Friday, November 28, 2014

Why Homeschooling is Hazardous - and Necessary

Parents Tasered, Sprayed, Handcuffed—as Kids Watch

"A child protective services (CPS) caseworker had been inside the home several days earlier to investigate a report of a messy house and had returned for a follow-up visit. When Jason and Laura declined to allow her inside she summoned Glidden and White.

When Deputy Glidden arrived at the Hagans’ home he demanded to be allowed inside. Jason opened the door and told Glidden that he could not enter unless he had a court order.

Glidden said he would enter anyway.

As Jason turned to go back inside, Glidden sprayed him with pepper spray—first at the back of his head and then directly in his face. Glidden also sprayed Laura, who fell to the floor. Glidden then turned to Jason, who was still standing, and shot him in the back with his Taser. As Jason fell, Laura closed the front door. Glidden triggered the Taser three more times through the closed door.

Sheriff White joined Glidden on the front porch. Together they forced open the door and found Laura and Jason lying on the floor. Glidden sprayed Laura in the face a second time while White sprayed Jason and tried to turn him over onto his stomach.

Laura shouted to the officers that Jason had been taken to the emergency room earlier in the week for chest pains. White nevertheless continued attempting to turn Jason over and sprayed him a third time when he was unsuccessful. The officers also sprayed the Hagans’ dog with chemical agent and threatened to shoot it if it didn’t stop barking.

Finally, the officers handcuffed and arrested Laura and Jason and charged them with resisting arrest and child endangerment.

All of this took place in front of the Hagans’ three young children, who were then taken to the emergency room to be evaluated for exposure to pepper spray.

At Jason and Laura’s trial, the judge determined that White and Glidden had violated the Fourth Amendment when they forcibly entered the Hagans’ home without a warrant. “The State has not offered sufficient, if indeed any, evidence of an exception that would justify a warrantless entry,” the judge wrote in his ruling. The case against Laura and Jason was dismissed.

HSLDA [Home School Legal Defense Association] is representing the Hagans in a lawsuit against the two officers who attacked Jason and Laura and terrified their three young children in their own home.

The Fourth Amendment strikes a carefully crafted balance between a family’s right to privacy and the government’s need to enforce the law. In most situations, government agents cannot simply force their way into a home. Instead, they must explain to a neutral magistrate why they need to enter the home, and they must provide real evidence to support that need. This rule applies to all government agents. Court after court has agreed that there is no social services exception to the Fourth Amendment."
The police are definitely suspected of potential for travesty such as this. Police Departments should purge offenders such as these from ever serving again.

All this was done in the pursuit of returning the children to control of the government schools. In Germany, the parents would be jailed and the children made wards of the state. Home Schooling must be protected and private schools must be accessible through vouchers; anything less is merely totalitarian child-mind-control.

Why Government Schools Are Child Abuse, Again

The ‘Truly Frightening’ Thing a Texas Teacher Allegedly Told One Mother

"“[The teacher] goes on to tell me that they try to discourage parents from introducing contradictory concepts to ‘our’ children,” Vines said. “Our children. As in the school’s children? I was a little baffled. And so when I started talking about my daughter, I emphasized my daughter. So I asked her, ‘Am I not allowed to help her with her homework?’”

Vines was shocked when the teacher allegedly responded that they “don’t want parents confusing the kids.”

Vines wrote on Glenn Beck’s Facebook wall about the incident, sharing how, in the same parent-teacher conference, the teacher allegedly said the pilgrims were “essentially America’s first terrorists.”

“Oh my gosh,” Beck said Monday, hearing Vines explain the whole story. “How old was this teacher?”

“She’s probably in her 30s,” Vines said. “She doesn’t look much older than me. I’m 27.”

“I don’t even know what to say about this,” Beck said. “I get so uptight about this stuff. This is the stuff that enrages me.”

Beck saluted Vines for making the decision to home-school her daughter, but asked how much longer parents will even have the option to home-school.

“If they’re already saying ‘These are our children’ and ‘Don’t listen to mommy and daddy’ — do you know what this is? You remember the Al Gore speech?” Beck said. “It was right after the election … when he called everyone in and would not allow any parents, any adults in there. It was just teenagers. … And what he said was, ‘Look, there are some things that your parents don’t know, that you just instinctively know.’”

Stu Burguiere added that MSNBC’s Melissa Harris-Perry seemingly feels the same way, and once said in an MSNBC commercial: “We have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents, or kids belong to their families, and recognize that kids belong to whole communities.”"
The Left is smarter and more moral than you are, and they own your children.

A REAL Feminist Doesn't Whine...

...She acts conclusively:
Grieving Afghan mother takes bloody revenge by killing 25 Taliban militants during seven hour battle after they gunned down her son

"Reza Gul looked on as the militants attacked her son's police checkpoint

Flanked by her daughter and daughter in law she led the fightback

The Taliban remain tight lipped about the attack"


I still maintain that all women should be armed. Still, this was prompted by anger, not by principle. While this is an awesome accomplishment, it is not likely to be repeated, unfortunately.

Taking Down a Privileged Feminist

This analysis is loaded with embedded links as supporting references for his claims: go the the link for better info.
An Open Letter to Bloomberg's Sheelah Kolhatkar, on the Delicate Matter of Anita Sarkeesian
by Milo Yiannopoulos

" In reality, it's not women that some gamers have a problem with: it's people like Sarkeesian and McIntosh. They have claimed hatred of them and people like them is tantamount to hatred of women. But it isn't. People don't hate Anita Sarkeesian because she's a woman: they hate her because they see her as a disingenuous, divisive, sociopathic opportunist.

Prominent feminists and feminist journalists have offered compelling critiques of Sarkeesian's work. Much of what is erroneously characterised as "abuse" is in fact merely robust criticism of Sarkeesian's ideas—ideas she refuses to debate. Sarkeesian, uniquely in the sphere of public intellectuals, refuses to subject her pontifications to critique. She censors comments not because they are insulting or distasteful but because they reveal structural weaknesses in her arguments. This is not the manner of an academic, aspirant or otherwise, worth listening to.

