Tuesday, March 28, 2017

Confused religion

  •  The next week the new priest put some vodka in his water and really kicked up a storm. After mass, he asked the monsignor how he had done this time. “Fine” he answered : but there are a few things you should get straight
  •  :- no 1 There are 10 commandments , not 12 . 
  • no2 There are 12 disciples not 10. 
  • no3 David slew Goliath, he didn’t kick shit out of him .
  •  no4 We don’t refer to Jesus Christ as the late J.C.
  •  no5 Next Saturday there will be a taffy pulling contest at St Peters, not a Peter pulling contest at St Taffy’s
  •  no6 The Father, son and Holy Ghost are not big daddy , junior and the spook.
  •  No7 Moses parted the water at the red sea, He didn’t pass water . 
  • no8 We do not refer to Judas as el finko. 
  • No9 The pope is consecrated ,not castrated and we do not refer to Him as the godfather .”

Thursday, March 23, 2017

not a race but ideology

Muslims are not a race.
They are upholders of a diabolic fascist supremacist imperial cultist religion.

Islam should be condemned and though unfortunate that condemnation will shower over the believers, whether radicals, fundamentalists, so called moderates, or in name only, and any enablers.

It will  be up to the believer, to learn more about islam and remain; or become an apostate.

Saturday, March 18, 2017

Social Justice Syndrome: ‘Rising Tide of Personality Disorders Among Millennials’

Social Justice Syndrome: ‘Rising Tide of Personality Disorders Among Millennials’

It does seem to explain some of the problems of 18-30 year olds that I have come across. 
Fortunately not all are like this, but there can still be a residue from high school or university,  but they can figure things in the wider world.
It can be a shock for some though, as everything is done on "feelings" transposed into their thoughts,  so it is with great difficulty for them to step back and then to accept the simple facts with no feelings. Then to be able to come up with what their next step should be.

If you were to come across someone who cried in the streets, who saw the world in terms of black and white and made death threats against strangers, who cowered in a special room and made public displays of naked self-harm and blood letting, you might conclude that they were suffering from a personality disorder.
All these symptoms can be found in the High Conflict Personality Disorder category known as Axis II in DSMV, including Anti-Social PD, Histrionic PD, Paranoid PD, Narcissistic PD, and Borderline PD.
Alternatively, you might reason that these are the everyday behaviors of the modern Social Justice Warrior (SJW).
Of course, not every SJW has a personality condition, but sufferers from High Conflict disorders are often drawn to extreme beliefs and behaviors under the illusion that they are acting politically.

A 2016 UK survey found that, since 1990, rates of depression and anxiety among the young have increased by 70%, while the American Counseling Association has reported a “rising tide of personality disorders among millennials.”
That such disorders appear to be an acute problem with this generation may be an unintended outcome of the unprecedented experiment conducted in the 1990s and 2000s by progressive parents.
Persecution Complex and the "Safe Space"
In 2014, a survey of 100,000 college students at 53 U.S. campuses by the American College Health Association found that 84% of U.S. students feel unable to cope, while more than half experience overwhelming anxiety.
A byproduct of such fear has been the growth of the “safe space,” a safe-haven for minority groups and distressed students from what they perceive as threats within campus life. Safe spaces contain comforting objects that evoke childhood -- bean bags, soothing music, Play-Doh, coloring books. The spaces often forbid entry to straight white men or political opponents.

