Blog

Revoking the Looting License

Businesses which encourage theft and looting through a policy of ‘do nothing’ should receive nothing from honest customers.

How many reading this have seen the videos (more every day) which chronicle the unabashed crimes of those who descend upon places of business to loot and rob with abandon, filling bags and backpacks with stolen items and then scurrying out the door? What to do? Apparently nothing, as the employees have been instructed by their employers to do nothing, and the brokers[1]the ‘woke’ of our new world have emasculated the police and justice system to the point where it seems that questioning or critiquing the status quo is a far greater threat to the peace and welfare of the country than wanton looting and robbery.

Here’s a novel idea: send an email to such establishments, informing them that you will not be spending money at their stores until such time as they work to prevent such crimes. Why? Well, first of all, crime should be prevented. Secondly, making them accountable (and perhaps driving them out of business) will lead to a moment’s reflection that the broke[2]‘woke’ policies championed by many of them have created the very problems they’re experiencing, and from that a lesson will be hopefully learned. But, from a more self-serving perspective: honest customers always end up having to pay the price of those stolen goods[3]Of course, it’s true, that if a store were to hire a security guard, that we’d still end up footing the bill, but at least a stand against immoral behavior will have been taken.. Ironic, considering that the honest customers are typically the honest taxpayers, i.e. those who have, through the provenance of ‘welfare,’ provided the looters with their housing, food, medical and dental care, schooling, clothing, etc. from prior to birth, up to and including the moment in time when they display their utter ingratitude and malice by committing their smash and grab crimes.

Notes and References

Notes and References
1 the ‘woke’
2 ‘woke’
3 Of course, it’s true, that if a store were to hire a security guard, that we’d still end up footing the bill, but at least a stand against immoral behavior will have been taken.

Disney’s Dystopia

Disney has a perfect score on the Corporate Equality Index, a survey administered by the Human Rights Campaign Foundation (HRCF). Despite its officious, grandiose, and even magnanimous sounding pretenses, this organization is largely dedicated to furthering the normalization of transvestite, homosexual, and other sexually chaotic behaviors into schools, politics, places of business, halls of justice, restaurants, churches, and virtually any place where normal people might congregate, whether they like it or not. In order to get this score, Disney had to (among other things)[1]https://www.hrc.org/resources/corporate-equality-index-criteria appeal to this rather tiny, but ever-growing[2]Through the proselytization of children and market-driven efforts to normalize that which is morally repugnant. seamy underbelly of human behavior by

  • Providing health coverage that caters to a host of deviancies, up to and including ‘medically necessary care.’ Considering that by default, health insurance plans tend to cover medically necessary care for normal people experiencing actual ailments, diseases, and accidents, why the specific proviso for the sexually perverted? Because, only the unhinged would consider mutilative surgeries and years-long hormone injections ‘necessary.’ The covered surgeries include, but are not limited to
    • removal of the testicles (orchiectomy) where the skin of the testicles is used to create lumps of skin made to simulate female genitals. The skin of the penis is used (vaginoplasty) to create a ‘vaginal’ canal and ‘labia.’
    • removal of the uterus (hysterectomy) of a woman as well as the removal of her vagina (vaginectomy) . In another surgery, skin is taken from another part of the body, rolled into a shaft (called a neopenis) and attached to the groin (phalloplasty). The skin typically comes from the forearm, thigh, and/or back.
  • Creating marketing and advertising campaigns that specifically cater to them.
  • Providing support to at least one organization dedicated to the transmission and dissemination of the perverse beliefs embraced by them.
  • A record of not lending support to any organization or person who does not agree entirely with them.[3]I.e. support for or endorsement of any Christian organization is forbidden.
  • The creation of ‘gender neutral’ restrooms where males and females make use of the same facilities.