It is in this respect that her professorial aspirations, and those of her writer and producer, reach dizzying heights of absurdity, beyond even those of her laugh-a-minute Master's thesis. Universities are places of learning and debate, but Sarkeesian is a broadcaster, not an interlocutor. So radically anxious is she about the substance of her arguments and so vulnerable is she to accusations of sensational cherry-picking, she has not accepted a single invitation to debate her theories.

And those theories desperately need examination, not only because they relate to an $80 billion industry but because, underneath the freshman-level social studies rhetoric, they are based on fringe, outmoded theoretical foundations. Perhaps that's why veteran journalist Cathy Young says: "The fact that Sarkeesian has emerged as the leading voice in such criticism right now ensures that it’s going to be propaganda, not analysis."

To give just one example of Sarkeesian's underhand method of argument, consider the following. A central plank of Sarkeesian's criticism is that women appear as window dressing and as "damsels in distress," there to be saved by men. She says that this loss of agency in video games is somehow damaging to women in the real world.

But her examples do not support this claim. She says that when male protagonists are imprisoned or endangered, they have to escape themselves, whereas females must always be rescued by a male. Yet her example, drawn from Metal Gear Solid, is flagrantly dishonest.

At around the 18-minute mark in "Damsel in Distress: Part 1", she shows Metal Gear Solid protagonist Solid Snake escaping by using ketchup as fake blood. But what she omits to say is that a female character is also imprisoned earlier in the game. That female character escapes in a much feistier manner: by beating up a guard. This is a classic, deliberate example of lying by omission, and such dishonest manoeuvres are a constant feature of Sarkeesian's videos.

Almost every example she gives falls apart under the microscope. This ten-minute video by popular YouTuber Thunderf00t, which is nearing half a million views, shows how Sarkeesian utterly misrepresents the game Hitman Absolution in order to make ideological arguments that are simply not backed up by the evidence. Practically every academic citation she deploys turns out to be a sleight of hand.

Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised. Sarkeesian has a habit of clutching at straws: she once, hilariously, condemned file-sharing and piracy culture as too male-dominated, and—get this!—declared several classic Christmas songs to be "misogynistic." This variety of desperate grasping for controversial material is the bonkers modus operandi of the sort of intersectional third-wave claptrap that has put the public, women especially, off the idea of feminism entirely. "
When the Left produces a Cherished Narrative, it is not subject to debate: it is the new Truth which is to be accepted and obeyed.

Headline of the Day

CHECK YOUR PRIVILEGE: Pentagon Renaming “Illegal Combatants” as “Unprivileged Belligerents.” No, seriously. The Obama Administration seems determined to live up to every right-wing caricature. Hey, maybe those aren’t caricatures after all, then.
From Instapundit
It's like an SNL gag from 40 years ago, back when SNL was funny...

Thursday, November 27, 2014

This Says It All

Ramos refers directly to the three class system:
Univision's Ramos To Journalists: 'Stop Pretending We're Neutral'
'We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim.'
All this neutrality has gotta Stop! Saith the messiah.
"But the best is when journalism becomes a way of doing justice and speaking truth to power."
Of course, these days journalism IS power which needs truth spoken to it. When it's all about doing justice rather than truthful reporting of facts, then it is, by definition, a political tool and not journalism at all.

Thankfulness and Atheism

As the nation stops to celebrate the now ancient religious holiday of thankfulness to the provider of all things, it occurs to me to wonder about how Atheist thankfulness functions, how it works when the individual Atheist is the provider of all knowledge, morality and wisdom.

Does the Atheist express gratitude for his family? Probably. But expressing gratitude FOR is not gratitude because gratitude requires an object which is the source of the benefit for which gratitude exists. The source of the Atheist's family is evolution, of course. So there is a logical necessity, assuming that there is actually Atheist gratitude, that the Atheist is grateful for evolution, which is considered to be natural law (probably just the Modern Synthesis - mutation and selection).

But if the Atheist is grateful to natural law, and natural law is just, well, natural, then the Atheist might be grateful that natural law has a source. But that is very likely one step too far, and the Atheist must halt at the point of mutation/selection, in other words, the luck of random mutations and the luck of selection being available at the proper time and place. So the Atheist must reduce the object of gratitude to randomness, which worked in his favor.

Being grateful to randomness seems to be a bit cold. But the upshot is "luck", so being grateful to his luck seems to be at or near the final object of his gratitude. But the circle needs the final step for its completion. While randomness and luck produced the Atheist and his family, what is really, really lucky is that it made them superior to all others. So the complete chain of gratitude circles around to this: gratitude that the Atheist is not like the others, and is totally superior to them in intellect and morality, as well as knowledge of truth, wisdom, and devotion to the part of "science" which supports this circular argument.

The final analysis comes down to self-worship as it is rationalized, and perhaps - perhaps - the Atheist is grateful to himself for his personal realization of his eliteness and superiority.

The Ultimate List of Obama Corruptions

Here are 900 well sourced examples of Obama’s lying, lawbreaking, corruption, cronyism, hypocrisy, waste, etc.
I started a list of his scandals once, but stopped at around 30 or so, I think it was. He is so transparently corrupt that my interest changed to that of why people choose to believe him, to follow him, to continue in their moral and intellectual corruption, i.e., Leftism as an ideology and worldview. It is difficult to separate Leftism from Atheism and Atheism from Leftism; both are based on the premise of self as the ultimate arbiter of truth, both moral and ontological. And that leads to the same elitist totalitarian groupthink for both groups, which become a single identity. So that is why I use the term "AtheoLeftism" to refer to their ideology and worldview.

Now that Obama has become untethered from both the election cycle and the approval of even the Democrats in Congress, he will become much more dangerous to the USA. He will issue a blizzard of Executive Orders, the next of which will be strangulation of energy production and use via environmental clamp down. And who knows what will come after that.

Wednesday, November 26, 2014

Intellectual Exercise

There are times when I'd just like to move out and leave the nation to those who hate it. And, by extension, hate me. And I wonder, what would happen if all the whites moved out and left the country to the non-whites? Who would they hate and blame then? And who would work and create and produce to buy them stuff?