The idea of “running to the safe space” is a form of psychological regression. The safe space presents a fantasy barrier against imagined exterior evils, and so encourages persecution paranoia and hyper-fragility. These are all symptoms of histrionic, borderline, and paranoid personality disorders that emerge from problems with the early child-parent bond.
The majority of millennial children (now aged 18-34) had two working parents; this was partly an ideological project of feminism and partly economic necessity. The downside was the damage done by daycare, services for which grew by 250% between the 1970s and ;90s (see Laura Perrins’ work on psychological trauma caused by daycare). According to Bowlby’s Maternal Deprivation Thesis, babies require two years of intimate attention to enable them to form the caregiver-child bond essential for secure ego formation. Any disturbance of this process will “predispose the children to respond in an anti-social way to later stresses.”
The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development has found:
Children in full-time day care were close to three times more likely to show behavior problems than those cared for by their mothers at home.
The more time in child care of any kind or quality, the more aggressive the child.
The result is young people who, a decade and a half after daycare, scream at the parent/State for not protecting them sufficiently. It is no coincidence that “safe spaces” resemble daycare centers.
Unfortunately, “safe spaces” enforce the distressed person’s fear of the world, trapping them in their original trauma within a psychological frame of permanent and inescapable victimhood.
“Trigger Warnings” and “Helicopter Parents”
For the SJW, everyday speech contains a multitude of “microaggressions,” or subconscious power dynamics which conceal colonial or patriarchal oppression. Failing to use the words prescribed by SJW activists -- most particularly in the case of “trans-people” -- is seen as an act of violence equivalent to physical assault. See, for example, a statement made by a protester at UC Berkeley in January 2017 at a protest event that turned into a violent riot:
Your free speech is raping and killing us.
People with High Conflict Personality disorders experience similarly paranoid emotions about hidden messages, omnipotent threats, and imminent violence. They are hyper-alert and live with higher than normal levels of cortisol and adrenalin, which in turn causes lasting neurological damage, affecting their ability to reason and to regulate emotion. They panic easily and regress to infantile distress.
Faced with histrionic students, university staff end up behaving like “Helicopter Parents”: those largely absent, full-time working parents who overcompensated by flying in to fuss over their child. Attempting to assuage parental guilt, one of the tools they used was “positive parenting” -- a philosophy created by social Progressives.
Parents were taught to not scold or punish, and instead to use “positive reinforcement” in an attempt to raise their children with “high self-esteem.” This ideology also became fashionable within an increasingly progressive school system that awarded children prizes for “non-competitive sports” and for merely taking part in school activities.
As they passed from day care to through high school, these children with artificially enforced high self-esteem were also told that they were morally superior to generations that came before. They were inducted into politically correct language and were even taught to lecture their own parents on racism, equality, and ecology. From the ages of six to eighteen, they took part in yearly multiculturalist “save the planet” projects. They were told they had a heroic destiny as “agents of change.”
A false picture of the world and a vastly inflated sense of self-importance did not compensate for the foundational trauma of parental neglect. Instead, as Dr. Jean Twenge has explained, Positive Parenting created young people with a “narcissistic wound” for whom the real world would be perceived as a threat to self-worth.
Border Violation and Self-Harm
The Positive Parenting movement expounded the beliefs that “there is no boundary between you and your child” and that “you are friends and equals.” For the child growing up without “paternalistic laws” and boundaries, the only way to find limits was to attack the only boundary it knew: its own bodily boundaries.
In this light it is worth exploring why the Fourth Wave feminist/social justice activist group known as “Femen” should mimic the outward signs of the BPD sufferer. Their trademark form of protest is public toplessness, with slogans written over the belly and breasts in fake or real blood. One classic Femen image is of an almost-naked woman holding a protest sign that reads: “Rape Me. I’m a Slut.” The intention may have been to demonstrate that no matter how sexually a woman dresses she is still not “asking for it.” But public nudity as a protest against sexual violation is a contradictory signal -- and sending out conflicted messages around dangerous sexual subjects is a symptom of BPD and NPD.
The Femen protester may subconsciously be saying, “show me boundaries and control, show me authority and concern.” She might be displaying the pain of living within a self-in-contradiction.
Contradiction and Splitting
SJW protests are awash with contradictions. SJWs claim to fight for freedom, but are opposed to freedom of speech, support banning videos and books, and support the violent disruption of public talks, as was seen with the riots at UC Berkeley, Middlebury College, and elsewhere.
SJWs believe in a world with “no boundaries” where “everyone is equal” -- free immigration, open access to healthcare and education, etc. -- but at the same time are obsessed with creating segregated spaces.
While they protest against the “fascist patriarchal state” they are, at the same time, fundamentally Statist, demanding that the government police language for them and punish their enemies. While SJWs claim to fight for human rights, they parade the symbol of the largest genocides in history -- the Communist flag. They are pro-feminist, and at the same time defend Sharia law.
Living-in-contradiction is similar to the “Love me -- I hate you” dynamic in Borderline pathology called “Splitting.” In splitting, everything is “all or nothing,” and the thing that was passionately idealized suddenly becomes an object of hatred. Traitors are everywhere. This was exemplified by the expulsion of gay men and “TERFS” -- “Trans exclusionary radical feminists” -- from LGBT+ groups by Intersectional feminists.
Along with splitting comes the symptoms of low-impulse control, histrionics, dysphoria, a pervasive sense of emptiness, suicidal ideation, and self-harming.
Symbolic demonstrations of self-harming behaviors are widely used in SJW protests. Along with smearing faces with fake blood to signify female oppression, a protest group called Lesbians and Gays Support the Migrants in the UK in 2015 took razors to their arms in public to “spill rivers of blood.”
With an attempted self-immolation and a reported “contagion” of suicide threats occurring during the Trump protests, thousands attempted to use politics as an alibi for a deeper inner compulsion to self-harm.
The Results of the Human Experiment
Trapped among infant neglect, artificially elevated self-esteem, and identity dysphoria, the millennials were set up for a fall.
When they were pushed out of their parental homes in the 2010s, they discovered they did not have the tools to construct stable selves. They couldn’t blame their parents or teachers. Instead they searched for a vast, abstract, all-encompassing enemy. In identity politics they found a temporary unity, through hatred of Patriarchy, of Capitalism, of White Men.
In President Trump they found their savior.
In the stages before psychosis, sufferers from High Conflict Personality disorders fixate on one object of hate. Subconsciously, they need this super-enemy so they can feel whole. This is the tragic truth of the identity politics of the SJW. Without a totalizing object of blame, the personality of the warrior for social justice falls apart.
While the SJWs idealize themselves as victims of omnipresent evil, they are in fact the victims of well-meaning liberal parents and progressive teachers who subjected them to an experiment in social engineering. They were the guinea pigs of the progressive project. 