Like all people of sound mind, I recoil in horror at even a brief glimpse into what denying biological realities entails, and I also feel great sympathy for any person who is ensnared in such an all-encompassing web of lies, where the distortions and excesses of the mind lead to a mutilated body, but my sympathy does not extend to what is essentially hatred. For hatred it is, to countenance such perverse beliefs and actions and not reject them out of hand on moral and rational grounds and to point the way to the healing and freeing power of the true and the real. How monstrous must one be to encourage or look aside when presented with such beliefs and actions? It beggars belief.

So much for the corporate side of things, does Disney cater to and encourage the sexually deviant in their theme parks? The answer to that is an obvious ‘yes,’ given that such is required by the HRCF. Indeed, for well-over a quarter of a century, Disney has welcomed (and even sponsored) ‘gay days’ at Disney’s theme parks, subjecting unsuspecting adults and children to the grotesque and perverted vision of the homosexual. Disney also sponsors children’s shows with transvestites encouraging kids to endorse and experiment with a whole host of deviant behaviors.

Having digested all of the above, let’s move on to an event that recently took place at Disney World: a young woman who was wearing a half shirt was told that she could not enter the park without changing her attire. The Disney World FAQ addresses their dress code here [4]https://disneyworld.disney.go.com/faq/parks/dress/. The pertinent clauses inform Disney World customers that Disney reserves the right to deny admission to any “any person wearing attire that is considered inappropriate or attire that could detract from the experience of other Guests” and that clothing that qualifies is that which “exposes excessive portions of the skin that may be viewed as inappropriate for a family environment.”

So, in other words, Disney encourages and funds the most horrific and barbarically sexually deviant beliefs and behaviors both corporately and publicly, but on the other hand, in the name of ‘appropriateness’ for a ‘family’ environment, will refuse entry to the park to a young woman for displaying her midriff[5]In an actual family environment provocative clothing should not be allowed. The point here is the blatant hypocrisy evinced by Disney.. Hopefully, the disconnect from reality at Disney is glaringly apparent.

Given the immorality of our time and lack of cogency on pretty much every issue of relevance, Disney unfortunately has the legal right to have a chaotic and unhinged dress code, but, those of sound mind have a duty not to yield one red penny to such a perverse enterprise and to starve it into the oblivion it so richly deserves.

Notes and References

Notes and References
1 https://www.hrc.org/resources/corporate-equality-index-criteria
2 Through the proselytization of children and market-driven efforts to normalize that which is morally repugnant.
3 I.e. support for or endorsement of any Christian organization is forbidden.
4 https://disneyworld.disney.go.com/faq/parks/dress/
5 In an actual family environment provocative clothing should not be allowed. The point here is the blatant hypocrisy evinced by Disney.

Reasons

“He had his reasons for doing what he did, please don’t judge him.”

So says the mother of the person who murdered 21 people along with injuring 17 or so more in Uvalde Texas. For these sentiments, she has been (rightly, most people will say) raked over the coals, with excoriations emanating from both the left and the supposed right. Instead of examining the content of her statements and what they connote, most of these responses have essentially been personal attacks directed at her (and her son), which is in itself revealing.

The question that we will be evaluating is the following: Did the individual who murdered 21 people ‘have his reasons?’ If you are someone who subscribes to the morally (but decidedly not financially) bankrupt world view as presented by psychology, then you must stand and shout an emphatic ‘yes!’ And the reason that you must do so is revealed by taking just the smallest of steps back from his mother’s statements and then viewing them with the bare modicum of necessary sobriety in order to see that she is simply repeating the mantra (albeit in a simplified, and therefore more essential form) that the psychologists and their brethren have been telling us for years: no one who sins is accountable for their actions.