And what's to prevent the parasitic racism of today's blacks from splitting the country into sub-countries, some black, some hispanic and some white? I'm thinking that maybe the black-Left federal government might go for that. Get rid of the evil whites; keep the perpetual victims and turn so far Left that... well, what WOULD happen?

What could be projected to happen, if all whites packed up and moved to New Zealand (I know, we won't all fit, it's just a hypothetical, so go with it).

Put up some scenarios.

Bam Bam is Gormless

SELF-GRUBERING: Obama: “I just took an action to change the law.” Well, this should help the legal challenge to his immigration order . . . .
From Instapundit

John C Wright Describes Leftism

This is incised from Wright's essay on Thanksgiving and gratitude; the essay must be read in its entirety so please do so. This segment is destined to become classic, if there is any justice left in the universe. As tempted as I am to go through and highlight segments and phrases to enable them to shout out their truths, I will not do it. You can see them jump at you and appreciate them for yourself without my interference.

"As Ayn Rand says, you cannot reason with such creatures, you cannot negotiate with them. Reasoning presupposes a standard of evidence that can be satisfied; negotiation presupposes a state of satisfaction that will silence further demands.

The extortion can be material, as for money, or social, as for status, or psychological, as for a sense of unearned self-esteem, but the defining characteristic of the Left is that these things extorted are not earned.

But a satisfied Leftist, a Leftist with nothing further to extort, is no longer a Leftist for the same reason that a Pirate who never plunders ships is not a Pirate, or a parasite without a host is no longer a parasite. They can never be satisfied.

Why? Do they want to be unhappy, always victims, always weak, always pathetic, whining, unmanned, absurd, pathetic, and gormless?

Despite what it seems, this is not due to a mental disorder. It is a disordered philosophy that rewards them for pretending to have a mental disorder. Giving into the temptation once makes it easier to give in the next time, in a soaring parabolic asymptote of unreality.

Contrast the concept of entitlement and the concept of charity. Entitlement means one man is given another man’s money, hours and days of his life and life’s work, as a matter of right. The second man is, in effect, enslaved to the first for period covered by hours and days of labor lost to him.

The second has no reason to feel gratitude to the first, since the labor and life of the first are the second man’s by right, not by grace.

The second man extorts the first by means of white blackmail, that is, he holds the first man hostage not by means of some vice or crime of the first man, by but his virtue. The first man’s ability, his intelligence, his work, his integrity, his unwillingness to see the deserving poor suffer, all these are like the incriminating photos or gambling debts of a blackmailer, except strangely reversed. It is the blackmailer’s own vices and weakness that are used to blackmail the other.

Now the truly subtle, yet inevitable, corruption of character takes place not the first time such a transfer of life and labor is expropriated, nor the second. It takes place whenever the second man realizes that his need, his inability, his suppurating wounds, his failure, and, in sum, his unmanliness, is what gives him the right to expropriate, and he wishes to exercise that right more fully, and can do it only by becoming ever more bloated in victimhood, ever less in manhood.

Legitimate need is forgotten: invented need, make-believe wounds, become the stock in trade. No Leftist cares about honor killing or female genital mutilation. Indeed, they bend over backward to praise and protect the ‘religion of peace’ from criticism. Marvel Comics reissues one of their banner superheroines as a Muslim girl.

But Leftists wax vocal over so-called micro-aggressions such as a space scientist seen wearing a Hawaiian shirt with bathing beauties pictured on it, blaming female inaptitude at physics on him; or a carefully edited video of men in bad sections of New York wolfwhistling at a model walking by, swishing her hips. The sheer, stark unreality of such naggings are beyond parody.

The difference is that crusading on behalf of real women victims of real atrocities gets you no claim on the life and labor of any other person. To fight real rather than imaginary oppression, you would have to do something real rather than imaginary. There is no one to pay the white blackmail.

The claim of victimhood grants you a right to treat your neighbors like livestock. The right is not bound by any logical or theoretical limit. It is limited by nothing but a pragmatic consideration that the herd, if roused, will turn and rend you.

This has three corruptive side effects: first, the real victims or real charity cases are ignored. Second, the gratitude that accompanies charity vanishes. Gratitude vanishes. Third, whoever is most shrill, most unreasonable, most outrageous and insatiable in his demands get the most goods, once again, limited only by the pragmatic consideration that if the herd is roused they will turn on their tormentors.

Whenever the linebacker is approaching the goalposts, and you are in danger of having your demands met, and therefore your power curtailed, you move the goalposts.

Thanksgiving, charity, gratitude, is mutually exclusive with insatiable demands that all things be given you by right."

Read more: http://www.everyjoe.com/2014/11/26/politics/unthanksgiving-leftists-hate-thanksgiving/#ixzz3KCSthkJ5

Time Magazine Justifies Rioting

I'm doing this a little backwards here: I don't know who this person is writing this, and I don't care at this point. It's carried by Time Magazine.
Ferguson: In Defense of Rioting

"Because when you have succeeded, it ceases to be a possibility, in our capitalist society, that anyone else helped you. And if no one helped you succeed, then no one is holding anyone else back from succeeding. Except they did help you, and they are holding people back."
This is the standard, official Leftist WHINE, initiated whenever their Victims act out; it's just their justifiable frustration at their constant persecution. And it is false. In no society other than western Leftist societies are people like these given so many unearned perquisites. Yet they maintain, within their subculture, a hatred of those who actually leave their subculture, giving them actual designations of "treason" such as "Uncle Tom", and "Not Black Enough". When Obama came to "rule", he said he would stick it to "the Man", and had to be reminded that HE IS THE MAN. Living on a Leftist Victimhood Reservation requires a brain-warp, one that provides self-entitlement and an accompanying arrogance based purely on the immutable nobility of the victim, and removes personal responsibility (even in the face of a plethora of perquisites) for changing oneself. The culture is self-sustaining, with constant negative feed back. It is stable up to the point where the culture itself is challenged (whites may NOT kill blacks - ever) and then the obvious occurs: stealing from businesses that serve the plantation and then torching them. Why is that obvious? One must possess the warping of the Kept Victim mind to understand. So we cannot. Unless we are Leftist and must justify the keeping of Victimhood plantations and defending them against the Other.
"So that blaming someone else for your failures in the United States may very well be an astute observation of reality, particularly as it comes to white privilege versus black privilege. And, yes, they are different, and they are tied to race, and that doesn’t make me a racist, it makes me a realist. If anything, I am racist because I am white."
And here we have the Leftist view: being white is racist. It is therefore, a civil rights violation to be white. And it is a civil rights capital crime to defend yourself from attack by a member of the designated Victimhood plantation, because, well, because of mind-warp. That's why the protesters chanted, "how do we want him? DEAD!"

