women by not making life for all pregnant women as easy as is humanly possible. Women just get pregnant sometimes, of no fault of their own, ever. We all should feel ashamed of ourselves for not helping them, unless we're women, because women can't know any better and already feel bad about this, or they're ignorant.

* Even abortion doctors who are women aren't at fault. They just don't understand. Did you know some pro-life women used to be abortionists? And they were totally ignorant and did nothing wrong. But only the women. The men? Oh God they're monsters and they know exactly what they're doing, but don't tell the abortion doctors they're murderers or hold them in contempt. Unless they're the male ones. But the female ones, treat them courteously and nice and hope they change their minds someday. What a boon for the pro-life cause that would be!

* In short, even though women get abortions, and abortion is treated as a women's rights issue, and it's the one thing feminists love the most, women are never to blame for abortion. But men are. All men. Even pro-life men, because they're not making life comfortable for pregnant women, who were made pregnant by men, who bear the entirety of responsibility either directly or by proxy.

I am not impressed.

Sunday, February 12, 2017

Liberal Christian Truth Number 1

Liberal Christians will side with militant left-wing atheists over conservative Christians, every time.

One thing that made New Atheism 'new' was precisely its redrawing of the lines to treat even liberal Christians with scorn, despite them previously being seen as ultimately on the same side as atheists.

One reason my concern for respect for left-wing Christians died was repeatedly seeing this play out, from organizational leaders to the lowliest combox commenters.

This is not a conflict that can be 'dialogued' over. The two sides cannot occupy the same church in peace. More and more, it looks like - more broadly - the two sides cannot occupy the same -nation- in peace.

Thursday, February 9, 2017

What the hell is going on with Ted Cruz?

Between this, his Sanders slaughter and his recent media trolling, I have no idea what the hell is going on. But it's pretty great.

Friday, February 3, 2017

The Gelding of What's Wrong With the World + Other Thoughts

I've been a little busy, so a few comments.

* I see Ed Feser's blog is as great as ever. Just a constant drip of great ideas, explained in ways most people can grasp, and with proper charisma and force behind them. I salute him and all that he does, and I remain intellectually in his debt, likely for the rest of my life.

* What's Wrong With the World, on the other hand, hasn't fared nearly as well. Being frank, they've been gelded, or in the case of their female author, sent to the kitchen. After an entire election of Nevertrump virtue signaling and effective endorsement of Hillary Clinton as the lesser of two evils, they've not only been exposed as dead wrong about a variety of things (SCOTUS nominations included), but they've been reduced to near-silence on political issues across the spectrum. Too proud to admit they were wrong, to say nothing of defeat, all they really have left is taking pot-shots at the alt-right - ineffectively, no less, which is saying something.

I suspect that for them, and for many Christians, if Trump manages to appoint multiple pro-life justices and get Roe v Wade overturned, their first reaction will be to scream in outrage. The very idea that they were wrong is not something they will cop to, or perhaps even contemplate. Ah well.

* Meanwhile, looking over at Dangerous Ideas, my heart aches. Over the years, I've found myself moving in a position from 'Left and Right can put aside their differences in the Church and unite' to 'Actually *some* leftists poison the Church, and we have no common ground to work with'. Little by little, the list expanded. From 'John Shelby Spong sorts' to 'Overt pro-gay Christians cheering at fellow Christians being fined into oblivion by the state' to more to... basically, no one left on the list but Victor Reppert. To glance over and see Victor talking impeachment (and way out of date - that russian conspiracy shit died a while ago in the public mind) just breaks my heart. There are ways to have common ground among disagreeing parties in the Church, but more and more I'm convinced that said 'common ground' doesn't extend across left and right. Ah well.

* Trump, meanwhile, continues to amaze and dazzle, and with luck I'll be dazzled for 8 years. Managed to rather quickly make secessionists and 2nd amendment users out of a number of leftists too - to say nothing of clearly making 'the law of the land' a very optional thing to respect. Keep it up, gents. At this rate, we'll be a United States no more... and I can't say I'd mind a change.

* Last but not least, the transformation of 'Love Trumps Hate' to leftists punching people, rioting, and setting fires when someone so much as tries to give a speech they disagree with, is some grimly amusing shit. That said, it's time to end it - I think defunding any public university with speech codes is a good start. Another good one: when antifas get violent, the police handle them with batons, tasers, and rubber bullets. To the eyes. Also, prison time.

* Bonus Pope Francis commentary: God, save us from this menace. Also, being dead honest: grown men who call the pope 'Papa!' in terms of child-like endearment will never stop coming across to me as the most cringe-inducing faggots. He's not your dad, and you're not his infant, you weirdos.

Friday, January 20, 2017

On the Rise of the God-Emperor

Pardon me. I've been busy.

I did manage to catch a glimpse of the God-Emperor finally claiming the throne that is rightfully his, while the cultists of Chaos wailed and gnashed their teeth, screaming bloody murder as realization collectively dawned on them.

Yes, they lost.

Yes, they really, really lost.

Yes, they lost not just to *him*, but to *them*. Those hated millions - the White and Unashamed, the Unchained Blacks, the Patriotic Hispanics, the Unabashedly Christian. All the filth who were supposed to have been tossed into the dustbin of history, and who they were counting on lording over for another 4-to-8 years.

No, riots wouldn't change a thing. No, protest marches wouldn't change a thing. And no, their rage hasn't revealed any willingness on the part of Trump to pacify them. The man just told a 'civil rights icon' to go fuck himself, and blasphemy - my kind of blasphemy - is on the ascent.

I think the part I'm looking forward to the most is the loss of jobs. And I mean, specifically, among left-leaning federal workers, on would-be political operatives who signed on with NeverTrump, and hopefully very many public university employees, particularly in the diversity bureaucracy.

If this comes to pass, and reality starts to slowly sink in for these assorted leftists who now face unemployment owing to the federal spigot no longer flowing so freely, I'll be there with a simple message.


May they find as much solace in the unemployment office as the right-wing underclass did.