Older generations of radicals then exploited their volatility and rage for political ends.

What the Social Justice Warriors are actually asking for, when they scream at us, is our help.
Poverty doesent breed terrorism or crime, cultures and communities do.

emotional risk” level for guest speaker events that they wish to host on campus. The options on the university’s online portal, Gatorhub, include “Sensitive Subject Matter,” “Reaction of Participants,” and “Potential Controversy.”

Wednesday, March 15, 2017

Is there a qualification to be leftist?

Weekend Must-Read: Ten Reasons Why I Am No Longer a Leftist

[It seems a bit over the top, and all over the place, though I have meet people that show some of that vehemence of how they support some of these things.
Perhaps some of the difference is that right wingers, say they "do not give a stuff" and just get on with "work and life".
Only very few get as hung up as this writer did to that level, though he did enjoy and retain parts of where he did enjoy.
After all life is to be lived.]

How far left was I? So far left my beloved uncle was a card-carrying member of the Communist Party in a Communist country. When I returned to his Slovak village to buy him a mass card, the priest refused to sell me one. So far left that a self-identified terrorist proposed marriage to me. So far left I was a two-time Peace Corps volunteer and I have a degree from UC Berkeley. So far left that my Teamster mother used to tell anyone who would listen that she voted for Gus Hall, Communist Party chairman, for president. I wore a button saying "Eat the Rich." To me it wasn't a metaphor.
I voted Republican in the last presidential election.
Below are the top ten reasons I am no longer a leftist. This is not a rigorous comparison of theories. This list is idiosyncratic, impressionistic, and intuitive. It's an accounting of the milestones on my herky-jerky journey.