Encapsulating the Leftist mind warp: Calling "white privilege" as the cause for rioting is "not racist"; being white is racist. The racism of the Left is perfectly stated by this author, as is the principle of Messiah, Victim and Oppressor Classes, the classist grouping created to sustain the self-anointed moral authority of this author and the Left in general.

The author goes on to compare the burning and looting to the original Tea Party, but fails to make the proper connection: the British King was, in fact, persecuting the colonies, while blacks in the USA have many, many programs to sustain them. The difference is a full reverse, 180 degree phase shift.
"Blacks in this country are more apt to riot because they are one of the populations here who still need to. In the case of the 1992 riots, 30 years of black people trying to talk about their struggles of racial profiling and muted, but still vastly unfair, treatment, came to a boil. "
Trying to talk? Without trying to actually produce responsible members in their own community, talk is cheap. The excuses for self-indulgent, irresponsible, permanent dependency make no sense, unless one is under the hypnotic capture of the three class system.
"And the racism they are fighting, the racism we are all fighting, is still alive and well throughout our nation. The modern racism may not culminate in separate water fountains and separate seating in the backs of buses, but its insidious nature is perhaps even more dangerous to the individuals who have to live under the shroud of stereotypical lies society foists upon them."
The "Evil Other" is hereby defined society itself which conspires to place these people onto race-based plantations? That's the pat answer, the easy generalization, the blanket condemnation which they think cannot be refuted. But it self-falsifies, because the all-inclusive entity called "society" does not conspire with itself to keep these people on the reservation; it is the combination of the Leftist Messiahs who weepingly provide the sustenance for the poor abused Victims who maintain the reservations. It is not society, period.

There is no "stereotypical lie" in play here: their behavior speaks for itself. They are who they are. They will remain that way, regardless of "society".

Tuesday, November 25, 2014

Obama Analyzed at the NYT.

In the NY Times, Russ Douthat analyzes the Imperial Obama. But from the start he asserts a belief in Obama's initial sincerity which was unjustified at the time and even more unjustified now. Obama had two known, primary features at the time of his 2008 elections: first he was a dedicated Leftist community organizer teaching Alinsky's Rules For Radicals to the Chicago victim class; second, all of the other pertinent information about him was concealed, locked down by Leftist sycophants, and is still concealed. His primary qualifications then, were a) he is black; b) he is black. As for Obama having been sincere and openly honest, no one who actually looked objectively and thoroughly at the embryonic Obama phenomenon could actually come to that conclusion.

So based on Douthat's undeserved introductory gift to Obama, none of his subsequent feelings on the subject bear any weight either. It was clear from the onset of Obamaism what the character of the man is. That has not changed, and to call it change is absurd: it was perfectly, obviously inevitable.

Monday, November 24, 2014

More on The Atheist Ten Commandments

From the Washington Post:
“Atheist Mind, Humanist Heart: Rewriting the Ten Commandments for the Twenty-First Century,” a new book by Lex Bayer and John Figdor.
Book Review by Kimberly Winston.

This time the full ten non-commandments are listed in the review, and presuming that they are accurate (it is WaPo after all) we can do the following analysis. Even though they are not advertised as moral commandments, they do presumptively form some sort of argument or framework for an Atheist moral theory. Or else why would they be a rewrite of the original Ten Commandments?


The Ten Non-Commandments:

I. The world is real, and our desire to understand the world is the basis for belief.

There is no reason to assume that "world" in this context refers merely to planet Earth. At a minimum it must refer to the universe, since there is much about the universe and its characteristics that influence some, but certainly not all, of our beliefs. The implication here is two-fold: first, that the term "world" represents all existence; and that the term "real" refers to physical, material. So the implication, not stated, yet blindingly obvious, is that the intent is to claim that "all existence is physical". That this is not stated full-out indicates intellectual treachery at play, and that caution is warranted.

This in no manner is anything other than an unsustainable assertion; it is an assertion being placed as a premise for further arguments.

This assertion ignores science: quantum mechanics to be precise. It further ignores the limits of science, specifically the inability of science to address issues it cannot test such as whether non-physical existence exists. One cannot successfully subject non-material entities to physical, material testing. So the first premise is anti-science and deceptive, plus its very intent is to lock in the unprovable premise of Philosophical Materialism, merely by virtue of an unprovable assertion about "the world".

It is without any empirical proof, it is unfalsifiable and non-empirical; the underlying prejudice of this assertion is false.

II. We can perceive the world only through our human senses.

Having already declared the "world" to be "real", and presuming that it is "real" because we sense that which is "real", yet our senses are finite and limited, then there possibly is "reality" which cannot be sensed. But that is not the meaning of the two things taken together as they are here. If our senses apprehend all of existence, and the "physical, material" is all that we apprehend, then physical, material existence is all of existence. This is the underlying message. But it is not the case that it can be proven, physically, that our senses apprehend "all of existence", even given our technical sense extensions.

This assertion, then, falsely extends the deception of “world” and “real” to “all that exists is that which we sense, period”; it is validation that the meaning of the term "world" is purely physical in this context. There is no philosophical or empirical reason to believe this to be true. It appears to be a purposeful deception designed to reach the objective of Atheism via Philosophical Materialism.

III. We use rational thought and language as tools for understanding the world.
And we - some of us - use them for much more than that. We use them for disciplined logic, and perception of valid and true arguments, discriminating against false, non-valid, ungrounded and untrue arguments, as we will do here in this analysis.

