“Inequality is the Root of Social Evil”

The religious right are getting upset over this.

Inequality is the root of social evil,

tweeteth the Pope.

Look, guys:  We can’t make fun of the left as plodding, black-n-white thinkers without the intellectual wattage to toast bread if we do the same damn thing.  Of course inequality is the root of social evil.  Take five seconds to think about it: monetary inequality, intellectual inequality, attractiveness inequality…. I can’t do evil to you if I don’t have some kind of advantage over you.  This is about as plain as zits on the prom queen, as Fred Reed so eloquently puts it.

The problem is, said inequality is ineradicable, and almost any government program to ameliorate it invariably ends in far worse social evil.  It’s bad that Billy Bob doesn’t have “health insurance.”  That’s an inequality of one, and an evil of one.  Screwing up the perfectly good health care coverage of millions of others, such that we all have the same shitty “health insurance” as Billy Bob, reduces inequality to zero by imposing evil on millions.

His Holiness got the diagnosis right.  The question is, what’s the treatment?

This’ll Be….Interesting

Vox Day has opened his site up to his accusers.  He has invited all and sundry who throw accusations of racism at him to post their arguments and their evidence.

Being the masters of facts and logic that they are, Our Betters should have no problem with this, amirite?

UPDATE:

[Vox] So, this means you are a self-admitted racist, correct?

[Leftist] Yeah, but you are a lot worse…

Well, that was quick.  Less than two hours in.  Master debaters, these proggies.

UPDATE 4/27/14: As anticipated, the only folks to offer sustained, coherent arguments are Vox’s fans, who are treating it as an intellectual exercise.  So far, there have been several drive-by comments of the form “it’s just obvious that ur raciss lol”, and the two or three leftists who tried to offer some kind of coherent argument bowed out after a few dozen comments.  One guy actually said, all but verbatim, “well it’s just clear to me you’re a racist.  Good day sir!”

Proggies really are master debaters, aren’t they?

UPDATE #2 4/27/14: One of the gatekeepers of sci-fi made a somewhat similar offer to Vox’s fans, to “defend” his work on its merits.

(You know what I would love? adore? enjoy the heck out of?  A genuine Larry Correia fan coming here and enthusing about the work.  Taking about what it is, not what it is not; talking about why they love it rather than why they hate Librul SF and the Libruls who read it. And that is the difference  between Correia and Day, in my view.  I can’t picture a Day fan doing  that and making it work.)

So of course some of them did just that.  You will be shocked to learn, I’m sure, that this lady did not love, adore, and enjoy the heck out it; in fact she responded by banning the fellow who posted it, and anyone else who tried to step in to his defense.

Absolute master debaters, these proggies.  We win, because shut up.

Things I Wish Liberals Understood: The Transitive Property of Equality

Coverage of this Cliven Bundy fellow seems determined to paint him as some kind of right wing folk hero.  Because they think they already know the answer — he’s a raciss gun nut, as all conservatives are — they don’t bother to ask themselves why that might be the case.

I know, I know, if they were capable of sustained thought they wouldn’t be liberals.  But on the off chance any of ’em wander by here, I’ll explain, in small, simple words.

Our Betters believe the personal is political.  It may be the only thing they believe, when you come right down to it — I want what I want, and it’s society’s fault that I don’t have it, and the government has to get it for me (and punish everyone who stood in the way).

Well, ok.  We get that.  But because we paid attention in math class, we know there’s this thing called the transitive property of equality.  If A = B, then by definition B = A, too.

So if the personal is political, than the political is also personal.

Right now, the state is making it very clear that there are certain personal matters it simply will not tolerate.  What’s Cliven Bundy’s legal argument?  Do you know?  Do any of the reporters who writes the hit pieces on him know?

I’m a casual follower of the news — in this, I am a typical low-info voter — and all I know about the guy is he’s a raciss.  He has Unapproved Opinions, and for this, and this alone, he must be punished.  As must anyone who is willing to give him the time of day, or to wonder if he might have a point.

Well, ok.  So: Let’s stipulate that I’m a white male Christian.  Those things are personal, in the most basic meaning of that word.  They are the three most basic things about my personhood, my fundamental identity as a human being.  Two of them I can’t change, and the third I won’t, no matter what (we’re stipulating I’m a real Christian).  As these are quite clearly Unapproved by the current political regime, I must form an alternate political regime of my own.  The transitive property of equality requires it.