For nowadays, there are always mitigating circumstances (i.e. ‘reasons’) for the perpetration and propagation of evil by those who practice it. If one goes marauding and murdering in and through neighborhoods, they have their ‘reasons.’ If one loots places of business, well, they also have their ‘reasons.’ If an expectant mother murders her own child, she has her ‘reasons.’ If a supposed father stands idly by while his progeny is extinguished, he also has his ‘reasons.’ If a person is obese, they have their ‘reasons’ too. If a person capable of performing any work whatsoever lives off of the labor of others via welfare, they have ‘reasons.’ If a male pursues sex with another male, then he used to need ‘reasons,’ but now, he doesn’t need them due to the abandonment of both morality and reason. If a male wants to parade about dressed as a woman, he has ‘reasons.’ If you were to ask an alcoholic why he spends his days in a stupor, you’ll get plenty of ‘reasons.’ If you ask the person who declares bankruptcy, throwing their accrued debt onto the backs of others so that they can pay it off, you’ll get ‘reasons.’ If you ask the drug addict why he’s addicted to drugs, you’ll get ‘reasons.’ If you ask the student why they believe others should pay their tuition, you’ll get ‘reasons.’ If two people want to get divorced, our moral deafness has extended so far that we don’t even need ‘reasons’ thanks to no-fault divorce. Bearing in mind that ‘reasons’ are the fraudulent currency of rationalizations, let us remember that the psychologists have presented us with a litany of never-ending and ever-changing streams of rationalizations (always accompanied by hefty bills for ‘services’ rendered), but no accountability, no responsibility, no stability, and no finality.

How many diabolical actors have been paraded across the stage in the past half-dozen or so decades who have escaped justice due to ‘reasons?’ While they cannot be numbered, the number is staggering. If Salvador Ramos had lived, the taxpayers’ money would have been spent on court-appointed psychologists who would have deluged us with all of the ‘reasons’ for his murderous acts and it is quite likely that he would have eluded justice as so many have done before. Considering only mass murderers, those who come to mind of recent memory include Dimitrios Pagourtzis, who murdered ten and injured 13, and who has not stood trial due to being ‘incompetent’ to do so, and One L. Goh, who murdered seven and injured three, who never stood trial due to also being ‘incompetent.’ One doesn’t need to look very wide or very deep to find many such examples across the gamut of what used to be referred to as human wickedness. What is common amongst them all is that they have all had reasons aplenty, supplied to them (and a credulous public) by those devoid of sound judgment who lined up to feed at the money trough to supply us with said reasons.

As if there weren’t reasons enough in play already, we also have ‘pre-reasons.’ For these same rationalization factories are quick to tell us that if such murderers had only gotten the ‘mental health services’ they needed, their rampages could have been averted, which a moment’s thought will reveal to be a particularly egregious conflict of interest. However, because whatever is true must be averred as such, we are beholden to agree with them on this point, but not for the reasons they might posit. In a particularly ironic twist, the moral miasma created by these same people, if delivered early and often enough along with just the ‘right’ combination of mind-altering drugs, might induce the moral monsters they themselves created to be rendered inert and too confused to put their evil plans into effect. As we’ve often seen, these murderous rampages often occur when such and so has neglected to take their ‘meds.’ But, in the main, they fall primarily into two camps: those who never got their ‘meds’ and those who did get their ‘meds,’ but who stopped taking them.

As to his mother’s other plea, that we not judge her son (with the admonition that no one should judge another person, but rather stick to that person’s actions), her request is again, not only reasonable, but is in fact required of all who view the actions of humans through the shattered glass of psychology. Judgment requires stating that this or that is evil and that there must be a suitable consequence for this or that. The only person capable of right judgment (is there any other kind worthy of consideration?) of any action that isn’t simply accidental, is one who starts with sound morality and who then employs the sound reasoning which will always accompany it. In opposition to this, the psychological world view gives us no morality, no soundness of mind, no right reasoning, and hence, when its precepts are applied to the evils that men do, it has all the effectiveness of a flashlight with dead batteries being used to navigate out of the suffocating darkness of a cave: it is akin to asking a dead man for directions. The amoral and arational are not capable of judgment, hence, they should not judge. So, again, she is right.