10) Huffiness.
In the late 1990s I was reading Anatomy of the Spirit, a then recent bestseller by Caroline Myss.
Myss described having lunch with a woman named Mary. A man approached Mary and asked her if she were free to do a favor for him on June 8th. No, Mary replied, I absolutely cannot do anything on June 8th because June 8th is my incest survivors' meeting and we never let each other down! They have suffered so much already! I would never betray incest survivors!   [virtue signal]
Myss was flabbergasted. Mary could have simply said "Yes" or "No."
Reading this anecdote, I felt that I was confronting the signature essence of my social life among leftists. We rushed to cast everyone in one of three roles: victim, victimizer, or champion of the oppressed. We lived our lives in a constant state of outraged indignation. I did not want to live that way anymore. I wanted to cultivate a disposition of gratitude. I wanted to see others, not as victims or victimizers, but as potential friends, as loved creations of God. I wanted to understand the point of view of people with whom I disagreed without immediately demonizing them as enemy oppressors.
I recently attended a training session for professors on a college campus. The presenter was a new hire in a tenure-track position. He opened his talk by telling us that he had received an invitation to share a festive meal with the president of the university. I found this to be an enviable occurrence and I did not understand why he appeared dramatically aggrieved. The invitation had been addressed to "Mr. and Mrs. X." Professor X was a bachelor. He felt slighted. Perhaps the person who had addressed his envelope had disrespected him because he is a member of a minority group.
Rolling his eyes, Prof. X went on to say that he was wary of accepting a position on this lowly commuter campus, with its working-class student body. The disconnect between leftists' announced value of championing the poor and the leftist practice of expressing snobbery for them stung me. Already vulnerable students would be taught by a professor who regarded association with them as a burden, a failure, and a stigma.
Barack Obama is president. Kim and Kanye and Brad and Angelina are members of multiracial households. One might think that professors finally have cause to teach their students to be proud of America for overcoming racism. Not so fast, Professor X warned.  His talk was on microaggression, defined as slights that prove that America is still racist, sexist, homophobic, and ableist, that is, discriminatory against handicapped people.
Professor X projected a series of photographs onto a large screen. In one, commuters in business suits, carrying briefcases, mounted a flight of stairs. This photo was an act of microaggression. After all, Professor X reminded us, handicapped people can't climb stairs.
I appreciate Professor X's desire to champion the downtrodden, but identifying a photograph of commuters on stairs as an act of microaggression and evidence that America is still an oppressive hegemon struck me as someone going out of his way to live his life in a state of high dudgeon. On the other hand, Prof. X could have chosen to speak of his own working-class students with more respect.
Yes, there is a time and a place when it is absolutely necessary for a person to cultivate awareness of his own pain, or of others' pain. Doctors instruct patients to do this -- "Locate the pain exactly; calculate where the pain falls on a scale of one to ten; assess whether the pain is sharp, dull, fleeting, or constant." But doctors do this for a reason. They want the patient to heal, and to move beyond the pain. In the left, I found a desire to be in pain constantly, so as always to have something to protest, from one's history of incest to the inability of handicapped people to mount flights of stairs.
9) Selective Outrage
I was a graduate student. Female genital mutilation came up in class. I stated, without ornamentation, that it is wrong.
A fellow graduate student, one who was fully funded and is now a comfortably tenured professor, sneered at me. "You are so intolerant. Clitoredectomy is just another culture's rite of passage. You Catholics have confirmation."
When Mitt Romney was the 2012 Republican presidential candidate, he mentioned that, as Massachusetts governor, he proactively sought out female candidates for top jobs. He had, he said, "binders full of women." He meant, of course, that he stored resumes of promising female job candidates in three-ring binders.
Op-ed pieces, Jon Stewart's "Daily Show," Twitter, Facebook, and Amazon posts erupted in a feeding frenzy, savaging Romney and the Republican Party for their "war on women."
I was an active leftist for decades. I never witnessed significant leftist outrage over clitoredectomy, child marriage, honor killing, sharia-inspired rape laws, stoning, or acid attacks. Nothing. Zip. Crickets. I'm not saying that that outrage does not exist. I'm saying I never saw it.

Monday, March 13, 2017

Spouting Darwin; but do not live by Darwin

Actually, as David Friedman points out, it is progressives who are most against the implications of Darwinism and the theory of evolution. Friedman writes:
“But people who are against taking seriously the implications of evolution, strongly enough to want to attack those who disagree, including those who teach those implications, are quite likely to be on the left.
Consider the most striking case, the question of whether there are differences between men and women with regard to the distribution of intellectual abilities or behavioral patterns. That no such differences exist, or if that if they exist they are insignificant, is a matter of faith for many on the left. The faith is so strongly held that when the president of Harvard, himself a prominent academic, merely raised the possibility that one reason why there were fewer women than men in certain fields might be such differences, he was ferociously attacked and eventually driven to resign.
Yet the claim that such differences must be insignificant is one that nobody who took the implications of evolution seriously could maintain. We are, after all, the product of selection for reproductive success. Males and females play quite different roles in reproduction. It would be a striking coincidence if the distribution of abilities and behavioral patterns that was optimal for one sex turned out to also be optimal for the other, rather like two entirely different math problems just happening to have the same answer.
The denial of male/female differences is the most striking example of left wing hostility to the implications of Darwinian evolution, but not the only one. The reasons to expect differences among racial groups as conventionally defined are weaker, since males of all races play the same role in reproduction, as do females of all races. But we know that members of such groups differ in the distribution of observable physical characteristics–that, after all, is the main way we recognize them. That is pretty strong evidence that their ancestors adapted to at least somewhat different environments.
There is no a priori reason to suppose that the optimal physical characteristics were different in those different environments but the optimal mental characteristics were the same. And yet, when differing outcomes by racial groups are observed, it is assumed without discussion that they must be entirely due to differential treatment by race. That might turn out to be true, but there is no good reason to expect it. Here again, anyone who argues the opposite is likely to find himself the target of ferocious attacks, mainly from people on the left.”