IV. [It is true that]: All truth is proportional to the evidence.
Truth is binary, not proportional; if a proposition is not completely and 100% true and valid, then it is false, period. If there is falseness in any part of an argument, then the argument is false. Arguing otherwise is anti-rational and violates the First Principle of Excluded Middle: either it completely true or it is false - it is not proportional to anything. This assertion is a purposeful, ideological redefinition which is anti-logic.

Second, this statement self-refutes because it is asserted without any evidence, physical or otherwise, that it is true. Again, it is a redefinition, a corrupted attempt at tautology, but one which fails its own criterion.

Further, without defining the term, evidence, it is being covertly presupposed here that “evidence” is purely physical in nature. This leads to the overt refutation of the above premises since there is no possible physical proof or evidence which demonstrates objectively (empirically) that there is no existence which is not physical. All of this is obscured in the language being used which is concealing the actual meanings being projected. The use of the term “world” is euphemistic for universal-existence in one case and physical-existence-only in another case. It is arguable whether the deception is purposeful, or is self-administered. But it is deception.

V. There is no God.
Immediately after claiming truth to be proportional to evidence, this assertion is made with precisely no evidence, certainly no empirical, physical evidence to support it. This amazing juxtapositioning of two contradictory assertions is a perfect demonstration of the lack of logical principles – no, the abject violation of basic logical principles – which are being asserted here.

To make certain that this is clear, let’s take the two propositions, side by side.
First: [It is true that]: truth is proportional to [physical] evidence.

Second: [It is true that]: “There is no God”. [Affirming evidence not required. Physical evidence of non-existence is itself non-existant, by definition]
.
So: if the first is “true”, then the second cannot be “true”. They are contradictory statements, i.e. non-coherent.

Contrarily, if one says,
First: [It is true that]: "There is no God." [Affirming evidence not required];

Second: [It is true that]: "Truth is proportional to [physical] evidence."
If the first is true then the second cannot be "true". They still are contradictory, non-coherent statements.

Here’s what is actually true: the First Principle of Non-Contradiction.

VI. We all strive to live a happy life. We pursue things that make us happy and avoid things that do not.
Anyone who is responsible knows that this is a misconstrual of actual life. Much of life involves doing things one would rather avoid but cannot due to responsibilities. This is maximally absurd, and further it has no bearing on anything prior to this assertion or after this assertion, so it has no value as a premise as well as being absurd. Finally, it is just the “Do as thou wilt” proclamation of Satanism.

VII. There is no universal moral truth. Our experiences and preferences shape our sense of how to behave.
Certainly Atheists want this to be true, because if there actually IS universal, objective moral truth then the whole point of being a hedonist Atheist is severely cramped.

But more to the point, it is absolutely the case that Atheists make up their own codes of behavior based solely on their own preferences. That has no conjunction with actual moral behavior. It is the behavior code of the common two year old child, yet to respond to discipline, much less develop self-disipline. That is self-centered, self-serving and selfishness which becomes the “moral code” of the individual Atheist.

And yet again, if [It is universally true that]: there is no universal moral truth, then IV above comes into play to contradict this assertion due to lack of affirming physical evidence. Non-coherence.

VIII. We act morally when the happiness of others makes us happy.
Here is the second AMAZING JUXTAPOSITION of contradictory assertions. The immediately preceding assertion declares: NO morality. This assertion declares: Morality IS THIS.

Logic is obviously the first victim in this set of unconnected and false assertions/premises/arguments.

IX. We benefit from living in, and supporting, an ethical society.
This is a failed observation due to prior assertions, since it contradicts VI and VII above: there is no universal ETHICAL truth. Atheists develop their own personal “preference” as how to behave, so ethics does not fit into the equation. Atheists benefit from behaving as their preferences dictate; i.e., whatever they want to do, whenever they want to do it. That is the specific assertion of VII, above.

Now if the claim is that the Atheist benefits from living in a non-Atheist, ethical society, then this might make sense; but that is not the intent.

X. All our beliefs are subject to change in the face of new evidence, including these.
None of this is actually evidence based, so the undeniable fact that Atheists can (and do) change their “moral beliefs” on a moment’s notice is not caused by “new evidence”, it is caused by changes in preferences in any given situation. (See VII). This final assertion is completely unremarkable, considering that it is a restatement of previous claims, except with a meaningless reference to "evidence" thrown in for mere appearance.

The logic failures which pervade this ten point non-argument are blatantly egregious to the point of adolescent thought processes.

This is nothing more than a set of logically disconnected platitudes based on zero physical evidence and zero responsibility to anything other than self.

Madelyn Murray O'Hair: Life and Legacy

This comes around every so often; I've lost the earlier posting, so here it is again. O'Hair, like Nietzsche, took Atheism to its logical conclusion which is principle-free behavior to match principle-free beliefs. Her story, at least the details if not the essence, goes far beyond this.
Son calls famous atheist Madalyn O’Hair “evil”

"(Statement of William J. Murray first released in 1999)

My mother, brother and daughter were murdered by fellow atheists.

There is no getting around the evidence. For almost three years the national atheist organization my mother once led has claimed she left the country with a large amount of money. This was false and I will tell you in this letter why they told this lie over and over again.

First, I want to talk to you about spiritual matters that the general media does not understand.

My mother was not just Madalyn Murray O’Hair, the atheist leader. She was an evil person who led many to hell. That is hard for me to say about my own mother but it is true.
My Life Without God

In this autobiographical work William Murray exposes the bizarre dysfunctional family life that led to the removal of prayer and Bible reading from America’s schools including his mother’s attempted defection to the Soviet Union in 1960.

When I was a young boy of ten or eleven years old she would come home and brag about spending the day in X-rated movie theaters in downtown Baltimore. She was proud of the fact she was the only woman in the movie house watching this filth. My mother’s whole life circulated around such things. She even wrote articles for Larry Flynt’s pornographic magazine, Hustler. My mother lived in spiritual death as Paul writes: “But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth.” I Timothy 5:6

My mother delighted in hiring unrepentant criminals to work in her atheist office. She particularly enjoyed hiring convicted murderers who had served their time but were unrepentant about what they had done. She got a sense of power out of having men in her employ who had taken human life. It was love of power over people that finally caused not only her death, but the deaths of my brother and my daughter.