Hence, in the final analysis, any person who affirms ‘mental illness’ as a reason for excusing the evil actions of men should stand in line to congratulate the mother of Salvador Ramos for cutting to the chase when she said that he ‘had his reasons.’ And in a complementary sense, any person who likewise subscribes and who concomitantly condemns her or her statements is a fool and an unwitting hypocrite.

Injection Irony

“Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. ” –George Orwell

For many years, those women who have supported the murder of children in the womb[1]AKA ‘abortion,’ which is the accepted euphemism for this by today’s benighted people. We help no one but those who seek to commit murder on a massive scale by allowing them to … Continue reading have defiantly cried out “My body, my choice!” Concomitantly, males in support of this evil practice have echoed that sentiment with “Who am I am to tell a woman what to do with her body?” This rubbish [2]An example of the ignoratio elenchi fallacy which conveniently disposes of the fact that such proclamations have nothing to do with the individual and unique human life that is actually at stake and … Continue reading has been swallowed hook, line, and sinker by an ever-more credulous public eager for the pretense of morality without any of the accompanying effort or cost and all of the perceived perks and benefits.

Lately, this pernicious phrase has come to the fore in the service of a movement that actually has merit, namely that individuals in an ostensibly free society should not be forcibly injected with substances without their consent upon the whims of the decrepit ruler of a panicked and unhinged demos. Let me first state that which should be obvious to all imbued with even a bare modicum of wisdom: there is no quick and easy answer to the subject of vaccinations. Anyone who states that we all should allow ourselves to be injected with whatever a government ‘expert’ and his corporate henchmen stipulate, whenever they stipulate it, is a fool, as is anyone who states that there is no situation, ever, in which measures should be taken to protect a community from those who are verifiably transmitting deadly disease to others [3]Exhibit A: the ‘blood terrorism’ advocated and practiced by homosexuals to purposely infect the blood supply with AIDS in the hopes of securing more taxpayer funding by making the disease … Continue reading. To reason is to proceed carefully and with nuance, and to the mass of people today[4]Sadly this is almost as endemic to the majority of the right as it is to the left. But, thankfully, many on the right, even if they don’t have a proper grounding in the proper use and … Continue reading, these are anathema. The thinking behind entering this phrase into the political/moral arena is essentially: “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander,” i.e. it is hypocritical for leftists[5]For indeed it is the leftists who are the most vocal and shrill about this. While there are those with the label of ‘Republican’ who align themselves with the left on this, I am not aware … Continue reading to demand forcible vaccination of those people who choose not to be vaccinated, for such forcible vaccination violates their autonomy and privacy, which according to the left is supposedly sacrosanct, in fact, sacrosanct unto the death of innocents.

One of the problems with adopting this tactic is that it gives tacit assent and support to the lie that the salient issue in not allowing women[6]Let us not neglect to mention that if these women were involved with an actual man who did not shirk responsibility and manhood, many of these women wouldn’t even consider such a terrible … Continue reading to commit infanticide is that it is an attack upon the woman’s autonomy and privacy. Another problem is that by invoking this narrative, the core issue, the core truth, is missed yet again, which is precisely what the enemies of that which is true desire. It should also serve as a warning signal that even those who might say the right things and who might even be motivated by commendable beliefs, oftentimes lack the perspective and operative principles to understand what it is they are actually doing and why they are doing it, and hence they become unwitting allies of those who propagate beliefs which are rightly regarded as abhorrent. This surface-level approach in the United States and the West to all things of relevance runs deep indeed.