Friday, March 10, 2017

Previous "wire tapping"

So did Obama know that the wire tapping was being done?
Did he use the information?
It is not unfounded that former President Obama would wire tap President Trump during the election process. This is because he has done this before. Here is a list of individuals who were wire tapped by the Obama Administration.
WikiLeaks released the following list on February 23rd (see link here) of Obama Administration wire taps:
* The US National Security Agency bugged a private climate change strategy meeting; between UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon and German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Berlin;
* Obama bugged Chief of Staff of UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) for long term interception targetting his Swiss phone;
* Obama singled out the Director of the Rules Division of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), Johann Human, and targetted his Swiss phone for long term interception;
Obama stole sensitive Italian diplomatic cables detailing how Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu implored Italy’s Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi to help patch up his relationship with US President Barack Obama, who was refusing to talk to Netanyahu;
Obama intercepted top EU and Japanese trade ministers discussing their secret strategy and red lines to stop the US “extort[ing]” them at the WTO Doha arounds (the talks subsequently collapsed);
* Obama explicitly targeted five other top EU economic officials for long term interception, including their French, Austrian and Belgium phone numbers;
* Obama explicitly targetted the phones of Italy’s ambassador to NATO and other top Italian officials for long term interception; and
Obama intercepted details of a critical private meeting between then French president Nicolas Sarkozy, Merkel and Berluscon, where the latter was told the Italian banking system was ready to “pop like a cork”.
In addition to the above list we also know now that Obama wire tapped various individuals in the US media that were reporting information not flattering to the Obama Administration. It is widely known that Obama’s Justice Department targeted journalists with wiretaps in 2013:
* In 2013 the liberal Washington Post expressed outrage after the revelation that the Justice Department had investigated the newsgathering activities of a Fox News reporter as a potential crime in a probe of classified leaks. The reporter, Fox News’ James Rosen and his family, were part of an investigation into government officials anonymously leaking information to journalists. Rosen was not charged but his movements and actions were tracked.
* Also in 2013, members of the Associated Press were also a target of the surveillance. The ultra liberal New Yorker even noted that “In moderate and liberal circles, at least, the phone-records scandal, partly because it involves the dear old A.P. and partly because it raises anew the specter of Big Brother, may well present the most serious threat to Obama’s reputation.”
Reporter Sharyl Attkisson said in 2014 that her personal computer and CBS laptop were hacked after she began filing stories about Benghazi that were unflattering to the Obama administration. A source who checked her laptop said the hacker used spyware “proprietary to a government agency,” according to an article in the New York Post.
Update – WikiLeaks tweeted overnight that the Obama Administration spied on their journalists as well:

Thursday, March 9, 2017

Five Reasons Why Ridicule Is the Proper Response to Global Warming Alarmists

Five Reasons Why Ridicule Is the Proper Response to Global Warming Alarmists:
1. They’re wrong. The devastating heat they predicted simply hasn’t happened. Climate scientists Roy Spencer, John Christy and others have showed this numerous times.
2. They’ve hidden their true agenda. The zealots want to destroy capitalism and take over the world’s economy. Two years ago, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of United Nation’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, said “this is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years.” [kk: wow!]
3. They’re hypocrites. Every year, delegates, many of them on private jets, fly to Davos, Switzerland, for the World Economic Forum, from where they hector the rest of us about our carbon footprints. The busybodies also regularly jet to the U.N.’s global warming conferences, held in such global hot spots as Paris, Cancun, Copenhagen and Milan. Wherever they go, their accommodations are always lavish, their travels well attended to, and their dining sumptuous. Of course their goal is to strip 21st-century comforts from everyone else in the name of “fighting” climate change.
4. They’re authoritarians. Merely disagreeing with them is much like disagreeing with the Castros. The clearly deranged Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has said that some climate sceptics should be prosecuted as war criminals. Last March, then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch told the Senate Judiciary Committee that there had been official discussions about prosecuting “deniers.”
5. Leonardo DiCaprio. Here’s a high school dropout who’s become fabulously rich doing what kindergartners do every day — pretending to be someone else and imagining that they are doing something they aren’t doing, and probably never will or would do. It’s called acting and it pays some of its practitioners well.