That’s why Cliven Bundy is a “right wing folk hero.”  Nobody cares about the man himself.  It’s what he represents that’s important; he’s the clearest example yet of what happens when a badthinker comes under the gaze of the current government.  Do I want a White People’s Party?  Am I rooting for the rise of a Christian Taliban?  Of course not.  But by pretending that this Cliven Bundy dude is a representative of them — and by openly cheering for his destruction because of them — the media and the government are inadvertently calling those very things into being.

And political power rests on armed force.  Think about it.  Because the media and the current regime (BIRM) sure as hell won’t.

You First

I tire of what has become a predictable, constant drumbeat of anti-Christian rhetoric.

The latest I’ve seen is this ironically self-righteous anti-Christian rant aimed mainly at the Christian right, making implicit accusations using worn stereotypes which do not fit most Christians, even right-leaning Christians.

“Jesus was a guy who was a peaceful, radical, nonviolent revolutionary, who hung around with lepers, hookers, and criminals, who never spoke English, was not an American citizen, a man who was anti-capitalism, anti-wealth, anti-public prayer (YES HE WAS Matthew 6:5), anti-death penalty but never once remotely anti-gay, didn’t mention abortion, didn’t mention premarital sex, a man who never justified torture, who never called the poor ‘lazy’, who never asked a leper for a co-pay, who never fought for tax cuts for the wealthiest Nazarenes, who was a long haired, brown skinned (that’s in revelations),homeless, middle eastern Jew? Of course, that’s only if you believe what’s actually IN the Bible.”

We know Jesus was peaceful and radical and revolutionary – generally in a non-violent way, though we do know he was capable of displaying anger and wrath

Matthew 21:11-13

[11] And the people said: This is Jesus the prophet, from Nazareth of Galilee. [12] And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the money changers, and the chairs of them that sold doves: [13] And he saith to them: It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but you have made it a den of thieves .

I don’t think anyone has ever suggested he was an American citizen or spoke English, this is merely a telling sign that the poster has no clue what the Christian right really believes and doesn’t care — it’s merely a fictional foil to contrast themselves against … in public … to receive adulation … but more on that later.

Every Christian knows that Jesus loved and accepted everyone, but not everyone’s behavior. Mary Magdalene had been a prostitute, but she repented and followed Christ as a disciple. Disapproving of someone’s behavior is not the same thing as hate, modern progressive rhetoric aside. If we think Jesus approved of criminal and other immoral behavior, we’re ignoring his entire teaching. And Christians don’t disapprove of the diseased, they help them.

Jesus was NOT anti-capitalism

Matthew 20:1 ““For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire workers for his vineyard. He agreed to pay them a Denarius for the day and sent them into his vineyard.”

and while it is true he never “called the poor lazy” as a sweeping segment (nor do modern day American conservatives), he was definitely in favor of taking what you have been given and making more of it … which is pretty much the core of capitalism.

Matthew 25: 31-46
“It will be as when a man who was going on a journey called in his servants and entrusted his possessions to them. To one he gave five talents; to another, two; to a third, one—to each according to his ability. Then he went away. Immediately the one who received five talents went and traded with them, and made another five. Likewise, the one who received two made another two. But the man who received one went off and dug a hole in the ground and buried his master’s money. After a long time the master of those servants came back and settled accounts with them. The one who had received five talents came forward bringing the additional five. He said, ‘Master, you gave me five talents. See, I have made five more.’ His master said to him, ‘Well done, my good and faithful servant. Since you were faithful in small matters, I will give you great responsibilities. Come, share your master’s joy.’… Then the one who had received the one talent came forward and said…out of fear I went off and buried your talent in the ground. Here it is back.’ His master said to him in reply, ‘You wicked, lazy servant…Should you not then have put my money in the bank so that I could have got it back with interest on my return? Now then! Take the talent from him and give it to the one with ten. For to everyone who has, more will be given and he will grow rich; but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. And throw this useless servant into the darkness outside, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth.”

“To every one who has, more will be given and he will grow rich” doesn’t sound anti-wealth to me at all.

Further, in Timothy 1:

“Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share.  In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life.”

That’s not anti-wealth, that’s just a caution to wealthy people that God … and his teachings … come ahead of wealth, and that wealth will not save you. It doesn’t say you can’t be wealthy.

Jesus was not anti public prayer. What he was against was praying in public motivated by the drawing of praise adulation to yourself. You know, much like what the people who are posting this nonsense are after (and certainly not to attack others on a personal level). The point was that prayer is between a person or people and God, not a show to be put on to display one’s holiness. This is not the same thing as being against any prayer in public. It’s the motive, not the act that he was talking about in Matthew 6:5.

As with many, many subjects, Jesus never really spoke about the death penalty. While he was probably against it in general, he wasn’t anti self-defense, and the Church itself says it is justifiable to defend human lives against unjust aggression.

