Monthly Archives: August 2014

This Ought to be Fun

The people pushing these laws are the same ones who find “penumbras” and “emanations” and “dog whistles” and whatnot whenever it’s politically convenient.  I wonder how long the first “here is her signed, sealed, notarized authorization for intercourse” statement holds up in court?

But the California legislation’s language becomes clearer when it specifies which situations do not constitute consent. “Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent,” the bill reads. “The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of a past sexual relationship, shall not provide the basis for an assumption of consent. Consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual encounter and can be revoked at any time. The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of past sexual relations between them, should never by itself be assumed to be an indicator of consent.” Parties can’t consent when they’re asleep or unconscious, or incapacitated from drugs or alcohol.

Via Vox Day’s “Game” site, Alpha Game.

Remember, lunatics like Amanda Marcotte — who still believes the Duke lacrosse players are guilty and Dan Rather’s memos are real — are at the forefront of this “rape culture” hysteria.  I can’t even conceive of the circumstances under which people like her would believe the man in one of these cases….

….well, no, that’s not quite true.  I can think of one scenario.  But it’s so gross and disturbing that I caution the weaker stomachs among our readership to skip this next part.

This “affirmative consent” insanity will end when, and only when, an impeccably left-liberal individual boffs one of these feminazi she-beast bloggers with her full, informed, authorized, signed, witnessed, and notarized consent… and then backs out and claims he was raped, because she didn’t get consent.

Now, actually achieving this is a Herculean task.  I figure our side has the tech savvy to work up an unbeatable alias for a deep-cover operative.  I mean, liberals routinely fall for the ol’ “117% of the district voted, all for one party” gambit; how hard can it be?  A few Daily Kos diaries, a few photoshopped pictures at Burning Man, a “Ready for Hillary” bumper sticker on the Prius, and you’re good to go.

The problem, of course, is this….

Marcotteand this….

Lesbian_Heteronormative_Oppression_Feministand this….

Smash_Patriarchy_Slut_Walk_2014_Chicago_Feministand this….

358599871_rachel_maddow_031009_300x296_answer_1_xlargeYou get the idea.  And that is one taaaaallllll order, because remember, our sleeper (ugh!) agent has to be provably sober the entire time.  Not even aspirin, just in case. And I know lesbian sexuality doesn’t work like male sexuality, but ye gods, that’d be a struggle for Gay Nyarlathotep.

Sooooo… any patriots out there up for the challenge? I think I can speak for the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy when I say we’ll happily pay all your expenses, including a lifetime of therapy and / or a lobotomy after.  It’s the only way to stop the madness.

Loading Likes...

Stick Your Head in the Ice Bucket and Keep It There

Can I vent for just a sec about how much I hate this stupid fucking “ice bucket challenge” thing?

Here again, we see the terminal narcissism of the Millennial Generation.  Yes, ALS is a horrible disease, and I want to encourage anyone and everyone to give up to 100% of their income to anti-ALS research.

That said: It is not about you.

It is not about you.

It is NOT about you.

It is NOT about you.

It is NOT about you.




Please cut, paste, and repeat this as many times as you find necessary.  Thanks.

Still not about you.

Still not about you.

Loading Likes...

Maybe Lakoff is Right

Y’all are familiar with George Rhymes-With-Jackoff, the guy behind “frames.”  You know, if we call it “economic patriotism” rather than “socialism,” people won’t realize that it’s socialism, even though it completely and totally is, down to the last detail.

Those of us who read conservative political blogs think this is stupid, but as National Review‘s Jim Geraghty points out (via Ace’s overnight thread), this stuff does seem to resonate with the Low-Info Voters:

We political junkies love political philosophies, and keep subdividing ourselves into smaller and more precise groupings. (Crunchy Cons! Neoconservatives! Libertarian Populism! Reform Conservatives! Eisenhower Anarchist!) We love these labels and terms, because we feel that they help explain a coherent way of looking at the world, government, the Constitution, human rights, society, etc. But to a lot of people, they might as well be Dungeons & Dragons character classes. They don’t know which political philosophy best matches how they see the world because they flat-out don’t understand the terms and, perhaps most maddeningly, are not convinced that they need to know them — nor much about anything else.