Tuesday, March 7, 2017

Compulsory charity creates a “demand” for poverty

Tithers and Beggars


Some snippets from this article to reflect on.

There is a scene in the movie, “Gandhi,” in which Gandhi is returning to India triumphantly from South Africa in 1915, where he had succeeded in gaining increased civil rights for Indians living in that nation. He is being driven in an open automobile through a poverty-stricken section of the city — the only scene of real poverty in the movie. Hands are outstretched to those in the automobile. The beggars have no idea who this man is, or what these rich people are doing. They just raise their hands up, trying to get a few coins.
Are beggars a national tragedy for India? No doubt, but not simply because there is poverty. The tragedy is that these people were (and are) professional beggars in a nation that is known for its professional beggars. It is a profession handed down from parents to children. In a nation devoid of God’s law, men beg for a few coins directly from the rich, and the rich, because they are not taught to tithe, do not develop professionally managed charities that might teach poor people the skills necessary to raise them out of poverty.
India is held captive by a philosophy of earthly despair, the rejection of material existence, and an acceptance of life-long caste barriers. There is no widespread belief in the possibility of an escape from poverty in a single lifetime. There is also little hope for one’s heirs, given the caste system. The only hope for a better life is another life which is higher on the scale of being, through reincarnation (karma). The ultimate goal is the attainment of nirvana, an escape from the bonds of the material realm into Absolute Nothingness.
Time is not linear for the Hindu; it is cyclical. Only as a result of the influence of western philosophy, which is future-oriented and which holds to a belief in linear time, has the thinking of a minority of Indians been altered. Where Eastern philosophy reigns, there is little possibility of material progress, in time and on earth, as a result of one’s own thrift and hard work So some men are taught to beg, including “holy men,” for that is their legitimate calling. In a world without long-term material hope, begging is an acceptable way to feed oneself.
In the secular, formerly Christian West, the rise of socialism has accompanied a decline of tithing. Voters have sensed that the lack of disciplined giving is a threat to the community. They have voted tor wealth redistribution programs which will be manned, it is hoped, by professional givers, and financed by compulsory taxation. But this has not worked to help the poor; the administrators of the compulsory social welfare programs have themselves become professional beggars rather than professional givers. Worse; they have become professional beggars in the name of the poor, while they have absorbed in administrative costs the funds supposedly designated for the poor. (Prof. Walter Williams has estimated that by taking the annual budget for the Bureau of Indian Affairs in 1976, and distributing it equally among the American Indians, each Indian family would have received a grant of about $30,000. Instead, they were kept in poverty under the “care” of the bureaucrats.) The compulsory nature of these programs has made it very difficult for those who finance them (taxpayers) to monitor them, restrict them, or abolish them.
Rich and middle-class voters have accepted this because they feel guilty. They know that charity must be systematic, but they have abandoned their responsibility to monitor the programs. They pass on this responsibility to politicians and bureaucratic administrators. They pay far more than a tithe to the State in exchange for hoped-for relief from the pangs of guilt. This is the politics of guilt and pity, to use Rushdoony’s felicitous phrase. But taxpayers can never pay enough; the poor keep multiplying — literally and figuratively — and the bureaucrats have an incentive to keep them multiplying, at least those under their administration.
Compulsory charity creates a “demand” for poverty, and the market responds by creating newly discovered (or newly defined) poor people. The poor get handouts, and a permanent economic incentive not to escape. If they work at low-paying jobs, they get taxed. But welfare benefits are tax-free. So they stay on welfare.

Friday, March 3, 2017

Christianity, religious, atheist, stat-ism, nilihism

, logical basis is that if I go around punching people in the head I increase my chances of getting punched in the head right back.

