22 April 2014

Conservatives Need to Stop Supporting the GOP


Kurt Schlichter laments that the GOP needs to stop attacking conservatives:

Here’s a cool trick I learned at Ft. Benning’s Infantry School a few hundred years ago. Attack your enemies, not your allies. That helpful hint totally increases your odds of victory.
Ways and Means Chairman Rep. Dave Camp (Republicanish - MI) never learned that lesson. He just had to release his own tax reform plan, no doubt in response to a groundswell of enthusiasm among his K Street sycophants.
His plan cuts the home mortgage and charitable deductions while slapping a surtax on the earnings of successful people. Good thinking. Shaft the folks who saved up to buy homes, give money to conservative causes, and worked hard all their lives – and who vote for GOP candidates. You couldn’t screw Republicans more effectively if you put a special surtax on people who own guns, support themselves and love America.

Here’s how representative democracy works:  You vote for people who represent your views and beliefs.  It really is that simple.  The fundamental assumption of representative democracy is that you vote for someone who generally represents your beliefs and views.  If you don’t vote for someone who doesn’t share your beliefs and views, the problem isn’t with the person you voted for; it’s you.

More to the point, conservatives need to realize that if the GOP isn’t going to actually vote in a way that reflects their belief and views, then there is absolutely no point in voting for them.  The Democrats aren’t actually worse than the GOP when both parties act and vote the exact same way.  Both parties are functionally the same.  Therefore, if the GOP is attacking conservatives, conservatives would do well to leave the GOP and vote for another party.  If they keep voting for people that vote like Democrats, they will have no one but themselves to blame if the country becomes increasingly Democratic.

A Bad Bargain



Often, people will say that a husband should only be respected if he “earns” it. This attitude is precisely the problem. A wife ought to respect her husband because he is her husband, just as he ought to love and honor her because she is his wife. Your husband might “deserve” it when you mock him, berate him, belittle him, and nag him, but you don’t marry someone in order to give them what they deserve. In marriage, you give them what you’ve promised them, even when they aren’t holding up their end of the bargain.
This doesn’t mean that a man has a license to be lazy, or abusive, or uncaring. He is challenged to live up to the respect his wife affords him. If his wife parcels out her respect on some sort of reward system basis, the husband has nothing for which to strive. As the respect diminishes, so too does his motivation to behave respectably. Respect is wielded like a ransom against him, and he grows more isolated and distant all the while. [Emphasis added.]

While it is true that marriage is a sacred covenant used to illustrate divine truths about the greatest gift—Love—the practical application of marriage in day-to-day life is much more akin to contract law.  This is not to say that there need not be any attempt to elevate marriage to something more sacred and spiritually meaningful, but it is a little foolish to ignore the contractual side of marriage when discussing how to deal with the problems that inevitably arise.

Marriage, as it has been traditionally understood, is fundamentally a covenant (or contract, if you will) between a man and a woman.  Both parties promise certain things to the other in mutual exchange.  The woman promises submission in exchange for the man’s leadership.  They promise sexual exclusivity to each other.  The man promises to take provide for the woman in exchange for her trust.  The woman promises respect in exchange for his love.  And so on.

Consequently, a failure to hold up one’s end of the bargain is generally considered a breach of contract, and thus nullifies the contract.  A man who refuses to remain sexually exclusive or lead as he ought is in breach of contract, as would be a woman who is disrespectful or sexually unfaithful.  From a contractual perspective, any breach of contract renders the contract null and void, and open to arbitration or dissolution.

This is not said to justify female disrespect, or male philandering, or any other sort marital mischievousness , but rather to point out that a contract that is adhered to by only one party is not a contract.  It is simply a license for abuse.

The growth of this marital abuse is quite troubling, and suggests that there are greater issues at hand.  Indeed,  two greater underlying problems spring readily to mind.  Namely, that most men don’t merit respect from their wives, and that women are marrying men they don’t respect.

The pussification of American males in recent decades is well-documented.  The causes, though wide-ranging, are fairly straightforward, and need not be repeated ad nauseum at this esteemed blog.  However, it is truly puzzling why women are marrying and continuing to marry men they do not respect.

It truly is puzzling why women are encouraged to disrespect men and then marry them, even though their disrespect precludes a foundation for a healthy marriage.  I blame the church for this, as feminism usually encourages women to either ignore men altogether or simply abuse them for personal gain.  It is generally not the case that feminists lambast men for being pieces of shit which women should be eager to marry. No, this particularly vapid advice is administered by pastors.