But what is the core reality that is being missed? It is, that just as the destruction and subsequent disposal of the unborn into the trash is rooted entirely in selfishness, so it is with forced vaccinations: they are both a consequence of individuals who have taken the message of self ‘love’ to its murderous and logical conclusion, i.e. that the self is all that matters, and anything or anyone that impedes the desires thereof must be destroyed or cast aside[7]It is fascinating and ironic indeed, that the Latin root for ‘abort’ has connotations of making something ‘disappear’ and that that Latin word is itself a modification of the … Continue reading. Just as the barbaric cultures of the Aztecs, Mayans, and Incas of old murdered their children by the thousands to appease the ‘gods’ in order to ensure a good crop yield and for their lives to be easier or more comfortable, so do today’s barbarians execute their children by the millions in the pursuit of the same ends. As Solomon said three millennia ago: There is nothing new under the sun.

Consider: Forcible injections are not new to the left, for one of the many horrific realities about the monstrosity of the homicide[8]In 1974, The West German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) wrote, “The usual language, termination of pregnancy, cannot conceal the fact that abortion is a homicidal … Continue reading of the unborn, is that for many years it was achieved via an injection of saline into the amniotic sac and/or directly into the baby: “Saline abortions use a saline solution to poison the baby, which burns him or her inside and out, even burning off the outer layer of their skin. The child suffers in these conditions for over an hour until their demise, and the mother must deliver her dead child the next day.”[9]From Born-Alive Abortion Survivors: Just the Facts, https://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF19E62.pdf It is revealing that even the murderous advocates of this moral atrocity acknowledge that a death has occurred: “Fetal death within one hour of injection has been documented by hysterotomy. The hypertonic saline infusion causes water to diffuse into the amniotic sac from surrounding fetal and placental tissues. The damage resulting from this fetal dehydration is probably responsible for fetal death.” [10]Cronenwett, Linda R., and Janice M. Choyce. “Saline Abortion.” The American Journal of Nursing 71, no. 9 (1971): 1754–57. https://doi.org/10.2307/3422026. ‘Probably’ responsible. Who knows? Who cares? All that matters is that the threat to the self’s autonomy and independence has been dispensed with. As indicated above, because this barbaric practice often required a stay at the hospital so that the dead baby could be safely and sanitarily ‘delivered,’ it was supplanted by cheaper and more expeditious means of killing our offspring[11]what the term fœtus actually means.

Many of the people who have advocated for these horrors (or via their votes have lent their support to it) are woefully uninformed about the realities of it, hence, it should surprise no one that they would tend to follow blithely and mindlessly along with the architects of atrocity down the path towards enforced vaccination. As to those who do know the grisly details, is it any less unsurprising that the members of a party where the primary shibboleth for entry and candidacy is advocacy of such murder, are the same people clamoring for forcible vaccination of those, who like the unborn baby, are guilty of no crime against them? Thus, it follows, that the advocates of the murder of the unborn are being consistent (not hypocritical) when out of their terror at the perceived imperilment of their own ease and comfort, they lend their support to policies that pursue forcible injections of hastily developed and poorly tried concoctions passed off as trustworthy vaccines along with terrible penalties for those that refuse, for these are the same people who out of the darkness of their understanding are enthusiastic supporters of the slaughter of innocents for the very same reasons. Forcible injection, ostracization, and making pariahs of those who exhibit probity and aren’t ruled by fear, is a small matter compared with the horrors they’ve willingly and knowingly supported or inflicted upon untold millions of children for decades[12]Let us not forget those pitiable women and the males who stood by apathetically or even actively encouraged them in such an evil path who have to live with the knowledge of their crimes against God … Continue reading. Only in the very penumbra of reality has the heinous practice of terminating a pregnancy through a variety of grisly and terrible means been about autonomy and privacy, and so, whenever someone proposes that a moral horror be ‘tolerated’ or made legal, all those of sober mind should work from the assumption that there is an abominable lie lurking within whatever is said in the defense or support of said horror. Therefore, the lesson to be learned is that while we must always eschew psittacism, we must be especially careful to avoid echoing any statement made by those who have demonstrated that they are the avowed enemies of the true and the good.