The D&D metaphor is a good one.  Now, this is not a knock on D&D, or “gamers,” or whatever.  Please keep your nerd rage bottled up over the next few paragraphs.  But: Everybody knows D&D has no real world consequences.  Lots of people don’t want to learn the arcana of the game because, hey, if I wanted to put in hours and hours of study, I’d take a night class and actually learn something I can use to pad my paycheck.  Right?  There’s just no cash value there.

This is a rational economic decision.  Yeah, ok, the non-gamer doesn’t know D&D; he only knows the stereotypes, and yes, of course, all those stereotypes are wrong.  But there’s one thing he does know that’s indisputably true for him: He’s got better things to do with the 6-20 hours it would take to become minimally proficient at D&D.  Economists call this rational ignorance, and it’s an important concept.  P.J. O’Rourke explained how it works in politics in The CEO of the Sofa:

The danger with political issues, for liberals, is that you might try to understand them.  This would bum you out.  Big government, that you’re so fond of, is as complicated as airline fares.  You’d go nuts if you really tried to fathom all of Washington’s programs, regulations, restrictions, discounts for seniors, and frequent campaign-donor upgrades.  So you do with the U.S. what you do with US Airways: you hand over the money and let yourselves be sent to hell by way of Pittsburgh with nothing but peanuts on the trip.  Economists call this “rational ignorance,” meaning that you could go to hell for $20 less (and get two bags of peanuts), but the time and effort wouldn’t be worth it.

The point of “frames,” I’m coming to realize, is to play up the rational ignorance, to use it in a bait-and-switch.  We readers-of-conservative-political-blogs tend to use “low-info voter” as a synonym for “dumbass.”  But they’re not.  They’re rationally ignorant.

It’s an important distinction.  LIVs don’t want to have to think about that wonky stuff.  “Socialism” is wonky — ask someone who knows what he’s talking about to define “socialism,” and within five minutes you’re deep into “modes of production” and the whole 19th century schmear.  But “social justice,” now… and “progress”… we all have an instinctive idea what those words mean.  That our vague, fuzzy ideas are quite different from — in fact, usually diametrically opposed to — their specific, precisely defined policy goals is the whole point of the exercise.

The buzzwords, the “frames,” are designed to communicate one single, simple idea:  We got this.  You don’t need to put in the hard work of thinking about how “social justice” is to be achieved.  Oh, sure, you could –and, of course, if you did, you’d find yourself agreeing with us 100% — but why bother?  Don’t you have better things to do with your time?

One could, in fact, expand this maximization-of-rational-ignorance thesis to a lot of leftist attitudes.  Their cult-like faith in “experts,” for instance.  Data?  You don’t need to see the data.  Our guys have seen the data, and they’ve spent decades in college, racking up fancy degrees and reading articles in The Peer-Reviewed Journal of Peer-Reviewed Journals.  They know what big words like “heteronormative” and “cisgendered” mean.  These aren’t the droids you’re looking for.  And besides, American Idol is on.  Did you hear Jennifer Lopez is back this year?

indexIt’s important for us not to get frustrated with these people.  We want to say — because it’s true– that rational ignorance of the small picture is dangerous, irrational, wildly irresponsible ignorance of the big picture.  We don’t fall for baloney like “frames” because we’re accustomed to thinking in big picture political terms.  When we hear political buzzwords, our first instinct is to ask for clarification:  “Ah yes, comrade.  ‘Social justice.’  And what policies do you plan to implement to achieve this?  Oh, I see.  So ‘economic patriotism’ is, in fact, just the same ol’ marxoblather that has been impoverishing millions since the 1840s.  Got it.”

LIVs don’t do that.  They don’t hear this guy

358599871_rachel_maddow_031009_300x296_answer_1_xlargeblathering on and hear propositions to be dissected and debated.  Instead, they hear “this person is an expert.  Look at those glasses!  Listen to those big words!  He must know what he’s talking about, because Rhodes Scholar.”

Because they themselves aren’t very good at it, garden variety liberals know how tough thinking is.  How time-consuming.  How boring.  To someone like George Lakoff, who is good at thinking, this difficulty is a feature, not a bug.  He teaches the notso-hotso reasoners among his disciples a technique for playing that up.  And it works.

Geraghty suggests a possible line of counterattack, a possible reframing of liberal frames:

A little while back, I talked about celebrities who are not closely identified with the Republican party or conservative movement, who can articulate a conservative approach to an issue, and enjoy widespread applause: Adam Carolla, HGTV host Nicole Curtis, CNN host/chef Anthony Bourdain, Mike Rowe of “Dirty Jobs,” Gene Simmons of KISS . . . They say what they think, directly, but they rarely if ever frame their arguments in terms of political philosophies.