Many pastors, particularly those of a progressive sort (which is to say nearly all) set before themselves the impossible task of reconciling feminist theology, which is but a modern form of goddess worship, with traditional Christian family hierarchy.  Consequently, most pastors preach that women are superior to men, but most also enter in to marriage with them.  Since most women, particularly the religious kind, wish to get married, this appeal to marriage is partly capitulation.  However, reality always wins in the end, and so women who marry the men who place them on pedestals find themselves incapable of respecting such egregiously poor examples of masculinity.  Their preacher tells them that marriage is noble, though husbands are not, and so women, contra their nature, are morally bullied into marrying down, which drives against the core of their God-given nature.

So, we end up with pastors who do a great disservice to men and women alike.  They tell the men to man up and marry sluts.  They tell the women to marry down.  They make men and women alike miserable with their commands.  In short, these pastors have done more for the cause of Satan and his misanthropic minions than his declared allies, the feminists, could have ever dreamed of doing.

These pastors take God’s most sacred human relationship and make it into a shadow of what it once was.  They make love a grotesque burden, something shameful and ignoble.  They berate the male desire for respect, and supplant the female desire to serve a superior man with fantastic lies, and render each miserable in the other’s arms.

May these pastors rot in hell.

Addiction

Sometime ago, The American Conservative and, shortly thereafter, Mangan had posts about addiction. The former suggested that addiction was too broad a term to be scientifically useful while the latter questioned whether the recent denial of porn addiction was serious.

The heart of the problem is that of the English language; it is a fluid, dynamic language crafted and manipulated by poets for the sake of their poetry. It doesn’t have the rigidity of a dead language, like Greek or Latin, and so its uses and meanings fluctuate over time. This is particularly true of the field of psychology, and its purely nonsensical subset, social psychology.

Psychology draws on a lot of modernist thinking and uses English to describe its paradigms and assumptions, which generally means that psychological research generally follows a predictable pattern: some researcher notices a very obvious thing, uses big words to describe it, systematically proves the observation, and then followers pursue the paradigm and alter the definitions and parameters of the concept until the whole concept is rendered either trivial or useless.

This point was reinforced for me this past Sunday when I was writing a paper for a girl who was pursuing her Master’s degree in social work. I researched and wrote a four-page paper on Cognitive Theory, which basically stipulates that people learn from observing social interactions. This is a fairly trivial observation, though it was, at the time, a necessary counterbalance to the dominant theory of operant conditioning. The problem with Cognitive Theory, though, is that it has become so broadly defined so as to be trivial. It also can’t be easily falsified, which makes it worthless as a scientific theory.

In a roundabout way, this is essentially the problem with trying to discuss addiction, or virtually anything related to modern psychology. Since the terms of use are derived from a rather fluid language, and the discipline doesn’t really adhere to the strictures of the scientific method to begin with, what happens is that people often latch on to a neat or clever description of a common problem (binge-drinking, say, or watching tons of porn) but don’ clarify what, precisely, they mean. As a result, you have people arguing that anyone who bows towards certain inclinations (say, drinking) is an addict while others argue that one could engage in a repetitious activity all day every day without it really being a form of addiction.

The problem, then, is that the word, and subsequently the thinking that stems from said word, are completely muddled. The language used to describe the phenomenon is not precise enough.

Incidentally, this helps to explain why neurology has made leaps and bounds beyond psychology and will ultimately replace it as a hard science. Unlike psychology, neurological theories are falsifiable. Also unlike psychology, neurology turns to dead languages to come up with considerably more stable and precise concepts and definitions.

To bring this full circle, the ultimate issue with addiction is the concept and meaning of the word itself. Does addiction imply that one is incapable of making decisions for oneself? Or, does it imply that is merely strongly limited? What does “strongly limited” even mean? Is the term relative? Or does addiction simply refer to strong feelings of desire? How strong? Is addiction even bad?

The limits of the concept and the word should be clear. Having strong desires isn’t wrong or problematic. It is generally a good thing for a man to have strong feelings for his wife; it is generally bad to have strong feelings about porn. So, then, is the problem of addiction really the impulse? Or is it the object? The word is too muddled, and thus useless. The entire concept needs to be abolished in favor of something more precise and easily applied.