Jesus never mentioned homosexuality explicitly. But no serious Bible scholar would say that he thought it was ok. And again, as with other things, it is the sin that is rejected, not the sinner. And if anything goes, why would St. Paul … in the Bible (1 Cor. 6:9-11)… talk of fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, sexual perverts, thieves, misersm drunkards, slanderers, and robbers not inheriting the Kingdom of God?

Again, this does not constitute hating people, it is a belief about what constitutes unacceptable behavior.

Absolutely, Jesus never justified torture. Of course, he never justified eating potatoes, either (look, scour that Bible — nothing about potatoes). Again, though, he never argued that it wasn’t justifiable to defend human lives against unjust aggression.

Jesus never asked a leper for a co-pay. Of course, the only overhead Jesus had was food and shelter.  He was God, too … remember what he could do with a few fishes and loaves and a jug of water.  I seem to remember a passage where he calmed a storm while they were out fishing as well.

Being God, he was able to heal by touch. And certainly Jesus would teach that we should help when we can, including in matters of health care. But he wouldn’t fight to force you to pay into a system that provided services he himself considered immoral, nor would he pay into such a system.

Again, among many other things, Jesus did not mention abortion. But,

Jeramiah 1:5

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you” – no, the word “abortion” doesn’t appear there but it’s pretty clear.

Of course Jesus did not fight for tax cuts for the wealthy. Nor did he fight for tax increases for them or anyone else. Jesus taught that it was each of our personal reponsibility to care for those around us. Offloading that responsibility to the government was never mentioned. He said give to Ceasar what is Ceasar’s and to give to God what is God’s. He was familiar with corrupt governments and the abuse of government authority by special interests.

Jesus has always been depicted as having long hair and as a travelling preacher without a proper home – Christians have never argued he wasn’t a “middle-eastern Jew”, and they have revered him as the Son of God and the founder of their faith … so that last “dig” is really bizarre.

okReferring to this and to what the graphic on the right instructs … if you really are against people speaking publicly about what they believe is right and wrong, I have one response for you.

You first.

 

 

 

 

* Thanks largely to On This Rock blog.  I was looking for a text version of the “John Fuglesang” quote to use in my response, and I stumbled upon Father John Hollowell’s excellent post.   I wanted to generalize it a bit to be a less Catholic-centric and add my own two cents, which is how we ended up with the above.

Tempests in Teapots Can Be Instructive

I don’t really read much fiction, and very little of that is science fiction.  So I really have no opinion on whether or not Vox Day deserves a Hugo, which I take is some kind of insidery award.  But the nomination process has been oh so revealing.

The best part?  The folks campaigning loudest and longest against Vox take pride in the fact that they’ve never actually read the book in question.

Never. Read. It.

There’s not even an attempt to link the award’s purpose to their criticism of the author.  Not even a feeble “I disagree with him, and therefore his writing sucks.”  It’s just: This man has expressed verboten opinions.  Therefore he must be destroyed, and the earth salted wherever he has passed.  He could be the next Isaac Asimov, but they neither know nor care.  They’d rather their genre — their livelihood — disappear than acknowledge that a writer with Incorrect Thoughts can have fans, too.

No wonder the internet left sucks so hard at arguing.  They refuse to sully the brahminical purity of their eyes by actually looking at the thing they’re condemning.

UPDATE 4/24/2014: Now they’re coordinating their strategy to not read it.  I’ve said it before, but it’s worth repeating:  It’s not really the self-righteousness of the left that bothers me.  It’s not even that their policies are stupid and counterproductive.  It’s the lies.  The constant, steady drumbeat of lies.  If you want to make an award for “best science fiction story that caters exclusively to our prejudices,” then by all means go right ahead and do that.  But don’t pretend it’s about anything other than that.  Don’t piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining, son.

Our Socialist Military?

This is pretty funny.

Socialists actually crave the non-fighting aspects of the military life — the collectivization of people into a single body with one shared purpose. (This feeling of a shared purpose is often craved by those with a religious impulse but who reject actual religion.)

Socialists long to be corporatized — turned into a single cell of a much larger, much grander, much more transcendent body.

Yup.  As Hitler and Mussolini knew all too well.

Erich Fromm and Theodor Adorno were founding members of the Frankfurt School, i.e. rotten commie bastards, but they did get one thing right — there’s a certain, sadly prevalent personality type that longs to knuckle under to a man in a uniform.  Both The Authoritarian Personality and Escape from Freedom are supposed to be about the appeal of Fascism, but — being commies — neither Adorno nor Fromm saw that they were projecting.  Which you’d think would be a pretty big failure coming from professional psychologists, but hey, politics makes lots of smart people stupid.  And so neither of them saw what is obvious to any reich-wing knuckle-dragger, that there’s about a dime’s worth of difference between Fascism and Communism.