Which argument is likely to be most effective?

A) School choice is a good idea because it is consistent with the conservative principles that the government that is closest to the people is most likely to make the best decisions, is most accountable for those decisions, and is easiest to correct those decisions.

B) School choice is a good idea because it is consistent with the libertarian principles that the power of the state should be limited and the power of the individual should be maximized.

C) School choice is a good idea because it puts decisions in the hands of parents, who know what is best for their children.

This is the way to do it.  Stealing another page from the liberal playbook, I’d highlight the speaker over the message.  Ok, maybe Gene Simmons isn’t the best spokesmodel, but Mike Rowe can certainly deliver simple, effective, timeless messages about independence and free choice.  He’s clearly a masculine guy, articulating, both consciously and subconsciously, the message that real men look after their families.  They don’t turn them over to the nanny state.

The first step is admitting that Lakoff was right.  The next step is to steal his idea and make it better.

Loading Likes...

This Explains a LOT, Actually

Tim Blair, via Ace of Spades:

This is beautiful rhetoric.  It’s like boxing.  Here’s the jab — Blair quoting some puff piece on a climate activist agonistes —

Several experts suggest that the overall intersection of mental health and climate change is one we ignore at our peril.

then the crushing overhand right:

There’s a 100 per cent overlap for those particular Venn diagrams, that’s for damn sure.

Note that the following is from the puff piece:

“We can be very sure that many people in the field of climate change are distressed – highly distressed – and it can have a significant psychosocial impact on their wellbeing,” Burke said. “If you’re feeling stress, anger, guilt, anxiousness or hopelessness, it has effects on your life. Depression becomes a real risk.”

Yeah.  I think “highly distressed” covers it.  “Bugfuck insane, with a side order of Asperger’s” is what I’d call it, but then again, I’m not a shrink and don’t play one on teevee.

What…too harsh?  Then definitely don’t read Mr. Blair’s sendoff:

Are they self-harming yet? Because that would be awesome.

Squirty sez: "Oooh... burn!"

Squirty sez: “Oooh… burn!”

Loading Likes...

Chick Pitchers

Yeah, I said "pitchers," but here's a great picture anyway

Yeah, I said “pitchers,” but here’s a great picture anyway

You may have heard of Mo’Ne* Davis, the girl pitcher from one of the teams in the Little League World Series.  She is, of course, the latest proof that anything you can do I can do better.  Standard Media You-Go-Girl Story #3.2.2(a4).

I’m sure she’s a sweet kid, which makes busting this particular rotten chestnut seem extra-mean, but c’mon, people.  Y’all do know that boys and girls mature at dramatically different rates, right?

Yes yes, fine, it’s all a social construction, but every sixth-grade class in the history of the world has been socially constructed in such a way that most of the girls tower over most of the boys.  Even if they’ve managed to overcome this cisgender patriarchalist bias in the posh Upper Manhattan academies where New Soviet Men are forged New York Times writers go to junior high, the “ohmigod their star player is a girl!” storyline has been a staple of kid-lit since the 19th century.  We’re supposed to be surprised by this?

But, as always, feel free to check my work.  Here’s my fearless prediction:  Mo’Ne Davis will kick ass in Little League for at most one more year, and then she’ll either a) discover softball, or b) drop sports entirely.  Either way, she’ll never be heard from again, because by the time she’s 15, she’ll still be throwing 65mph heat while the boys on the JV squad start hitting the mid 80s.  And that will be that.

That’s all the “Little League World Series” — which, for the record, I find both silly and offensive on any number of levels — really measures, anyway: The rates at which different tranches of kids mature.  There are exactly twenty four big leaguers who have played in the LLWS.  That’s in the entire history of baseball, mind you.  And that’s not because MLB guys are playing in some other, special, secret league as kids; they play Little League just like everyone else.  It’s just that lots of boys grow into their bodies sometime after the Little League years (11-13).  Why do you think those hyper-competitive Latin American and Asian countries are always trying to sneak 15 year olds in?

I’m glad for Mo’Ne* Davis, I guess.  I hope she has fun.  But no, Virginia, she’s not going to be the first girl drafted by a major league team, she’s not going to be mowing down batters in college, or even high school.  You know, because biology.


