Maybe War IS the Answer?

Fool that I was, I supported the Iraq War. For this, I was called every nasty iteration of “warmonger” my liberal colleagues could think of.

And then — suddenly, miraculously, for no reason whatsoever — all those people shut up about the horrors of neo-colonial wars waged only to benefit Wall Street. It was Tuesday, January 20, 2009. I guess we just stopped fighting or something.

But hey, at least Obama inherited his neo-colonial wars waged only to benefit Wall Street happy fun fests of emphatic diversity. But these same people, who hated Bush and still believe Obama is the Chosen One, are simultaneously:

–ranting that Trump will of course start World War III, because Evil; and
–cheerleading Hillary’s attempts to start World War III by constantly saber-rattling the Russians.

I’ve got a great new business opportunity for anyone with the know-how. I call it “Realistic Bumper Stickers.” Here’s my first design:

War is not the answer!*
*Except when a Democrat is president.

Another of History’s Mysteries




do we keep losing to these people?

CqE7MHRXEAAbvfGThese are the types of people who get banned from Sizzler for complaining about too much lettuce at the salad bar.  Or staff a third-rate community college’s political science department.

And yet, they run entire industries, and thanks to Nanny Government, have veto power over what you may wear, do, say, and think.


When future historians are writing the downfall of our generation, however it comes, they can’t but conclude that we richly deserved it.

Pedants, Clergymen, and Golfers

Leszek Kolakowski wrote a fascinating essay called “Communism as a Cultural Force,” which attempts to explain the appeal of Bolshevism* to so many good artists and thinkers.  It’s worth reading for its intended purpose.  But it’s also worth reading as a historical artifact — specifically, his comments on the artistic appeals of Communism and Fascism.

Kolakowski was born in 1927.  For his parents’ generation, all the so-called “glories” of Western Civilization led inexorably to the Western Front.  Lenin was right — Imperialism is the highest stage of Capitalism, and World War I was the inevitable result of Imperialism having no more worlds to conquer.  Germany was the apex of both science and culture in the 19th century, and the sum total of all that was that ridiculous strutting fool Kaiser Wilhelm II, with his crippling insecurity and fantasies of Empire and truly awful taste:

25902484_1_lkaiser wilhelm IIHere’s George Orwell (born 1903) on the last decades of the pre-war world:

When [H.G.] Wells was young, the antithesis between science and reaction was not false. Society was ruled by narrow-minded, profoundly incurious people, predatory business men, dull squires, bishops, politicians who could quote Horace but had never heard of algebra. Science was faintly disreputable and religious belief obligatory. Traditionalism, stupidity, snobbishness, patriotism, superstition and love of war seemed to be all on the same side; there was need of someone who could state the opposite point of view. Back in the nineteen-hundreds it was a wonderful experience for a boy to discover H. G. Wells. There you were, in a world of pedants, clergymen and golfers, with your future employers exhorting you to ‘get on or get out,’ your parents systematically warping your sexual life, and your dull-witted schoolmasters sniggering over their Latin tags; and here was this wonderful man who could tell you about the inhabitants of the planets and the bottom of the sea, and who knew that the future was not going to be what respectable people imagined.

For these people — Kolakowski’s parents — history was just a catalog of errors made by fat, self-satisfied bankers who blithely sent other men’s sons off to die in their millions for King, Country, and the Old School Tie.  Pedants, clergymen, and golfers kept sending battalions over the top to be wiped out to the last man, in exchange for a few feet of muddy trench that would be surrendered in the next counterattack.  Is there any wonder artists of the 20s and 30s wanted to throw the whole thing away?

But there was another “throw it all away” movement afoot in the 20s and 30s: Fascism.  Kolakowski doesn’t say so, because it would’ve been obvious to his generation: Fascism looked to the past, not the future.  While Commies wanted to scrap the past entirely, Fascists wanted to live there.  Lenin defined Bolshevism as “Soviet power plus electrification.”  Goebbels didn’t say anything that pithy, but a decent working description of the Nazi ideal would be “feudalism plus autobahns.”  Kolakowski says that Fascism was purely destructive of culture.  That’s wrong.  It’s purely destructive of modern culture.  Picasso was the wave of the future at the turn of the 20th century.  Picasso was a lifelong member of the Communist Party.  The Nazis, of course, considered him a degenerate.