Which, again, Hitler understood perfectly, which is why the Nazis put so much effort into converting young communists.  He didn’t hate Bolshevism because it was socialistic — again, Nazi = National Socialist — but because it was Jewish.

Read Escape from Freedom today, and it sounds like he’s describing a typical MSNBC viewer.

 

Tax Day WalMart Bashing

walmart Nonsense

Walmart receives billions of dollars in subsidies and tax breaks, both for the corporation and for the Walton family. When it pay its workers so little that they must rely on services like food stamps to get by, the rest of us end up picking up Walmart’s tab.

These people really are clueless, aren’t they?

Well at least their useful idiots are.  And many of the perps probably are as well.

Saw this going around on facebook … idiotic nonsense … yeah.  The meme is, WalMart costs us money, because … all money belongs to the Government and we think all of WalMart’s profits should go there.

Wal-Mart Stores Tax Total: $7.1 billion
U.S. federal: $5.3 billion
U.S. state and local: $677 million
International: $1.1 billion

Where to begin?  How much more would we be paying in taxes for people who aren’t on unemployment because they work for WalMart?   It payed 32.5% of its profit in taxes and it payed low-skilled employees money from a private source that would otherwise be paid by … taxpayers — if they were sitting at home on welfare or unemployment — and while doing this work they are getting the opportunity to gain work experience and establish a reputation to better their position in life (which would include higher wages, thus higher income taxes, plus better benefits, health care, etc?  I made minimum wage once, too.).

Our precious proggies wanna add that 7.8 Billion back in and make it 67.4%, because, “progress”, I guess.  They can’t (or won’t) see that  WalMart adds value to the economy, employs people, and pays $7.1 Billion in corporate income taxes — and they talk like it’s COSTING the government money.   All money generated by any economic activity is apparently owned by the government (because, you know, “you didn’t build that”), and if they’re nice they’ll let you keep some of it, I guess.

And let’s remember that 7.1 billion is just corporate income tax, it doesn’t include the percentage of the wages it creates that goes into SSI (plus the equally matching amount 6.2% +6.2%=12.4% …. but since only 6.2% of that comes out of technical wages it’s more than 12.4% of wages generated), plus the enormous amount of sales tax it generates, or the income tax that employees pay … from revenue generated by … WalMart.

More from CNN and Forbes.

If you see this bullsh*t out there, please call people on it!

Dreaming the Unpossible Dream

There’s a civil war on between radical feminists (so-called “Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists,” or TERF) and the Trannies.

What, you hadn’t heard?

Well then hie yourself on over to The Other McCain and let him enlighten you.  (Seriously, the dude’s like a pit bull.  Once he’s got it in his jaws, he ain’t never letting go for nothing).

It’s easy to point at this stuff and laugh.  Fun, too.  But maybe, just maybe, this could be what Our Betters like to call a “teachable moment.”  Mr. McCain does something of that here.  Let me add my bit.

I have a lot of sympathy for Q folks (in the standard acronym LGTBQ, the Q stands for “Questioning”).  This isn’t some namby-pamby disclaimer.  Remember your own teenage years, where hormones dictate 99.98% of your behavior and it’s all sex, all the time?  Now imagine you see all your peers going one way, and you find yourself going the other.  How traumatic!  Leaving aside the question of whether gender dysphoria actually exists (personally, I think it does), the all-pervasive alienation of being attracted to the “wrong” sex, especially in the overcharged atmosphere of adolescence, is guaranteed to do some lasting psychic harm.  I wouldn’t wish that kind of pain on anyone.

That said:  The key thing here is difference.  Not to get all reductive or anything — the cardinal sin of the TERF, according to the Trannies — but both identities, and indeed every single micro-identity in the glorious rainbow coalition, rest on their possessors being inherently, irreconcilably different from everybody else.  Once they decide on, and embrace, a particular identity, the first thing these folks do is: Start excluding others from it.  That’s why the group names are calibrated down to the micron, and why every group’s self-proclaimed spokesbeing leads off its every pronouncement with a mile-long list of its preferences, like a medieval king reeling off the full list of his titles.  

And yet, the one thing they claim to want above all others is inclusion.

28228-Thats-Unpossible-Ralph-wiggum-PcuIInstead of laughing at this — well, ok, in addition to laughing at this — let’s take the debate seriously.  The TERF — remember, that’s Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists — hold the très conservative view that one’s original genitalia have some bearing on one’s gender identity.  They don’t want “trans women” to attend their radical feminist conferences on the grounds that all “trans women” once had, and many still do have, dicks.

