Liberals Hate Science Pt.1
John Locke: Not a Marxist
About a month ago, I read this little gem. I’ll save you the trouble of reading it (though please feel free to). The author, a Mr. Tom Chivers, argues that “Republicans turn their back on the Enlightenment.” His evidence is that a slim majority (52%) or Republicans reject the Theory of Evolution. In short, you hate science (assuming you’re a Republican or at least fall somewhere in line with the GOP presidential candidates. He describes you as “anti-intellectual.” Please note that only a dumbass would use the term “anti-intellectual.” Anyhoo, his premise is that you hate science. Since my degree is partly in philosophy, I have studied the Enlightenment at least a bit more than most, and would like to retort Mr. Chives’ and his assertion that people who question global warming are anti-smartness.
The Enlightenment began with Descartes. He’s largely remembered for his phrase “cogito ergo sum” or in English, “I think therefore I am.” Descartes also offered a couple proofs of God. The post-modern philosophical establishment hates Descartes because, within all this, he came about with what is called “Cartesian Dualism.” That’s a fancy term that just means there is a soul which exists separate from the body. Realize with whom you’re dealing: people who bother to come up with terms like “post-modern.” We used to call that “the future,” but go figure.
Anyway, the Enlightenment included not only Descartes, but John Locke as well. You may remember him for his arguments on property rights. He discovered the notion that a man is entitled to the value of his labor: his property. He wrote, “The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his.” That capitalist pig! Of course, back in his day, the King taxed a great deal of what a person made – nothing like today, where Congress does it. John Locke was not only one of the Enlightenment’s great thinkers, but was also the a large part of the inspiration for our Republic. He wrote during the late 17th century, and our Founders knew him well. Were our Founders wholly in Locke-step? No, of course not! They wouldn’t be famous if they were, but they knew that a basis of property must be established.
The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. ~ John Adams
The idea of God and private property are entirely within the realms of Enlightenment thinking. In fact, it is the Left which wants to do away with them. They’ve created a whole society with which to go about it: the post-modernists. These post-modernists seek to demolish all thought of God, or property, or anything either substantial or universal. They stand against the Enlightenment. C.S Lewis refuted them in The Abolition of Man.
This is the end of Part 1. Please join us for Part 2, where I show how conservatives value science more than Leftists.
The Twelve Days of Obamas
On the twelfth day of Obamas,
Obama sent to me
Twelve teleprompters,
Eleven hippies toking,
Ten volts a-burning,
Nine illegals voting,
Eight wads of wheatgrass,
Seven higher taxes,
Six czars a-czaring,
Five huge headaches,
Four union thugs,
Three Saudi bows
Two fake jobs bills,
And a tanking economy
Libertarians: Heart and Soul of the GOP, or Progressive Screw?
Ronald Reagan famously said ”the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.” Yet Ron Paul’s ascent in the recent Republican primaries has given focus to the rift between the libertarian wing of the GOP and it’s more traditionally conservative base. The young Republicans who support Ron Paul do so with great fervor, but seem to have little patience for any other Republican candidates. Meanwhile, supporters of those other candidates discount Rep. Paul as a viable candidate, and many openly declare they won’t support him if he wins the nomination. Still others think “What about the children?!?” ”Why can’t we all just get along?!?” So who’s right? Me, of course! Sadly, explaining why I’m right requires an essay/blog post/this thing you’re reading.
There are things I like about Paul and things with which I don’t agree. I think that’s true of pretty much all the candidates. Still, Paul’s record on predicting the economic failures of Government involvement is stellar (though it’s really not hard to have a good record here, you just always bet against the Government). First, we should see where the differences of opinion lie between these two branches of the Republican base.
Perhaps scariest of all, Paul has spawned a Blue Republican movement, whereby Democrats register Republican to screw around in business that isn’t theirs. This is because Paul wants to legalize marijuana. Well, kinda sorta anyway. He just doesn’t want the federal Government to keep it illegal. It should be a states’ rights issue. He thinks the same is true for gay marriage and abortion. Note that this doesn’t mean he morally supports any of these issues; he just doesn’t see any Constitutional authority for the federal Government to give decrees from on high. Yet what scares his conservative opponents the most is likely his stance on national defense/foreign policy. As such, this is the issue I’ll tackle.