Communism looks like the future when you consider the past to be one long chronicle of evil (read Orwell’s description again.  Doesn’t that sound like something you’d hear on a college campus even now?).  This was understandable in the 20s and 30s.  In those circumstances, Fascism’s weird techo-feudalism had limited appeal.  Do pedants, clergymen, and golfers prefer this

Adolf Ziegler, The Four Elements (1937)

Adolf Ziegler, The Four Elements (1937)

or this:

Picasso, Woman with Folded Arms, 1902

Picasso, Woman with Folded Arms, 1902


In Kolakowski’s day, the answer was obvious.  But now?  Ask yourself: Can Trigglypuff define the word “pedant”?  Does she know any clergymen, or golfers?  Would she even recognize a Picasso?

Under these conditions — here in The Current Year — the past doesn’t look like one long chronicle of self-satisfied stupidity.  To most people out there, the past looks pretty damn good.  And even the Trigglypuffs know it.  That’s why their gripes always sound like foul-mouthed versions of that Orwell quote.  Listen to the Bernouts and trustafarians on any college campus — take out the profanity and the weird Gender Studies jargon, and you could easily mistake them for Eugene V. Debs after a few drinks, ranting about Haymarket Square.  To hear them tell it, American history goes: Pocahontas; the Democrats winning the Civil War; the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King Junior; Barack Obama.  They can’t name a single American writer or artist (the ones over thirty might be able to say “Maya Angelou”).  They can’t even make jokes about vacuous tv shows like Leave it to Beaver, because they’ve never heard of it, let alone seen it….

…. but the rest of us have.  We can’t believe in the glorious socialist future they keep promising us, because we’ve seen it fail everywhere it’s been tried, with an enormous body count, for a hundred years.  But we can believe in the past, because it’s right there on YouTube.  Leave it to Beaver?  Oh please God yes — any day of the week, and twice on Sundays.  The first Sports Illustrated swimsuit model was Babette March, in 1964:

babette-march-sports-illustrated-swim-1964-cover.jpgThis year, Sports Illustrated put Bruce “Caitlyn” Jenner on a cover:

160628100848-sports-illustrated-caitlyn-jenner-cover-exlarge-169It seems to me that those pedants, clergymen, and golfers were on to something.  Yes, Fascism absolutely is destructive of culture — modern culture.  In the 1930s, you could look back on the culture of 50 years ago and say yes, this world of pedants, clergymen, and golfers was just a cover for Imperialism, and led inexorably to the trenches.  In the 2010s, though, we turn the clock back 50 years and see….


The Andy Griffith Show: Ron Howard, Frances Bavier and Andy Griffith (from left) © Paramount Pictures, All Rights Reserved.

The Andy Griffith Show: Ron Howard, Frances Bavier and Andy Griffith (from left)
© Paramount Pictures, All Rights Reserved.

Which would you prefer, the possibility of that oh-so-stifling world of pedants, clergymen, and golfers, or the certainty of rule by these people:

hqdefaultIt’s the culture, stupid.  It has always been the culture.




*It doesn’t matter for our purposes here, but it’s worth noting that, strictly speaking, it’s Bolshevism we’re discussing.  Kolakowski points out that Communism, the social and political doctrine, was a fringe preoccupation until World War I, and even then only came to prominence through the victory of Lenin’s faction in the infighting of the Russian Revolution.

How Does Tinder Still Exist?

I’ve been out of the mating market a long time, and I’ve repeatedly said I wouldn’t wish the modern dating scene on my worst enemy. So I’ve never used Tinder, but of course I’ve heard of it… How does it still exist?

From Vox Day’s “Game” blog:

When Ben Ellman, 26, moved to NYC in 2015 and fired up his Tinder and OkCupid profiles, he was expecting to meet a bevy of compatible women. Instead, the 5-foot-9 journalist was swiped left by matches because of his height — or lack thereof.

“It seems like all the women online were going for guys 6-foot-1 and above,” Ellman, who lives in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, tells The Post. He estimates that for every 50 women he expressed interest in, only one would swipe right on him. “People can feel worse when using Tinder because it’s such a meritocracy for hot people … People swipe left or right based on your profile picture, and that can make you feel bad about yourself.”

He’s not the only one who faced a drop in confidence after using Tinder. A new survey at the University of North Texas found that singles who used Tinder are more likely to have lower self-esteem and feel unhappy about their looks than non-dating-app users. When it came to gender, male Tinder users reported lower self-esteem than females.

That’s like wow just wow…OMG I can’t even….

How can it be that in this, the Current Year, an app still exists that is so obviously detrimental to self-esteem?  High self esteem is a fundamental human right!  It’s like, the 32nd Amendment to the Constitution.