25 February 2014

Presidential Balance



The same Framers sought to guard against the same evils by compelling the president to swear at the commencement of his terms in office that he will "faithfully" enforce the laws. The use of the word "faithfully," like the use of the word "all," is intended to assure voters that they can count on a president who will do the job they hired him to do by enforcing federal laws, not evading them, and by enforcing them as Congress has written them, not as the president might wish them to be.
To be fair, many presidents, from the sainted Thomas Jefferson to the tyrannical FDR, put their own spin on federal law. Jefferson pardoned all those convicted under the Alien and Sedition Acts because he hated a statute that punished free speech and he boasted that he would not enforce that part of the acts (they expired under his watch). And FDR when barely two weeks in office issued an executive order criminalizing the possession of gold because he foolishly thought it would stabilize the banks, until an adviser reminded him that only Congress can write criminal laws (which he then persuaded Congress to do). Yet in President Obama we have a president whose personal interferences in the enforcement of federal laws reveal his view that he can rewrite them and even nullify them.


I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. [Emphasis added.]

The fundamental conflict every president of the US faces is resolving the conflict between executing duly passed congressional legislation and defending the constitution.  As can be seen even as early as the Alien and Sedition Act, there is sometimes a conflict between executing the office a president (i.e. the one who presides over the government) and defending the constitution from congressional assaults. Trying to argue that a president is bad because he doesn’t faithfully execute all congressional legislation is foolish because a) sometimes legislation is self-contradictory, b) sometimes legislation is impossible to execute, and c) sometime legislation is simply unconstitutional.  In the case of c), you don’t want the president faithfully executing his office because that would mean undermining the constitution (and this would certainly have been the case with the Alien and Sedition Acts).  Thus, for example, I would be quite happy if Obama didn’t act on the congressional authorization for using force against American enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan since doing so would undermine the constitution.  I would also be pleased if Obama would unilaterally disband the TSA, DHS, and a host of other unconstitutional departments, agencies, and bureaucracies.

Now, I think that the judge’s general assertion—that Obama is shitty president who doesn’t take his oath of office seriously—is generally correct.  However, Obama’s disinclination to execute the Office of the President is not itself proof that he’s a bad president because there is often a conflict between executing the office of the president and defending the constitution.  And, as bad as Obama may be, he is still a human being trying to do an impossible job.  He’s doing it poorly, but it’s sometimes good to remember that no man can do it perfectly.

The Laws of Nature are Unholy



Apparently this was too much masculinity for Boundless readers, because the very first comment blasts Bierfeldt for believing that the Bible calls men to make their intentions known and for women to respond, because, apparently, male initiation is merely a cultural aspect.  A few commenters stepped in and thanked Bierfeldt, but the comments then quickly devolved into stuff along the lines of “girls who wait for men to make moves waste a lot of time” and “the Bible isn’t a rule book” and the ultimate bitch comment by a girl who I will assume ought to remain single for the rest of her life because good men don’t deserve this kind of attitude, “Women are not things, period.”  Then some super-sperg shows up demanding Scripture references for where the Bible says that men should initiate.
It really seems like Christian singles want every marriage to be an actual miracle that defies the laws of nature.

And Slumlord:

Once you can get people thinking that spirit/mind good, flesh bad, then all sorts of interesting things become possible. Biology becomes disassociated from person-hood and its seen as something that can be overcome. It's very easy to see the analogy between some desert ascetic trying to break away from the desires of flesh to become a more fully "authentic" Christian and some homosexual male wanting to become a woman but  who is "trapped by their flesh". Both men are trying to escape the realities of their biology.
Sex and gender, likewise become disassociated: the sex being the biology and the gender being the spirit. The feminist approach to sexuality, largely opposed by traditional Christianity, is nevertheless supported by by Christianity's "real world" approach to the human person. Radical feminism is enabled by a Carnal-Lite human anthropology. Being true to biology doesn't matter if you think the flesh is bad.

Fundamentally, if you think that the flesh is unholy, then any capitulation to the flesh is sinful.  It stands to reason, therefore, that the pursuit of sex, even in marriage, is fundamentally wrong which is why, taking this idea to its logical conclusion, it would actually take a miracle for a Christian to get married.  Of course, since marriage is the avenue proscribed by God for the satisfaction of sexual appetites (which, it should be remembered, are of the flesh), there really is no point for this sort of miracle because it would only encourage people to sin by engaging in sex and thus fulfilling their physical desires.  Unless, of course, Christians are supposed to remain virgins even after they’re married.  And then how could any Christian make sense of Genesis 1:28?

Perhaps it would be best to either discard the notions of asceticism, or else not spend too much time worrying about the details.