So while it is true that contra the claims made by the left regarding a woman’s right to instigate the murder of her own child, the statements made by those in regards to privacy, autonomy, and choice in respect to vaccination have actual cognitive and moral legitimacy, it is also true that because the phrase “My body, my choice” is so polluted and stigmatized with the stain of the blood of 100s of millions of victims, it cannot be wisely used for anything other than as an object of contempt, derision, and ultimately great sorrow because of the vast evils perpetrated under its banner.

Notes and References

Notes and References
1 AKA ‘abortion,’ which is the accepted euphemism for this by today’s benighted people. We help no one but those who seek to commit murder on a massive scale by allowing them to suppress the truth in the unrighteousness and deception of the words they choose for their propaganda.
2 An example of the ignoratio elenchi fallacy which conveniently disposes of the fact that such proclamations have nothing to do with the individual and unique human life that is actually at stake and the real source of contention.
3 Exhibit A: the ‘blood terrorism’ advocated and practiced by homosexuals to purposely infect the blood supply with AIDS in the hopes of securing more taxpayer funding by making the disease more prevalent amongst those who engage in normal and natural sexual activity.
4 Sadly this is almost as endemic to the majority of the right as it is to the left. But, thankfully, many on the right, even if they don’t have a proper grounding in the proper use and limitations of reason, at least affirm that which is worthy of belief.
5 For indeed it is the leftists who are the most vocal and shrill about this. While there are those with the label of ‘Republican’ who align themselves with the left on this, I am not aware of any conservative (read paleoconservative) who has so aligned himself.
6 Let us not neglect to mention that if these women were involved with an actual man who did not shirk responsibility and manhood, many of these women wouldn’t even consider such a terrible course. But, of course, if actual men weren’t in the minority, what I’m writing wouldn’t even need to be written, but I digress…
7 It is fascinating and ironic indeed, that the Latin root for ‘abort’ has connotations of making something ‘disappear’ and that that Latin word is itself a modification of the Latin word oriri which means ‘to come into being’ or ‘to be born.’
8 In 1974, The West German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) wrote, “The usual language, termination of pregnancy, cannot conceal the fact that abortion is a homicidal act.” Certainly, other courts have denied that a human being is being extinguished. I mention this only to indicate that some courts do, from time to time, state the truth of the matter.
9 From Born-Alive Abortion Survivors: Just the Facts, https://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF19E62.pdf
10 Cronenwett, Linda R., and Janice M. Choyce. “Saline Abortion.” The American Journal of Nursing 71, no. 9 (1971): 1754–57. https://doi.org/10.2307/3422026.
11 what the term fœtus actually means
12 Let us not forget those pitiable women and the males who stood by apathetically or even actively encouraged them in such an evil path who have to live with the knowledge of their crimes against God and for which they will ultimately have to answer.

Headline: Governor Newsom Had an Adverse Reaction to Latest Injection

According to https://noqreport.com/2021/11/08/gavin-newsom-had-major-adverse-reaction-to-moderna-booster-shot-sources/, Newsom “reportedly developed symptoms of Bell’s Palsy immediately after getting injected with the Moderna Covid-19 booster shot and has had trouble speaking coherently.”

Anyone who’s been paying attention to Newsom for even a short period of time can confidently state that this claim is obviously false. Why? Because the left’s entire platform is predicated upon incoherence, and Newsom has been the most loquacious, if not mellifluous, purveyor of incoherence since he arrived on the political scene. Hence, anyone who proclaims that Newsom’s incoherence is due to having received a follow-up injection of goodness from the good folks at Moderna cannot be taken seriously.

The Etymology of Inspiration

As is the case with many word which in times past would drip with meaning and relevance, ‘inspire’ is used and abused at almost every turn. Both the OED[1]https://beingreasonable.com/definitions/#inspireoed and Webster’s[2]https://beingreasonable.com/definitions/#inspirewebsters inform us that ‘inspire’ has spiritual overtones. The OED, being a diachronic dictionary, goes a bit deeper and points to the earliest figurative use of the word to be specifically Christian in nature.