Seriously, though: How have the SJWs not taken to the streets about this yet?  As I understand it, Tinder is ruthlessly Darwinian — you see their picture and profile, and they see yours; you rate bang/would not bang; you meet up only if you both rate “bang;” otherwise, you’re permanently discarded.  How can Trigglypuff go on, knowing there’s something like this in the world?  A few possibilities:

— The nose-ringers are all up in arms about it and I just don’t know it, because by the grace of God I’m out of the dating game and wouldn’t wish modern “romance” on my worst enemy.  This is the most likely explanation.

— The nose-ringers get a lot of benefit out of Tinder, and since they’re nothing if not hypocrites, some secret tofu subroutine of the app matches up each SJW user with those most compatible with xry, and xy’re getting lots of nasty patchouli action…. (I’ll give you a few moments to clean the barf off your keyboards).  I’d rate this one least likely, thank God.

— Whatever company makes Tinder has figured out some way to defuse, deflect, or otherwise insulate themselves from the nose-ringers, despite being such an obvious tool of Teh Patriarchy!! (I know, I know, it’s the chicks who rule Tinder with Machiavellian ruthlessness, but since it’s hot chicks who rule it, it’s still Teh Patriarchy!! at fault.  Hot chicks are like the shock troops of Teh Patriarchy!!  Have you noticed?).  If this is true, we need to study what they’re doing in great detail, as this can help us save Western civilization.


Ballin’ with the Washington Generals

1428381135208Headline at Ace of Spades:

Giuliani, Gingrich, Priebus Plot ‘Intervention” To Keep Trump From Constantly Setting Himself on Fire Just Because He’s Bored

Hmmm.  Gingrich…. Gingrich… wasn’t he the guy who led the Republican “revolution” back in 1994, that started out rubber-stamping everything Bill Clinton did and ended in trumped-up impeachment charges that set the party back a few decades? Priebus… wasn’t he the guy who sold us Mitt “True Conservative” Romney as the best chance to beat Obama?  Didn’t Guiliani flame out spectacularly on the national stage in 2008, when people confused him with the Family Guy parody of Lois answering “9/11” to every question?

Despite what the SEC says on mutual fund prospectuses, I think past performance is indicative of future results, and all I see is three losers sharing the dubious benefit of their accumulated wisdom and experience — at losing — with a proven winner.  If the subject is “how to talk out of both sides of your mouth to more efficiently shaft your base while scooping up wads of donor cash” then yes, by all means, listen to those turds.  If you’re actually interested in winning elections, though….

Am I the only guy who remembers stuff that happened just a few short years ago and / or can use google?

I’m Naked in Public on Purpose! Don’t Look at Me!

History is filled with tantalizing mysteries.  What was up with those giant stone heads on Easter Island?  What’s written in the Voynich Manuscript?  How do you read Linear A?  Was Richard III really such a bastard?

So I like to help out future historians when I can.  Guys, if you wonder what end-stage “feminism” was all about, here you go.

That’s a link to Return of Kings, making fun of a ditzy Buzzfeed bint who went to a nude beach so guys could check her out… then got upset because guys checked her out.  Which was also “empowering,” somehow.  The getting upset part, I mean, but maybe also the getting checked out part…. look, it’s confusing, future historians, and just because I live here doesn’t mean I understand it (I imagine Ogg the Easter Islander saying something similar.  “Giant stone heads?  The fuck do I know, dude?!  I thought it was a frat prank…”).  It’s up to you to figure it out.  I just point you to the relevant primary sources.  Note also that this is the second time she’s pulled a stunt like this — the first time was strolling around New York City in a bikini with “30” written on her tone-less stomach, which was also “empowering,” because bulimia or something.

[PS if you don’t feel like clicking on the link and/or sites like that are blocked at work, yes, there are pictures, and yes, the comment section is quite vocal about it.  YMMV, but to me she looks like the cutest girl in grad school before the lesbians fully get their clutches into her — not fat, but not in any kind of shape, and semi-cute in a mousy sort of way, if seen from a distance in low light and after not less than four beers.  Are we not men?]