24 February 2014

The Limits of Language



This is why I continue writing about the dangers of approaching personal relationships in secular terms.

What makes something secular? Is using a modern English translation of God’s word more secular than using the original Greek or Hebrew?  Is using English nomenclature not found in English versions of the Bible secular?  Is thinking in human terms instead of divine terms secular?  (Can one even think in divine terms?  How do you know?  How can one tell the difference between what constitutes human and what constitutes divine?)  I’m not trying to be flippant as I ask this, but I’m trying to point out the underlying assumptions and definitions of the assertion made above.

As is clear from 1 Cor. 11:3, man is inferior to God.  As is clear from Gen. 1:26-27, man is made in God’s image, though this is not to say that man is a carbon copy of God.  Further, it is self-evident simply from reading God’s word that God speaks to man in a language that man can understand because man is inferior to God and (probably) cannot understand God in perfectly divine terms.  In essence, God speaks to man in human terms so that man may have some understanding of divine knowledge.  Because of man’s position as one who is inferior and incompletely divine, man cannot know whether his knowledge from God is a) perfectly divine or b) perfectly complete.  As such, the belief that one can communicate completely in divine terms is unprovable because, from a practical perspective, such an assertion is unknowable, at least in the absence of direct divine revelation.

In keeping with this, it should be clear that it is impossible to perfectly distinguish between the secular and the spiritual, between the human and the divine.  One might have one’s own personal conjecture and beliefs, but personal conjecture is hardly a statement of objective fact.

So, to bring the point home, it is strictly impossible to avoid approaching personal relationships in secular terms because it is impossible to actually distinguish between the secular and the spiritual.  One can, of course, tell the difference between the secular and the religious, but religion is not spirituality, and religion, as a human institution, still thinks in human terms to some degree and is still subject to all the weaknesses and shortcomings of humanity.  As such, there will always be some degree of secularity in humanity’s attempt to discuss spiritual matters because humans are not completely divine, and humans do not possess complete divine knowledge.  Therefore, it is simply nonsensical to fight against discussing personal relationships (or any possible subject in the world) in secular terms since no human is Jehovah and therefore no human thinks or talks exactly like Jehovah.

Once this nonsense is stripped away, it becomes clear that the best thing to do is to communicate with people in terms that they will understand, without giving much regard for whether those terms are “secular,” “religious,” “spiritual,” or “Godly.”   It is presumptuous to assume that we who can only see through a glass darkly will be able to perfectly comprehend the majesty of divine truth if we simply use predominately or exclusively spiritual terms. The truth is that we all grope about in darkness searching for a glimpse of the light, dim though it may be, and it therefore behooves those of us who call ourselves children of light to spread the light in whatever terms we can instead of engaging in petty status games to prove our own piety and holiness.

* I should clarify that what I mean when I say that is nonsense is that this is something that cannot be refuted logically because it is simply a self-defined proof, and not a logical conclusion.

Equality in Real Life

Via Yahoo!, here’s a hilarious example of what happens when a woman plays a man’s sport:



There are a couple of other videos at the link worth checking out, but this one is my absolute favorite because the female running back gets absolutely destroyed on this play.  She doesn’t just get knocked down, but goes flying back a couple of yards because she’s so much smaller and slower than the opposing linebacker that basic physics just takes over.  At any rate, this should provide about as conclusive of an example that you can find to demonstrate that, no matter how you slice and dice it, men and women are not equal, and it’s not even close.

When you think about it, though, this lack of equality is just fine.  Since I’m not gay, I have no interest in having sex with men, even female men.  I’d much rather have sex with a woman.  Beyond that, though, there are a lot of tasks and roles that women are simply better suited for than men, and I’d much rather see women be women and do womanly things than strive in vain to become as men.

More to the point, a society of all men would be brutal and hellish.  A society of masculinized women and feminized men wouldn’t be much better.

It would simply be best for men and women to bow to biology and fill the role that is theirs by nature. Let the women be feminine and the men be masculine, and let’s stop destroying women by encouraging them to fruitlessly pursue masculinity.

11 February 2014

Forgive Us Our Debts…




Billions of dollars in student loans could be forgiven over the next decade, under a proposal in President Barack Obama's budget to expand the program's income-based repayment system.
Student advocates are enthusiastic over the prospect, but critics complain the expansion could extend a program that already encourages young people to borrow too much money and leave taxpayers with their college bills, reports the Wall Street Journal. They also say forgiving debt gives a taxpayer gift to people who need it the least, such as attorneys, doctors, and other white-collar people with graduate degrees.
The program already allows most borrowers with loans issued since October 2007 to make payments equal to 10 percent of their income after taxes and basic living expenses. After 20 years of on-time payments, or 10 years for people working in public or nonprofit jobs, the rest of the balance is forgiven.