Inspire

The etymology for ‘inpsire’ given by the OED tells us that it is an “adaptation of Latin inspīrāre to blow or breathe into, from in- + spīrāre to breathe.” Analogously, Webster’s states that it is “from Latin inspirare, from in- + spirare to breathe” and that for further information, we should see “more at SPIRIT.” Hence…

Spirit

The OED is rather verbose in its etymological accounting for ‘spirit,’ informing us that it is “adapted from Latin spīritus breathing, breath, air, etc. related to spīrāre to breathe.” It delves even deeper, telling us that the “earlier English uses of the word are mainly derived from passages in the Vulgate, in which spiritus is employed to render Greek πνεῦµα and Hebrew rūaḥ. The translation of these words by spirit (or one of its variant forms) is common to all versions of the Bible from Wyclif onwards.”

Webster’s is less verbose, but tells us essentially the same thing at core: “from Latin spiritus spirit, breath; … Latin spirare to breathe”

The salient fact to be aware of here is that these terms both derive their force, power, and essence from the Holy Bible, as is the case with most of the important words in the English language.

Putting It Together

spirare is the present active infinitive for spiro.

spiritus is an etymological derivation of spiro.

Finally, per what we were informed of in the above, spiritus in turn was used in the Vulgate to translate the Greek πνεῦµα, which in the BDAG[3]A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd Edition, s.v. “πνεῦµα.” is, most importantly, identified with “God’s being as controlling influence, with focus on association with humans, Spirit, spirit as that which differentiates God from everything that is not God, as the divine power that produces all divine existence, as the divine element in which all divine life is carried on, as the bearer of every application of the divine will. All those who belong to God possess or receive this spirit and hence have a share in God’s life. This spirit also serves to distinguish Christians from all unbelievers,” in other words, the Holy Spirit.

It would therefore be reasonable to conclude and hope that a story described as being ‘inspiring’ would be such that it would be infused and suffused with that which is holy, i.e. with that which is inestimable, ineffable, and incorruptible.

Notes and References

Notes and References
1 https://beingreasonable.com/definitions/#inspireoed
2 https://beingreasonable.com/definitions/#inspirewebsters
3 A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd Edition, s.v. “πνεῦµα.”

Women’s Fib

After weeks of hearing and reading the platitudinous pablum which is spewed out in support of “women’s” history month, the following thought occurred to me:

Prior to the women’s lib movement, ‘feminists'[1]I put this in single quotes because what they advocate and present to the public is antithetical to what a man would recognize as truly feminine. ostensibly fought against the ‘stereotype’ of being nags to their husbands.

Post the women’s lib movement, ‘feminists’ engage in near-constant nagging of everyone and have no husbands[2]emasculated stand-ins for actual men don’t count as husbands.

Notes and References

Notes and References
1 I put this in single quotes because what they advocate and present to the public is antithetical to what a man would recognize as truly feminine.
2 emasculated stand-ins for actual men don’t count as husbands

The Atheist’s Motive

Recently, I read the book We Were Soldiers Once…and Young by Hal Moore and Joe Galloway. In attempting to gather additional information about Hal Moore the man (as opposed to what is presented in the book), I found out that he was a devout Catholic. In an interview with Raymond Arroyo circa 2009, he stated about his time at West Point:

…The only reason I got through West Point was going to mass almost daily and praying to God to help me get through West Point. But I’m proud to say that I graduated at the top of the bottom 20% of my class. … I was very dumb in mathematics, which West Point was [1]Their academic program was built on science and mathbased on in those days and I had to study late at night until two or three o’clock in the morning, and I went to mass every morning at 6:30, and that’s when you had to fast the night before, you couldn’t eat before communion, but I went to mass every morning at [2]…and finished the 20 minute mass…seven o’clock by Father Murdock and that got me through West Point. And all through my life, I have tried to keep fresh in my mind, that the whole purpose of life on earth is to qualify for life hereafter in heaven, with our father in heaven.