Four Parties, then One

I keep predicting American Fascism (I know, I know, you Four Regular Readers are bored to death of this.  Fair warning: this is one of those posts.  But don’t worry, it’s gonna be real short).  Time to show my work, so you can see just how full of crap (or not) I really am.  Here’s how I see that going:

Everyone realizes by now that we’re witnessing the breakup of the GOP.  The neocons, aka the globalist, managerialist technocrats (hereafter “the Managers,” for short), are going back to their natural home in the Democratic Party… except that the Democratic Party is also headed for a big split-up.  I don’t know why the same folks who are frankly crowing over the GOP’s hara-kiri assume that the Dems are so much more more willing to knuckle under and take one for the team.

Yeah yeah, the herd of independent minds and all that, but when you talk about weirdo coalitions, the Dems have the GOP beat by a mile.  The GOP managed to shoehorn nationalists, Managers, and Evangelicals together with the specter of the Democrats’ godless commie darkies running everything, but while they were doing that, the Dems were shoehorning the Old Left, Managers, and their Evangelicals, aka identity politics whackjobs, together with the specter of George W. Bush.*

That center can’t hold, any more than the Republicans’ center can.  Their old school — union goons, Marxists, and the rest of what used to be the Old Left — is going to bail out, or be driven out, by the rest (these are the Bernouts, for those keeping score at home).  They might well go over to Trump — the union goons almost surely will (the blue collar unions, at least) — and align with the nationalists (the new GOP).  Meanwhile, the identity politics whackdoodles may or may not join forces with ex-GOP Evangelicals (don’t laugh; Ted Cruz cultists surely consider themselves a put-upon minority, and they defend their identity as zealously as any blue-haired vegan slam poet defends xyr’s).  The Managers will try to glom on to any one of the splinter parties, because the Managers always know best….

…but eventually they’ll come home to roost in the new Fascist Party, because Fascists are — say it again with me — nationalist technocrats.  And as soon as the new FP figures out how to rope in the identity politics goobers — faaaabulous! uniforms and armbands will help — that’ll be that.

Timeframe?  I bet the Dems are dead by 2020, if not President Trump’s first set of midterms, with the metamorphosis of the Nationalist ex-GOP + union goons + Bernouts Fascist Party by 2024.

We’ll see.  Feel free to mock me as none of these things come to pass.



*N.b. to spergs, who won’t get it anyway, but here goes: We’re talking perception, not reality.  Obama isn’t the Marxist Muslim Al Sharpton, any more than George W. Bush was Reagan + Jesus.  In reality, of course, they were both low-IQ Affirmative Action hires who could be counted on by Wall Street to read their lines on cue.  But just as the Dems got their sheeple cranked up by proclaiming W. to be the most eeevil conservative evar!!eleventy, so the GOP cranked up theirs pretending that Obama is the real face of the Democratic Party.

Parenting and the Problem of Identity Maintenance

Stacy McCain reads this crap so you don’t have to.

I think I would find many aspects of parenting enjoyable. I think it would change my opinions and worldview in interesting ways.
But I also have reasons for not wanting to have children, and there are more of those and they are more emotionally salient. I don’t think I could mentally handle such demands on my time and energy, on my very body itself. I don’t want to give up all that brainspace that was previously spent on friends, work, writing, and other stuff and instead spend it on feeding schedules, shopping lists, doctor visits, and all the many, many other forms of emotional labor mothers have to do. . . . I don’t want to slow or damage my career. I don’t want to stop having sex, or be forced to have it in secrecy and silence. . . .

That’s some weirdo 3rd Wave feminist informing her blog readership she won’t be spawning.  I think we all can be grateful for that.  But I’m also grateful that she’s confirmed a longstanding theory of mine: It’s utterly exhausting being a liberal.  RTWT.  This broad doesn’t have one spare joule for anything other than being xyr own “queer, gay, femme, homoflexible,” whatever, self.

As any parent will tell you, “feeding schedules, shopping lists, doctor visits” etc. pretty much IS parenting, at least for the first year or so.  Please hold your jokes about exactly how many KB of “brainspace” her (or my) “friends, work, writing, and other stuff” takes up, and focus on the word choice: “give up…friends, work, writing, and other stuff.”  Isn’t that odd?

In reality, of course, you don’t give up that stuff; it simply changes.  Instead of talking about, say, politics with your friends, you talk about kids.  If you have kids and your friends don’t, they tell you about politics, and you tell them about your kids.  And — this is the important part — they want to hear about your kids, because your kids are important to you, and therefore your kids are important to them, because they’re interested in things that are important to you, because they’re your friends.

Will so-and-so no longer be my friend because he can’t get as outraged about Obama as he used to, now that he’s up changing diapers every 3am?  Is that all our “friendship” is, reciprocal bitching?