*[sic], I think.  I can’t keep this lunacy straight. 

Loading Likes...

Send It to Trial!

The Science, as they say, is Settled ™.

So let “Science” have its day in court!  The evidence, after all, is so overwhelming that no reasonable person could ever doubt Global Warming.  So send it to trial, show the world what a loser this Mark Steyn guy is, and end the discussion once and for all.

Squirty sez: "Due process, baby!"

Squirty sez: “Due process, baby!”

Loading Likes...

An Alternate Theory: Gell-Mann Amnesia

UPDATE (8/19/14):  Take it from Stacy McCain, if not from me.  My sentiments exactly.


Ace thinks the Amazing Ever-Changing Narrative re: Michael Brown comes from leftist reporters (BIRM) treating their readers like children.

The media is writing their reports like Children’s Stories because they conceive of their audience as essentially children, whom you must protect from jarring facts which might teach “the wrong lessons.”

Allow me to suggest an alternate theory: It’s the lefty reporters themselves who are the children.

Have you heard of Gell-Mann Amnesia?  It’s a coinage of the late, great Michael Crichton:

Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect works as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray [Gell-Mann’s] case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward-reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them.

In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story-and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read with renewed interest as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about far-off Palestine than it was about the story you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.

We always forget that reporters are, as a group, incredibly stupid and woefully uninformed about basic stuff.  They’re not presenting big, complicated, messy stories as Aesop’s Fables because they’re afraid their readers will draw the “wrong” conclusions.  This is literally how they themselves understand the world.  Brown’s black, the cop’s white, what more is there to say?  If they could handle nuance and ambiguity, they wouldn’t think these

BvPX1U1IMAAPttBare rubber bullets.

It’s pretty simple: The left and the media (BIRM, of course) really really really wanted George Zimmerman’s white hispanic scalp last summer.  Or, failing that, a good old fashioned race riot; either one would distract from the ongoing implosion of the entire liberal project.  Or, ideally, both — Obama could give a few thousand more speeches, and they could cover those speeches, and pronounce them supra-Churchillian and uber-Lincolneque, and wouldn’t that be just swell?

But they didn’t get either, and they’re determined not to let another golden opportunity slip away.

That’s it.  They’re petty, petulant children who can’t even grasp the extent of their own ignorance.  But we can.  Don’t fall victim to Gell-Mann Amnesia.

Loading Likes...

The F-Word, Again

If you don’t want to hear any more about it from me, there’s always science fiction author John C. Wright.

One thing Wright doesn’t emphasize (because he’s talking about theory, not practice) is the sense of belonging that gives both Fascism and Communism their appeal.  Marx wrote so convincingly about “alienation” because he was an omega male loser, writing to other omegas (it’s no accident that a communist lady once observed that “the leaves die wherever we go“).  Having the correct opinion about politics is literally the only thing these people have going for them, and they’d rather die than give it up (many of them did).

The same is true of National Socialism.  We’ve been so over-exposed to Hitler that it’s almost impossible to get a sense of this now, but try watching a special on the Third Reich with the sound off and your eyes half closed.  Turn off, if you can, the part of your brain that says “ah yes, this is the 1935 Party Rally” and just look at the images on the screen.  Doesn’t Nazism seem… cool?  Exciting?  Thrilling?  The boots, the drums, the flags, the torches… it’s a high school pep rally on speed and X and mescaline.  The doctrines have nothing to do with it.  You respond primally.  Which is why, if you’ll recall, leather-jacketed shop kids and study-hall Sartres alike scored pep rallies and all that rah rah bullshit… but they went all the same.  You know, just to make fun of all the squares who like it.

This is why no leftist can never be argued out his leftism.  Because Marx’s theories a) purport to be scientific, and b) are obviously crack-brained gibberish, conservatives have been “debating” leftists to no avail since the middle of the 19th century.  Leftoids are impervious to facts and reason, because facts and reason never had the first thing to do with anything.

And that’s why I think something like fascism is inevitable here.  Wright may or may not think so (I’d guess not), but he’s dead on the money with this:

Conservatism (ironically, considering the firm, clear, and abstract ideals of the movement) prides itself on practicality and the lack of an abstract ideology; since National Socialism likewise sought a pragmatic method of putting the Marxist program of heaven on earth into practice, both are distinct from the airy and ethereal intellectual carbon monoxide fumes which pass for ideals in the brains of the Left.