My mother had complete power over my brother, Jon, and my daughter, Robin. Although I was able to break away from the evil of this family, an evil that had been there for generations, they could not. My mother did not permit either my brother or my daughter to speak to me. She had total control of them.

My brother would have been forty years old the month he was murdered. He lived with my mother. He had breakfast with my mother. He went to work with my mother. He had lunch with my mother. He had dinner with my mother. He went on vacation with my mother. He never married. He never really even had the opportunity to have a serious relationship with a woman because Of the control my mother possessed over him. My mother had the same control over my daughter. She was just thirty the year she was murdered. She also lived with my mother. My mother used food to control her and make her unattractive to men. By the time she was murdered she was so heavy she had to purchase two airline tickets because she could not fit in one seat.

For twenty years I could not talk to my brother. He would hang up the phone on me or tear up my letters and send them back. The same was true of my daughter. They both called me “TRAITOR” because I had accepted Christ and changed my life. By “traitor” they meant that I no longer followed the absolute direction of my mother as they did.

The house they lived in had statuettes of mating animals on virtually every piece of furniture. There was a full cabinet of booze and a refrigerator full of foods high in fat and sugar. They liked to live a life which my mother called “high off the hog”.

I must admit that toward the end I had lost hope for my mother’s conversion. The last ten years of her life she became even more profane and vulgar as the demons she courted got their final hold on her. The media stopped courting her because of the number of profane words she would use which they had to edit out.

My hopes and my prayers remained for my brother and my daughter. I honestly believed that nature would take its course and that my mother would die naturally, leaving them behind. In my heart I believed that without her constant evil influence they would start to move toward the light of God. I had even written letters to Jon and Robin that I had planned on sending them when my mother died. Those letters will never be mailed, nor will they be read, because they died with her.

My mother was an evil person … Not for removing prayer from America’s schools … No … She was just evil. She stole huge amounts of money. She misused the trust of people. She cheated children out of their parents’ inheritance. She cheated on her taxes and even stole from her own organizations. She once printed up phony stock certificates on her own printing press to try to take over another atheist publishing company. I could go on but I won’t. All the money my mother made in this manner stayed behind. It did not go with her. “For we brought nothing into this world and it is certain we can carry nothing out.” I Timothy 6:7

My mother simply believed, “Do what thou wilt shall be the only law.”

Regardless of how evil and lawless my mother was she did not deserve to die in the manner she did.

Yes, I understand that the circumstances were of her own making. She hired convicted murderers to work for her. She put one of those murders in charge of her office and he stole more than $54,000 from her. That same murderer is now suspected of killing her and Jon and Robin. He is also suspected of murdering and decapitating one of the men he recruited to kidnap my family.

Still, she was 77 years old when she was kidnapped. She and my daughter were held for almost 30 days, probably tied and gagged, while my brother desperately tried to obtain ransom money. At all times my brother was escorted by one of the kidnappers. Should he have run? Should he have tried to get help? I would have.

But, my brother was a total slave to my mother. He saw himself as her provider and rescuer. All his life she had talked down to him and made fun of him and now, in his mind, he would show her his worth by single-handedly rescuing her. He was murdered for his faithfulness.

Both my brother and daughter believed in my mother’s “importance” because she declared it constantly. Many times a day my mother would declare, “I am Madalyn Murray O’Hair.” She honestly believed she had singled handedly removed prayer from school. She honestly believed she had “liberated” America sexually.

In reality my mother did not create the times, the times created her. She was what America was about in the sixties and seventies. There were several cases going to the Supreme Court to remove prayer. Her case just got there first. The left-wing Court of the day wanted prayer out of the schools and to allow abortion on demand. They virtually were advertising for cases to change America. But my mother saw the secular and sexual turn in America as centered around her.

I can see her now looking down the barrel of a gun and saying, “You don’t dare shoot me, I AM MADALYN MURRAY O’HAIR.” Of course, the killers did not care who she was just as most Americans didn’t care. To the majority of Americans and to the media she was just another celebrity fruit cake, sort of the Hulk Hogan of atheism.

The media asked me if I would hold a funeral and if so would there he prayer. My answer was simple but Biblical and sort of surprised them I am sure. I said, “They are already either in heaven of hell, praying over them now will not make a difference.”

I made that statement knowing the torture they must have gone through the last thirty days of their lives. Did Robin pray to receive Christ as she was bound and gagged? Perhaps. Did my mother or brother cry out to the Lord just before they were murdered? I don’t know.

Christ is there for the vilest offender. The serial killer whose prayer at the hour of his death is genuine is also forgiven. My mother, my brother and my daughter may well await me in heaven. On the other hand, they may have stood their ground defying God to the end, in which case they are now spending yet another day of eternity in hell. If that is the case I will never see them again.

The deaths of my mother, brother and daughter should make all too clear the need for Christ to others that proclaim atheism. But those who would follow my mother continue to fight against God and His authority. “Fools make a mock at sin… ” Prov. 14:8

During Easter, what is left of my mother’s American Atheist organization held a convention in New Jersey. My ministry placed an advertisement in the newspaper there to tell them about Jesus. The new atheist leader, Ellen Johnson, ranted and raved against me, against Christ and against the Holy Spirit.

Johnson told the media that the whole idea of my mother being murdered was a fabrication. She told the newspapers that I had “manufactured” the story using my connections to Congress to trick the FBI into getting involved. Why does this woman protest so much? Why does she not even shed a tear for her departed leader?

The FBI is involved because one of the individuals has confessed. How many others he will point his finger at I don’t know. But I do understand the “wisdom” of Ellen Johnson. Her “wisdom” is found in Psalm 14:1 “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.”

Please continue to pray for this ministry and for my family. This is a difficult time. The news media calls day and night about my mother. The FBI even offered to provide a counselor for my wife Nancy and me. I said no thank you, I told the agent my family already has a counselor – the Great Counselor, Jesus Christ.

(This statement was written by William Murray in May of 1999. The dismembered bodies of Madalyn Murray O’Hair, Jon Murray and Robin Murray were found in January of 2000 near Camp Wood, Texas. One of the killers, David Waters, led the authorities to the site in return for a guarantee he would serve his time in a Federal rather than in a Texas state prison. He died in prison of liver disease in 2003. A second killer was sentenced to life in prison.)"