Once again we see the leftist obsession with stasis.  It’s the Current Year, and nothing should ever be anything other than the way it is.

Or consider this:

I don’t want to stop having sex, or be forced to have it in secrecy and silence. . . .

As McCain points out, Our Heroine describes herself as “on the asexual spectrum somewhere” and does not “experience primary sexual attraction.”  How much sex could she be having in the first place?  But again, hold the jokes and focus on the word choice.  “Stop having sex.”  As if it’s a stark choice between letting the rugrat starve and getting it on.  Without TMI, I promise, here’s how new parents have sex:  you wait until the kids are asleep, and then you do it.  Or you don’t, because you’re flat exhausted from all those feedings and diaper changes, but whatever — the fact is, newborns sleep about 16 hours a day.  That’s a lot of sex if you’re so inclined.

And it’s not secret, or silent (if that’s how you roll), nor does it have to be that way when the kids are older, because kids sleep like the dead and doors close.  Ok, yeah, I suppose the ol’ bent-over-the-dining-room-table quickie on your lunch break is out, but again, you’re not stopping having sex; you’re just modifying it somewhat.  Aren’t you people into all that “transgressive” shit?  Well, I promise you that nobody in your circle of friends is doing it missionary in the marital bed with the lights out.  Be daring!  Blow some minds.

Finally, further in the article, Stacy quotes this:

Those are just a few of my personal issues with having children. And sure, I recognize that most of these are not inevitable, that in a different society with proper support for parents (especially mothers), none of this would have to be the case.

Stasis, stasis, stasis.  Talk to any parent.  Hell, just be in their general vicinity for a few minutes; you’ll quickly realize that there is NO level of “support”, none whatsoever, that will let you carry on exactly as you were when childless.  At some point you’re gonna get stuck alone with the little scamp, and it’s gonna need something, and you’re gonna have to give it.  (Yes, even in a “large polyamorous household”)*.  If Sweden, the alpha and omega of democratic socialism (says every American liberal at every opportunity) can’t do it, it can’t be done.

Ok, ok, you’ve borne with me long enough.  Give into your snark, young padawan:

I think I’d be a good parent, I like the idea of raising kids who will become the kind of people we need more of in the world. . . .

Stacy: “Is there a weirdo shortage?” Me: Need to do what, exactly?  Our Heroine’s “job” seems to be “Twitterati, bonehead feminist division.”  We already have the Postmodern Essay Generator; any first year comp sci major should be able to turn out a bot that perfectly mimics her output.

I think it [parenting] would change my opinions and worldview in interesting ways.

Show of hands: Who thinks Ms. Mogilevsky wants her opinions and worldview changed?  I imagine folks on the internet try to change her opinions and worldview all the time.  I further imagine the success rate of those endeavors is 0.0%, and that she’s worn out more than a few mouse buttons blocking people on Twitter and closing comment feeds.

I don’t want to slow or damage my career.

Lots of upward mobility at, is there?  The Guardian got some op-ed slots we haven’t heard about?  Is Jezebel paying by the word now?

I am wildly terrified of pregnancy and childbirth and literally any medical procedure

But it’s just a clump of cells!

I don’t get to have children inside my own hypothetical science fiction novel

I think this is the novel she means.

See where I’m coming from?  It’s gotta be hard fucking work to be so ideological, so tendentious, so completely lacking in self-awareness.  She puts more effort into avoiding the obvious in a single paragraph than I’ve put into anything, ever.

As I’ve already stolen half his column, let’s let Stacy have the last word:

Never mind. Another feminist heading toward the Darwinian Dead End — manifestly unfit for survival, she subtracts her defective DNA from the future — and all we can say is, “Bon voyage, Crazy Cat Lady!”



*n.b. “polyamorous” is one of my favorite Newspeak words.  Stacy: “That’s what we used to call ‘screwing around,’ but when intellectuals screw around, they need a fact word for it, to make it sound clever.”  But it’s even better than that, as I suspect that Our Betters’ polyamory, like PUAs’ polyamory, is strictly theoretical.  I was “polyamorous” when I was single, too.  Problem was, nobody wanted to be polyamorous with me, so I had to clean up, get some Game, and settle down with a nice girl who shared some of my interests and had similar life goals.  Weird, I know.  Transgressive, even!

The Caliphate Will Have Its Upsides

I think most of us can agree that this woman needs some serious burqa time.

6a00d83451675669e201bb0922b764970d-800wi(safe link to David Thompson).