Hal Moore, Christian

As a reformed Christian, I have to point out that it is at odds with Scripture for anyone to believe that he can qualify for eternity with God, hence, the need for and sufficiency of Christ alone (think of the thief on the cross, what works did he perform to spend eternity with God?)[3]The Puritan divine, John Owen, put it: “Poor souls are apt to think that all those whom they read or hear of to be gone to heaven, went there because they were so good and holy..Yet not one of … Continue reading, but that doesn’t mean that Hal Moore wasn’t a Christian: it merely means that some of his labors might have been for the wrong reason. But I digress…

As I read over that quote today, I thought “What a wonderful testimony. How would this statement appear from the perspective of the [4]A rare bird indeed, for what transcendent motive does the atheist have?honest atheist?”

…The only reason I got through West Point was understanding that my life has no meaning nor any purpose, other than what my wet computer brain manufactures for me from moment to moment, and that ultimately, when the heat death of the universe occurs, everything that I or anyone else has done will have no meaning and no purpose. But I’m proud to say that I graduated from West Point due to studying late at night until two or three o’clock in the morning, and by arising each day at 6:30 to spend 20 minutes or so contemplating how worthless all of my thoughts and actions are from an ultimate perspective, and how beautiful it is that an indeterminate amount of time, mixed with an indeterminate and unknowable sequence of random mutations, all superintended by the mysterious ‘natural selection’ (thank God nobody that I have such cogent explanations for how I got here!) had brought me into being, and it was those beliefs that got me through West Point. And all through my life, I have tried to keep fresh in my wet computer brain, that there is no purpose whatsoever to my life or any life, and that in the end, the atoms of which ‘I’ (knowing that there is no ‘I.’ I just can’t help myself!) am comprised will dissolve back into the unknowable chaos from which they arose, and I have sought to share that belief with everyone I meet. (Why do I do this? I don’t know, for were I consistent in my thinking, I’d recognize that there’s no point…)

Hal Moore, atheist

One of these quotes is beautiful, inspiring, and life affirming. One of them is ugly, discouraging, and pernicious. The astute and sober-minded reader, I’m sure, can tell which is which.

Notes and References

Notes and References
1 Their academic program was built on science and math
2 …and finished the 20 minute mass…
3 The Puritan divine, John Owen, put it: “Poor souls are apt to think that all those whom they read or hear of to be gone to heaven, went there because they were so good and holy..Yet not one of them, not any one that is now in heaven (Jesus Christ alone excepted), did ever come there any other way but by forgiveness of sins.
4 A rare bird indeed, for what transcendent motive does the atheist have?

Meretricious Malleability

Atheists often speak triumphantly of changeability and malleability as being that which distinguishes science from Christianity, a statement which the credulous are all too eager to imbibe. But the reality is that both have fundamental principles upon which all other activities and the inferences of each depend and which do not change. The former takes its principles (which must be taken on faith) and uses them to navigate the natural world, whereas the latter uses the truth (also taken on faith) to navigate the universe of morality. As is the case with many of the most cherished arguments of the ‘new’ atheists, the comparison is a false one. It’s akin to someone faulting Euclidean geometry for not being ‘malleable.’ The axioms thereof cannot be proven. The best that can be done is to validate that there is merit in them.

The Impact of the Centralization of Power

The centralization of power at any of the state, federal, or global levels has three primary effects which play into the apathy and pride of man:

  1. Decisions are made by others, which frees us from having to remove our gaze from whatever is currently entertaining us.
  2. When the decisions are bad, we will blame others. When the decisions are correct, we will congratulate ourselves.
  3. We can champion causes which do not impact our comfort or our pocketbooks directly, if at all, thereby presenting the sheen of morality without any of the requisite personal cost which comes with true morality.