And Now For.... Atheist Jihadis

France: jihadists mostly from middle class atheist families

"The average would-be French jihadist is between 15 and 21 and is from a middle class, atheist family, reports the Centre de Prévention contre les Dérives Sectaires Liées à l'Islam (CPDSI). This is the typical profile of youths leaving to fight with Islamist groups in Syria and Iraq and contrasts greatly with the most widespread stereotypes. The survey was conducted on over 160 families. Researcher, anthropologist and CPDSI founder Dounia Bouzar said that the youths were ''ordinary'' and that 67% of them are from the middle class. Only 16% are from the working class and 17% from wealthy families. A tiny 5% of them have committed any sort of petty crime.

Most are ''hyper-sensitive'' individuals that have suffered lengthy bouts of depression and ''question the meaning of life''. Would-be jihadists who convert to radical Islam do not grow up in practicing Muslim families: some 80% of them are from families that consider themselves ''atheists'', and only 10% have immigrant parents. Most (91%) of recruitment is online or through social media networks. (ANSAmed)."
One way to get over hypersensitivity and depression is to get the ol' blood up with a few beheadings. That gives meaning to life, fer sher.

Iraq's WMD Stash

New York Times: There were WMDs in Iraq - 4,996 chemical warheads were discovered and destroyed during the Iraq war.
"The United States recovered thousands of old chemical weapons in Iraq from 2004 to 2009 and destroyed almost all of them in secret and via open-air detonation, according to a written summary of its activities prepared by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, the international body that monitors implementation of the global chemical weapons treaty.

The 30-page summary, prepared after quietly held meetings between the organization’s technical staff and American officials in Washington in 2009, was provided to The New York Times by the Pentagon on Friday.

It included a table disclosing limited details on 95 separate recoveries and destructions of chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, for a total of 4,530 munitions from May 2004 through February 2009 — a period of often intense fighting in Iraq.

The United States later recovered more Iraqi chemical weapons, pushing its tally to 4,996 by early 2011, according to redacted intelligence documents obtained by The Times via the Freedom of Information Act.

The weapons destroyed through early 2009, the newly released report said, included some that contained chemical agents, others that were corroded and degraded, and some that appeared to have been previously demilitarized but that the United States destroyed “to err on the side of safety and security.”

Its authors noted that none of the weapons had been recently manufactured. All were legacy items from Iraq’s chemical weapons program in the 1980s and early 1990s. That program had been rushed into production during the Iran-Iraq War and then destroyed in the 1991 Gulf War and the period of United Nations inspections that followed.

“All munitions found were left over from pre-1991 Iraqi program,” the report said."

Sunday, November 23, 2014

The Problem of Evil, Revisited



1. Evil exists.

2. Therefore, God doesn't exist.

3. And, given no God:

4. Therefore evil doesn't exist.

5. Assertion 1 contradicts conclusion 4.

6. Therefore contradictions do not exist.

7. Therefore Truth does not exist.

8. Therefore Atheism is True.

9. Therefore God is Evil.

10. Because Atheists say so.

How Evolution Devolves Into Metaphysical Hypotheses Resembling Occult Belief Systems, But Based on Scientism.

Why is it difficult to find an Atheist who does not believe in Evolution?
"G K Chesterton is often credited with observing: "When a man ceases to believe in God, he doesn't believe in nothing. He believes in anything." Whoever said it, he was right. We are supposed to live in a sceptical age. In fact, we live in an age of outrageous credulity.

The 'death of God', or at least the dying of the Christian God, has been accompanied by the birth of a plethora of new idols. The pianist Arthur Rubinstein was once asked if he believed in God. He said: "No. I don't believe in God. I believe in something greater." Our culture suffers from the same inflationary tendency. The existing religions just aren't big enough: we demand something more from God than the existing depictions in the Christian faith can provide. So we revert to the occult. The so-called occult sciences do not ever reveal any genuine secret: they only promise that there is something secret that explains and justifies everything. The great advantage of this is that it allows each person to fill up the empty secret 'container' with his or her own fears and hopes. "

Umberto Eco; God isn’t big enough for some people. [Emphasis added]
The relationship between the occult promises and the promises of evolution seem to be precise. Evolution provides promises with exactly no hope of ever being proven, physically, experimentally despite being called "science". Evolution is not objective knowledge, it is merely empty promises of a "truth" which it cannot, in fact, produce. The belief in evolution is indiscernible from belief in other occult promises, except that evolution is falsely couched as "scientific", when it clearly is not in the least empirical.

Let's take some examples. Under the new "Extended Synthesis" much attention is given to "emergence". It is proposed (not proven) that in the Cambrian explosion (when all the phyla suddenly appeared, preceded only by single cells and sponges), that rapid emergence of complexity could occur, physically. This is justified by Chaos Theory and Mandelbrot plots, and by the Butterfly Theory. But the rapid rise in animal complexity had to have been based on a preceding massive increase in semantic information which was used to create all these different phyla and all their new features. Semantic information - containing meaning which is not arbitrary - is non-compressible and cannot be reduced to a simple algorithm like that used in Chaos Theory. There is nothing about Chaos theory which justifies the concept of increased semantic information in the Cambrian explosion, nor its existence in the first place . In fact, that is never discussed, because there is no possible way to deduce either its initial occurrence, nor its spectacular change into actual, functional living complexities of wide variety. So the connection being attempted between the complexity of life and the algorithmic generators is not a physical "theory", it is an incorrect metaphysical inference promising an unattainable truth: it is metaphysical-only and it is an occult belief based in the required fantasies of Scientism and Philosophical Materialism.

The entire goal of empirical science is to generate objective knowledge. This is done by creating a cause/effect demonstration (experiment) which always produces a given output for a given input, a given effect for a given cause. Evolution cannot and will not ever do that, purely due to physical constraint of not being able to observe it as it happened in the fossil record. Even worse, evolution is not falsifiable since every outcome or no outcome at all, are all predicted, albeit without generative mechanisms.