Of course, this isn’t really loan forgiveness as much as it is yet another bailout to major banks that back federal loans (either by supplying the money directly or buying the loans packaged as UDOs or bonds).  While I think that this policy is preferable to the current state of affairs, I think it would be far better to either stop federal subsidies of loans and allow bankruptcy or simply declare a jubilee and force banks/lenders to write off their loans completely.

While jubilee likely sounds like a good idea to a lot of people, it’s important to remember that bank deposits are considered loans made to the bank and not assets held in security. (That’s the reason banks pay interest on savings; that’s the usury for the loan.  If you really want to make sure your money is held as an asset, put it in a safety deposit box, which you’ll note costs money.  Funnily enough, it used to be that one would pay banks to hold deposits instead of the other way around, prior to the modern system of fractional reserve baking, of course.)  As such, declaring jubilee means that everyone’s bank deposits (“savings”) will be wiped out completely.  But at least the slate is clean again.

At any rate, the student loan scam is simply a travesty, and an expansion of the federal forgiveness plan is preferable in lieu of the continued inability to discharge the loans in bankruptcy.  Deceiving young people into taking on debt they can’t discharge by normal means is nothing more than slavery by fraud.


Deporting Bieber



As if Barack Obama didn't have enough problems to deal with already, his administration now is being asked to weigh in on the grave matter of Justin Bieber's bad behavior.
By midday Wednesday (1700 GMT), a petition on the White House website calling for the deportation of the Canadian-born teen idol had garnered 103,000 names -- easily surpassing the threshold of 100,000 signatures required for presidential consideration.
"We the people of the United States feel that we are being wrongly represented in the world of pop culture," says the petition, created by one "J.A." in Detroit on January 23, the day Bieber was busted in Miami Beach for impaired driving and illegal drag racing in a flashy Italian sports car.
"We would like to see the dangerous, reckless, destructive and drug-abusing Justin Bieber deported and his green card revoked. He is not only threatening the safety of our people but he is also a terrible influence on our nation's youth. We the people would like to remove Justin Bieber from our society."
The White House website hosts citizens' petitions on other, more heady issues such as the legalization of marijuana and a pardon for National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden.
"Every petition that crosses the threshold will be reviewed by the appropriate staff and receive a response," assistant White House spokesman Matt Lehrich said.

Hopefully the response to this petition is that the state department revokes Beiber’s O-1 visa and has him deported back to the land of ice and syrup.  I say this not simply because I hate Bieber, but also because I believe that this administration is less likely to fuck up things of major import if it’s too busy worrying about trivial things.  Basically, I want the government to do as little as possible, and spending lots of time dealing with a celebrity’s visa status definitely falls under that category.  Also, fuck Beiber.

Preventing a Mistake From Being Corrected


With apologies to Chesterton, here’s John Hawkins:

Like unions and the civil rights movement, feminism has been so successful that it has become largely irrelevant. Of course, as long as there's a buck to be made or an ego to be massaged, no movement in America ever really goes away. So liberal feminists have moved on from noble pursuits like giving women the right to vote and fighting blatant discrimination in the workplace to working overtime to keep successful conservative women from becoming seen as role models. [Emphasis added.]

The fundamental problem of conservatism, as noted before, is that it always wishes to preserve the past and is not based on any principle.  In this case, Hawkins wishes that feminism stopped around 1950.  However, feminism was and is a movement that will ultimately have to play itself out.  So, much like Pandora’s mythic box, once feminism was unleashed on the world, it could only ever progress to its destructive end.  It was never possible to channel it into something productive, useful, and wise because it was always and ever an unproductive, useless, and foolish philosophy.  As such, lauding whatever perceived good came of feminism is the same as lauding for the bad because the “good” and the bad are inextricably linked.

As such, it is nothing but short-sighted foolishness, and nostalgia for what never was nor could ever be that causes conservatives like John Hawkins to pine for the days when feminism wasn’t dreadful.  If the past was good when women first won the right to vote and have equal employment opportunities, it’s only because the destructive nature of feminism had not yet set in.  Turning back the clock only means repeating the progression that leads to destruction.