Seriously, though: You wanna know why we’re gonna get Fascism?  It’s the culture, stupid.  This woman literally has nothing better to do than pretend to worry about the size of her daughter’s turds.  She lives a life so different from normal people that she might as well be a Martian, fretting over the number of freeps in the smerp….

…and yet, she’s absolutely certain she knows how to run your life better than you do.  Given a single erg of power, she’d enact mandatory Niceness and ban the internal combustion engine.  For the children.  Meanwhile, ever-increasing numbers of Westerners are worried about how to afford diapers.

The first politician who promises to toss women like this out of public life and into an updated Bund Deutscher Madel is going to win whatever he’s running for in a landslide.  The fuel of populism is hatred, I’m told, but tell me Cloud People like this aren’t doing everything in their considerable power to make themselves hated.  Be careful what you wish for….

Atheism and Critical Thinking

A post at Z Man’s got me going.  I had some thoughts that aren’t appropriate for his comments, but wanted to throw out there for discussion.

Yesterday I said that “if I had to pick the one worst thing about America 2016, it would be ‘failure to listen to the very words that are coming out of one’s mouth.'”  Today I’m going to add: “Failure to know what the words coming out of one’s mouth even mean.”

For instance, “atheists” aren’t really atheist.  For one thing, we all know that it’s logically impossible to prove a negative.  That sounds like hair-splitting semantics, but that’s my point — the word atheism is, by its very nature, self-contradictory.  The very best one can logically do is agnosticism — concluding that, given all the evidence, the probability of there being at least one god is vanishingly low.

So: “atheism” doesn’t mean what it means.  The first step in clear thinking is recognizing the meaning of the words one uses.  That’s why Big Brother invented Newspeak — without the vocabulary to express forbidden thoughts, forbidden thoughts would not arise.

In practice, of course, atheist means “anti-Christian.”  Ever met a South Asian atheist, who insists there is no Vishnu?  There’s probably one out there somewhere, but atheism seems to be a strictly Western preoccupation.  And even then its confined to a subset of the West, as I’m pretty sure the Dawkins types aren’t trolling Jewish blogs about Yahweh and all the contradictions in the Torah.  It’s Jesus, specifically, that our atheists are hacked off at.

And that’s perfectly fine.  Christianity is absurd.  Its claims rest on the literally impossible — the self-resurrection of a man, who was also a god.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof to be known as fact, and short of actually being there in the tomb and seeing the breath of life come back into his three-day-old corpse with your own eyes, there is no proof extraordinary enough to move that claim into the realm of fact.

So if you want to claim that Christianity is ridiculous, I’ll agree with you 100%.  Its central claim, the foundation of 2000 years of belief, violates all known laws of physics and the logical law of non-contradiction.  But in return, I’d like you to admit that this does not preclude the existence of any and all gods; it simply invalidates the claims of this particular god.  To admit, in short, that you’re not an atheist — you’re just anti-Christian.

Show of hands: who thinks our evangelical atheists would take this deal?

The irony here is especially corrosive, as guys like Dawkins have convinced generations of young neckbeards that they’re critical thinkers.  They charge into e-battle armed with long lists of contradictory stuff in the Bible, books excised from the New Testament by the Church Fathers, claims about the fossil record, and whatnot.  As if all this proved that it is impossible for any god to exist!

As I said at Z Man’s, it’s the arrogance of this that bugs me the most.  They act as if the first time they think of something is the first time in all of human history that thought has been thunk.  As if Christians haven’t been struggling with this stuff for 2000 years.  As if nobody ever picked up his Bible and noticed that there are multiple divergent accounts of important events.  As if no less a theologian than St. Thomas Aquinas didn’t come right out and declare that the truths of revelation can’t be proved by reason…..

Et cetera ad nausam.  They have the stones to call this “critical thinking,” when in fact it takes breathtaking ignorance of intellectual history to even call their piddly little assertions “problems.”  But then again, what else can one expect from folks whose very movement name is a misnomer?

Again, if you want to be anti-Christian, go nuts.  Since I’m not invincibly ignorant of the Western cultural tradition, I know that anti-Christianity has a long, long pedigree.  A Roman emperor wrote a pretty good book about it, and of course there’s Hobbes, Hume, Nietzsche… you’ve got some heavy hitters in your corner, is what I’m saying.  Check them out.  But please, stop pretending you’ve proven there is no God, when all you’ve demonstrated is that you’ve got a beef with Jesus, mmmkay?