So true believers rely on story telling instead, stories that they come to believe intensely, no differently than religious believers believe. Every hypothesis, no matter how bizarre or logically impossible, is now called a "theory" regardless of the inability to provide empirical proof for it. The term, "theory" has been perverted from its original meaning in empirical, Enlightenment, experimental science, where it referred to the explanation of phenomena by means of objective knowledge.
"For the core problem is not that of producing the kind of order that is to be seen in a crystal, honeycomb, or even a Belousov-Zhabotinski reaction. It is that of producing the qualitatively different, language-type of structures formed by the complex ordering of the amino acids that form a protein."
John C. Lennox; God's Undertaker, p132.
And this:

"Life is actually not an example of self-organization. life is in fact specified, i.e. genetically directed, organization. Living things are instructed by the genetic software encoded in their DNA (or RNA). Convection cells form spontaneously by self-organization. There is no gene for a convection cell. The source of order is not encoded in software, in can instead be traced to the boundary conditions of the fluid. In other words, a convection cell's order is imposed externally, from the systems' environment. By contrast, the order of a living cell derives from internal control... The theory of self-organization as yet gives no clue how the transition is to be made between spontaneous,of self-induced organization - which in even the most elaborate non-biological examples still involves relatively simple structures - and the highly complex, information-based, genetic organization of living things"

Paul Davies; "Darwinian or 'Oriented Evolution'?", Evolution,29 June 1975, 376-8."[Emphasis in original]

From Niels Bohr:
"The recognition of the essential importance of fundamentally atomistic features in the function of living organisms is by no means sufficient, however, fora comprehensive explanation of biological phenomena, before we can reach an understanding of life on the basis of physical experience. Thus, we should doubtless kill an animal if we tried to carry on the investigation of of its organs so far that we could describe the role played by single atoms initial functions. In every experiment on living organisms, there must remain an uncertainty as regards the physical conditions to which they are subjected, and the idea suggests itself that the minimal freedom we must allot the organism in this respect is just large enough to permit it,so to say, to hide its ultimate secrets from us."
[Emphasis added]
I.e., there can never be "objective knowledge" regarding the essence of life in living biological entities.

From Ernst Mayr:
"One of the properties of the genetic program is that it can supervise its own precise replication and that of other living systems such as organelles, cells and whole organisms. There is nothing exactly equivalent in inorganic nature."
And from Hubert P. Yockey:
"The belief of mechanist-reductionists that the chemical processes in living matter do not differ in principle from those in dead matter is incorrect. There is no trace of messages determining the results of chemical reactions in inanimate matter."
That life is DNA based is not in question. That DNA is digital code, and that the code has genetic meaning (semantic, incompressible, non-algorithmic) is not in question. That the information content in DNA is semantic and not syntactic (i.e. it is not generated by a simple algorithm) is not in question. That a living organism contains many codes, cogent receiving and transmitting agents which use communication channels to transfer meaningful information resulting in actions by those or other agents, is not in question.

And thus the idea of deterministic, mechanistic reductions to physical cause can be deduced for life in living things is logically absurd.

That in turn leads one to observe that, since evolution cannot account for either the existence of such massive semantic information, nor for its rapid development into all the different complexities represented suddenly in the Cambrian era, evolution consists of a failed set of metaphysical hypotheses to which one must commit blind assent in order to "believe" in them.



In China, Communism Depends On Atheism

Without Atheism, Communism collapses:
China’s Communist Party Reaffirms Marxism, Maoism, Atheism

" This prohibition against religion has been a “consistently upheld principle” since Mao Zedong, the founder of the People’s Republic of China, declared Zhou. “It’s impossible to have another choice besides the dialectical materialist worldview.”

Zhou warned that if CPC members were allowed to have beliefs in various religions, the Party “would become a loosely bound group that can be broken down due to individual gain.” Consequently, he wrote, members must have “a united worldview.”

Zhou noted: "Without the foundation of the worldview, the mansion of the Party's ideologies, theories and organizations will all collapse. We could no longer be called the 'Chinese Communist Party.'"

Faced with rampant corruption by top Communist Party officials and billionaire princelings who run many of China’s largest corporations, CPC leaders have been investigating and prosecuting some high-profile offenders and making examples of them (see here and here).

Some Communist Party critics have suggested that the spiritual values imparted by religion might help reduce the immorality and corruption that is now so widespread amongst the CPC leadership. Zhou avoided directly confronting the issue of rampant corruption among the CPC’s officials, but declared that “blaming atheism for moral decline is an old absurdity.”

“Whether the general moral level of Chinese improved or declined since the reform and opening up needs to be specifically analyzed,” he said, referring to the policies initiated by paramount leader Deng Xiaoping in 1978 that introduced elements of a “socialist market system.”

As we have reported recently, Chinese authorities have been accelerating their attacks on religious believers, imprisoning Christian leaders and demolishing churches, even though China’s top leaders continue to insist that the Communist regime allows complete religious freedom."
[emphasis added]
Note the rationalizations and lies which are necessary to maintain Atheism as the lynchpin supporting the deadly Leftist totalitarianism.

Hm. I Expected At Least a "Not Black Enough" Attack

The silence of the colored people

"VOTERS on Election Day chose Tim Scott as South Carolina’s U.S. senator. They also sent Utah’s Mia Love and Texas’ Will Hurd to the U.S. House of Representatives. Thus, the 114th Congress will include three black Republicans. This is a new high-water mark for black Americans.

Too bad the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People couldn’t care less. (America’s oldest civil-rights organization still plasters that retrograde expression all over its logo and website.)

NAACP has yet to congratulate, acknowledge, or even attack Scott, Love, and Hurd — now America’s three most powerful elected black Republicans. What you hear is the silence of the Colored People. Despite 10 separate requests for comment on this “advancement of colored people,” I could not squeeze a consonant out of NAACP’s Baltimore headquarters, its Washington, D.C. office, or even its Hollywood bureau."
The NAACP has always been a Victimhood Group. When blacks go off the Victimhood Reservation, they become dead to the remaining Victims. Usually, however, they are soundly vilified before being declared dead.