Non aggression Principle NaP
That's not a valid argument for the NAP. You're leaning on the statistical probability that eventually you'll be punched back as a reason to justify an absolute principle. 1) This fallaciously assumes targets of punches aren't pacifists. 2) It fallaciously assumes targets of punches are capable of harming the aggressor. 3) It fallaciously assumes that an aggressor punches people without forethought or planning. All this, among other problems. The fact is, when you take the absolute objective source of morality out of the equation, then any argument that can be made against a given act can be reciprocated for the opposite. Don't hit an old lady because why? Why not hit an old lady? If you hit her you'll feel bad. If you hit her you'll feel good. If you hit her, she may be hurt. Hurting her may be the desired result. If she is hurt she may not help you. If she gets hurt, you can take whatever wealth she has on her person. Etc. and so forth. A world without God is a world without morality. So it has been throughout all of human history. God is the source and maintainer of existence. Reality itself is subject to God. Reason and morality are reliant on God because the God is built into the fabric of reality. Rejection of God is a rejection of morality, reason, and ultimately reality. Religion is the system of beliefs that inform one's values. Philosophy is the reasoning between one's religious beliefs and one's values. Everyone has values. Everyone has a philosophy. Everyone has a religion, whether shared or unique. Even if it is unique to themselves, even if it is inconsistent and arbitrary as an atheist's religion must inherently be, everyone has a religion. The NAP was created as a way for atheists to give themselves an excuse for mimicking the moral principles of Christianity without crediting Christianity. Without God, values are inherently absolutely subjective, relativistic, and arbitrary. Atheists are compelled to attack and struggle to distance themselves from Christianity because if any acknowledgement of virtue is given to Christianity, it highlights the arbitrary nature of atheism. If Christianity has virtue, then what does it matter whether or not an atheist is a Christian or not? It is an existential Truth that if we acknowledge the existence of God, God understood to be the source and maintainer of existence, the arbiter of reality, all powerful, all knowing, ever present in all places in all times - If we acknowledge God as thus, then it is self evident that everything matters. Every thought and every act, everything that exists, it all matters and all has purpose. Without God, nothing matters. If all of existence is nothing more than material matter and energy with no will or purpose behind it, then every event is inevitable and predestined and there is no right or wrong, there is no better or worse, and there is no reason, morality, or rational purpose for values. This is why the conclusion of atheism is nihilism. This is why the conclusion of atheism is oblivion-ism. A Christian embraces existence as it is, doing their best to behave consistently with God's laws for moral behavior. God instructs us to do our best in all things. God instructs us to not be aggressors, but to treat others as we would want to be treated. To love God and love each other. The NAP has no foundation in rational thought aside from an ambiguous attempt to behave as God wills us to behave, without acknowledging God. For an atheist, the NAP only holds value from thought to thought. Adherence is arbitrary. One moment it holds value, then when the atheist decides otherwise, it doesn't. And no fundamental principle is violated when the NAP is broken as any number of other arbitrary values can take its place in the atheist mind. Survival of the fittest, hedonism, for the greater good, etc. etc. etc. For an atheist, morality is a pantomime at best, and an obstruction at worst. For a Christian morality is absolute, timeless, objective, and an existential Truth. Consider your position in existence. Is rejecting God worth whatever illusion of pride may be gained from doing so? Seek a better life. Embrace existence. Acknowledge and love God. Live righteously.

BTW, "punching" and "punching back" doesn't have to be taken literally (i.e. retribution doesn't have to be direct).
I understand - about punching also being metaphorical. The objections to the example likewise work metaphorically. It doesn't matter what the method of aggression is. If the target is a pacifist, refuses to react to aggression, then the method of attack is irrelevant in that sense. If the target is incapable of causing notable harm to an attacker, the method of attack is irrelevant. If the attacker isn't using any forethought or planning, then the method of attack is irrelevant, in context. It still stands true that there is no inherent rational reason for adherence to the NAP without God. I'm not the one who incurs offense for your denial of God. What I am offended by are the constant attacks against Christians by atheists, and the undermining of our society. Atheists in general have caused a degenerate regression in the West and continue the assault regardless of how obviously harmful the effects of their actions are. This fight is becoming the motive for a Christian resurgence. Even as atheists lead the charge for every reprobate cause under the sun, Christianity is galvanizing for pushback. This conversation is a sample of that battlefield. 
he said that most atheists substitute religion with the state (i.e. big government). I know a few other atheists and that generalization seems pretty accurate.