The veneer of practicality + the primal appeal of flags and badges and uniforms = widespread electoral appeal.  The only thing needed to complete the coup is culturally sanctioned hate, and oh boy have Our Betters, the liberals, prepared us beautifully for that.  I’ll quote Henry Hazlitt again:

The whole gospel of Karl Marx can be summed up in a single sentence: Hate the man who is better off than you are. Never under any circumstances admit that his success may be due to his own efforts, to the productive contribution he has made to the whole community. Always attribute his success to the exploitation, the cheating, the more or less open robbery of others.

Never under any circumstances admit that your own failure may be owing to your own weaknesses, or that the failure of anyone else may be due to his own defects — his laziness, incompetence, improvidence, or stupidity. Never believe in the honesty or disinterestedness of anyone who disagrees with you.

This basic hatred is the heart of Marxism. This is its animating force. You can throw away the dialectical materialism, the Hegelian framework, the technical jargon, the ‘scientific’ analysis, and millions of pretentious words, and you still have the core: the implacable hatred and envy that are the raison d’être for all the rest.

Our Betters, as we well know, are functional illiterates who have never read their movement’s scriptures, but they’re past masters at aping Marx’s fundamental attitudes:

Ask a leftist what she’s for, and you’ll get a list of gassy bromides about “equality” and “justice.”

Ask her how that’s to be achieved, though, and the first words out of her mouth will be “first we have to stop / end / eliminate _____,” where the blank can be filled in with whatever you like.

Ask her how we’re to achieve that, and it will always boil down to people like her depriving people like you of something you have — guns, votes, money, speech, whatever.

Ask her, then, what happens when only the elect have guns, money, votes, and speech, and….. no answer.

And no answer.

And no answer, because there is no answer.  Like Marx, like Lenin, like Hitler, she has no idea what the socialist utopia could possibly look like.  Not because she lacks imagination, but because utopia never had anything to do with it.  The entire leftist project, from start to finish, is about nothing more than culturally-sanctioned hate.  I hate you because you have more, but as I am a Good Person, I don’t hate — only right wingers do that!  I only want to take away your money, your guns, your vote, your speech, your life for the greater good.  That it will satisfy me on a deep personal level to see you suffer is just a coincidence, I’m sure.

The American left’s biggest mistake of these last few decades is to assume that history’s arrow flies only in one direction.  What’s done can never be undone; there is only “progress;” the clock can never be turned back.  We will always have the leisure security and money money money to burn on “animal rights” and “gay marriage” and “pacifism.”  The only thing preventing free health care and Skittle-shitting unicorns for all is meanness.

What they don’t see is that they’ve sawed the branch out from under them with this nonsense.  They don’t see — probably can’t see — that in pushing all of this on us, they’ve alienated a very substantial fraction of the population.  They have openly declared themselves the enemies of straight white Christian males, not realizing that in doing so, they’ve given their enemies all the tools needed to organize against them.  As they of all people should know, he who controls the discourse controls the country.  Flip “hate” to “pragmatism,” and you’ll have fascism here in fairly short order.

Obamacare is a prime example.  Leftwingers may be idiots, but they’re not stupid.  They knew — and they now admit — that there will be death panels.  But trapped as they are in their illusion of “progress,” they really seem to believe that these will be administered on a case-by-case basis.  And not, say, disproportionally directed at a disfavored group.  Because that would be “hate,” right?

Except when it’s pragmatism. What happens when the money starts running out and the electorate starts noticing that a certain demographic practices a lifestyle that almost guarantees a long, very expensive demise?  And that this lifestyle by definition isn’t adding anymore suckers productive citizens to the tax base?

You know, hypothetically.

In short: A movement that openly, unabashedly promises to administer the all-encompassing nanny state for the benefit of [take your pick] whites / Christians / straights / the native-born but calls it pragmatism could clean up at the polls in a lot of jurisdictions right now.  Throw in a well-orchestrated social movement – a Red Guards, a Bund Deutscher Madel — and you’ve got American Fasicsm, in practice if not name.

And the left made it happen.

Loading Likes...