Cathy_Brennan_Feminist_LawyerI’ll give everybody a minute to process the sheer brass-balled effrontery of the “gender is a social construction” folks going all de Gobineau when confronted with this particular social construction.

That said, the radical feminists have a point, though not the point they seem to think they’re making (which, to be honest, I still haven’t quite figured out):  Things are for who they’re for.  But defining membership is different from defining identity.  Members of two different clubs can make common cause with each other in a third realm.  But defining identity by difference alone precludes that. If you define “horse” as “the thing which is left when you eliminate all things that are not horses,” then not only are zebras not horses, but zebras can never relate to horses, can never make common cause with horses, and, yes, can never go to the same radical feminist conferences as horses, because they have nothing in common with horses.  By definition.

That circle cannot be squared.  It’s unpossible.

That’s the lesson here, should any of Our Betters choose to take it.  The radical feminists realize full well that admitting trans women to their club is the end of their club, because trans women have embraced the definition-by-difference at the heart of identity politics more fully than the radical feminists have.  Radical feminists are hung up on defining women / feminists as “not men,” but the trannies have taken the proposition that “gender is just a social construction” one logical step further.  If “gender is just a social construction” is true, then when you eliminate all the socially constructed stuff, your gender is whatever you feel it is today.  You could be male today, female tomorrow, a radical feminist next week, a Westboro Baptist member next month.

This is the rot at the heart of all identity politics.  Perhaps it didn’t start out that way, but these days, every “identity” in “identity politics” is defined negatively:  “liberals” are “~conservatives,” “blacks” are “~whites,” “women” are “~men,” etc.  This is why liberals can say with a straight face that “Sarah Palin isn’t really a woman” and “Clarence Thomas isn’t really black.”  Palin is indisputably female and Thomas is indisputably dark, but it doesn’t matter, because they don’t display the suite of behaviors that define “woman” or “black”…. all of which are defined negatively against “white male.”

Take it on down the line.  This is why liberals react to specificity like vampires to garlic — they say they’re for gassy platitudes like “social justice,” but when you press them to define it, all they’ve got is more gassy platitudes.  There is a definition of “social justice,” of course, on which all liberals would agree:  “Social justice” is “the Koch Brothers ~wealthy.”  Our Betters are quite specific about which rights they’d like taken away from which groups, and the exact dollar amounts they’d like confiscated from the following individuals.  Or, as Morgan put it,

The rule seems to be that you can think whatever you want, but you’re not allowed to have influence unless you think the right things. If you don’t think the right things then you are to be driven out of whatever position you have. Once that’s done, you can go on thinking it, but the important goal is that we have to get our society properly arranged, with these good thoughts entirely saturating the tallest spires, and the bad thoughts entirely relegated down there in the dark alleyways, among the plebes. That is, from all I have seen and all I can figure out about it, the ultimate objective.

And whaddaya know?  Once badthink has been confined to the proles — who have no influence and never will — then we shall have Social Justice.

Of course, at that point, all the goodthinkful will fall viciously on each other like lesbians and trannies at a radical feminist conference, because definition-by-negatives requires it.  How can I be an X, if I’m not locked in a perpetual struggle against ~X?

28228-Thats-Unpossible-Ralph-wiggum-PcuI

Settled Science Update

Science –*cough*cough*– seems to indicate that screeching about “settled science” doesn’t work very well.

But there is every reason to believe that efforts to raise public concern about climate change by linking it to natural disasters will backfire. More than a decade’s worth of research suggests that fear-based appeals about climate change inspire denial, fatalism and polarization.

Ignoring the huge stolen base there — drawing reasonable inferences from evidence is the very opposite of “denial,” you jackalopes — it seems like dawn is starting to break even in the benighted precincts of the New York Times.  Oh, so “science” can’t conclusively prove that this or that hurricane — or the other one that didn’t develop — is due to “global warming”?  And your constant, childish, butt-fuckingly obvious lies about it are backfiring on you?  Knock me over with a feather.

H/t Vox Day, who notes

Another big factor in the mass refusal to buy into the AGW/CC propaganda is the observation that no one who claims to be worried about global warming is living in a sustainable manner in wind-powered tents far away from the sea.

Or, as I like to say, I take “global warming” exactly as seriously as its proponents do.  I’ll give up fossil fuels when they do… and not a minute before.

Even Squirty has a tough time keeping the faith these days.

Even Squirty has a tough time keeping the faith these days.