Musings on Suicide

So, this story

broke today. Robin Williams, aged 63 and one of America’s most beloved actors, has committed suicide. Millions are heartbroken, he was a gifted actor, his fellow stars enjoyed working with him, we’ll all miss him…blah blah blah. The president even took time out of his busy schedule of golfing, fundraising, giving speeches, and otherwise ignoring America’s problems to get in a kind word or three.


Just great.

You know what this says to me? It says, “The fame, the fortune, the adulation of millions – it just wasn’t enough for me. I couldn’t kick my drug habit and stop feeling sorry for myself, so I threw my life away. Screw you, fans.”

He became bored with life and decided to off himself.

Did those words actually come out of Robin Williams’ mouth? No, but that’s precisely what’s being said by the act of killing himself.

It’s been less than 24 hours since his body was found, and already the Internet is abuzz with talk about what a great guy he was, what a tragedy this is, and so on and so forth. My Facebook feed is cluttered with people crying over it.

You know what? I’m going to go against the grain here. Screw that guy. Screw him. Screw Robin Williams. I don’t feel sorry for him and I’m not calling his death anything other than what it actually is – a waste.

And it’s the worst kind of waste – the self-inflicted kind. The guy at least $50 million, had a long string of high profile credits earned over a four-decade career in film and television, and the adulation of millions. It wasn’t enough, apparently. He’d spent most of his life battling drug and alcohol addiction – in and out of rehab – and when he couldn’t sack up and get over his issues, he decided death was the answer.

Is Robin Williams the first celebrity to have a drug problem? Certainly not – it seems like most of them have at one time or another. We all can come up with the names of those who died of overdoses, from Jimi Hendrix to Amy Winehouse and hundreds of others. But those people died in an accidental way. They made poor choices. So did Williams, but unlike the others, he actually sought death. He willfully and intentionally killed himself.

Williams is guilty of murder – the murder of self. He took life – a great gift, one being denied right now by evil men such as the blood-soaked terrorists plaguing Christian communities in Iraq. Denied 3,000 times/day in American abortion mills. And threw it away. He threw away not only life itself, but also the other gifts God had given him: acting talent in such quantity as to earn him $50 million (and that’s just what he still had at the end, not what he actually raked in over the years). He was an international acting sensation, a man millions upon millions of people wanted to meet, wanted to emulate, wanted to honor just because he’d done such a good job entertaining them.


Can you get your head around that? I’m having trouble with it, personally.

Suicide is a despicable, disgusting act – one of the most hateful and selfish things a person can do. No matter what kind of signs there were (or weren’t) there before, what kind of notes of explanation might be left behind, the bereaved will never feel like they have the answer to the two big questions – “Why did this happen?” and “Was there something I could have done to prevent this?”

Now, a friend on FB criticized me for my remarks. She said that while she agreed with me, that I was long on judgment and short on compassion for Mr Williams. You know what I said to her?

What can I say? Suicide angers and disgusts me. My uncle took a troubled youth into his home and showered him with kindness. The little punk repaid him by stealing his handgun, blowing his own head off, and leaving his body for my aunt to find.

And I’m watching my dad – who is about the same age as Williams – struggle with addiction to the same drugs, and depression – and go on and on about how life isn’t worth living – when he’s surrounded by people who love him, and more money than I’ve ever seen. So forgive me if I’m coming up short on “compassion” today.

Compassion is great, but I reserve it for people who’ve been dealt a bad hand in life – who suffer through no fault of their own – especially those who don’t lose their optimism and their faith in God despite that suffering. Those are the people who are truly worth our compassion. Right now, I’m feeling compassion toward Robin Williams’ wife and family and the fans of his movies, not the man himself.

I don’t have compassion for people who commit suicide. It’s a crime against God, who is our Creator and our Maker. He’s the one who formed us together in the womb and is willing to walk beside us all the days of our lives, no matter how good or bad it gets (Psalm 23 comes to mind here). Our bodies are not our own, but belong to our Creator (1 Corinthians 6:19-20). Williams violated the covenant God has made with all men – to be born, to live, and to die on God’s timeline and according to His prerogative – not our own.

Robin Williams failed to place his faith, trust, and hope in our Lord, in Jesus, the one who promised He would be with us always, even to the end of the age. He destroyed the body God created for him. He willfully chose to use drugs and alcohol. He willfully chose not to use the resources available to him in such a way as to beat addiction for good.

So rest in peace, Robin Williams. And screw you.

Loading Likes...