Paul is against American action in Libya (and was against it in Iraq as well). He often has his views labeled “isolationist.” Perhaps worst of all, he somewhat blames America for 9/11. That’s a tough pill to swallow for any patriot. At one of the thousand primary debates this election season, Paul got booed for making this claim. Since I’m both tired and lazy, I’m not going to keep searching for a transcript of the debate , nor am I willing to transcribe it myself. You can read his position here.
Paul’s primary claim is that terrorists hate us because we’re in their hood. There’s some evidence to prove this claim (like al Qaeda saying it, if you consider them a trustworthy source) but there’s also evidence against this premise. Like when Egypt killed a bunch of Coptic Christians. But given the fact that the Muslim nations with which we’re dealing apparently know even less about the world than MSNBC viewers, I think Paul’s claim deserves at least a bit of respect. If you didn’t know about a provoking incident like 9/11, and then some people showed up with bigass guns and tanks and bombs, you might be a little ticked off too. Surely SOME terrorists mostly hate America because they want us out of their country so they can keep cutting up vaginas and stoning young girls for the audacity of getting raped. Since so many of these people are obviously completely off their rockers, we think Santorum has a good point that a lot of them hate us simply because we’re not batshit crazy. As such, our conclusion is that both men are right.
We know that’s not the answer you want, but it’s the truth. Paul’s views deserve a good look because we spend a lot on national defense – often without question – but we can’t ignore the fact that radical Islam contains a lot of idiots who just want us dead because we like to play Halo 3 and listen to Garth Brooks and not treat our women worse than our dogs. Fact is, those “let’s all get along” people are right too, and I’m one of them. His Holiness the Obamalama is ruining our country (and costing me a fortune in anger management classes). You know who would ruin our country a lot less? Ron Paul, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, a rabid wombat, etc. You don’t have to agree with every candidate on everything. You can debate their supporters all you want, I encourage it! The Founding Fathers had a whole heckuvalot of debate about independence. But, in the end, they got it done. We have to learn from them. We can vigorously argue and foam at the mouths with each other, but in the end we’re all united in the cause for independence against King Obama.
Tune in next week (or whenever we get around to it) for our next post: How Liberals Want to Roll Back the Enlightenment. See you soon!
To Conspiratorially Theorize, or Not to Conspiratorially Theorize? That is Not the Question.
Are you scared enough yet?
I’m amazed at how easily I stumble upon conspiracy theories while simply researching the ways of our modern political world. Today, I found an article detailing how the Obamacare bill prohibits private insurance companies from providing coverage for paid maternity leave. Said article links to what is apparently known as the Jaffe Memo. Said memo is dated 1969 and was provided to the U.S. Government at their behest. It details ways to control/reduce the U.S. population. It starts out rather harmlessly with a column of “Social Constraints” which include “encourage increased homosexuality” and “fertility control agents in water supply.” In the right-hand column, “Social Controls,” it goes a bit further with suggestions like “confine childbearing to only a limited number of adults” and “compulsory abortion of out-of-wedlock pregnancies.” If that doesn’t have your attention, then HERE! HOW ABOUT THIS??? IT’S MESSED UP! To continue…
All this information in itself might present a bit of a “conspiracy theory.” ZOMG, Planned Parenthood is poisoning the water hole! Well, maybe not yet, but we’ve obviously seen some of this play out (encouraging homosexuality, abortion on demand, etc.). It could be that the rest of this nonsense isn’t far behind. I decided to seek the opinions of others. In so doing, I was directed to a series of videos. I admit that, due to time constraints, I’m only on video 11 of 17, but I think I get the gist: Alfred Kinsey was one messed up dude. According to The Kinsey Syndrome, Alfred Kinsey encouraged pedophiles for the sake of his research and, furthermore, paid them. With federal tax dollars (funneled through grants to the Rockefeller Foundation, which donated to the Kinsey Institute, which in turn paid adults to have sex with children as young as two months old…MONTHS!).
Is all this true? There’s enough to cause me concern (a picture of Kinsey hanging out in the Satanic temple of Aleister Crowley, for example). Still, I figured the Kinsey folks deserved a fair shake, so I paid a visit to the Kinsey Confidential Facebook page and asked for their opinion of this damning evidence. Here’s the response I received, verbatim:
No, Kinsey did not do any such observation. The data collected by Kinsey and staff consisted of interviews, only. Some were with parents and teachers though the great majority were adults. We explain Kinsey’s research more thoroughly on this webpage: http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/about/controversy.html
Well, I already knew all this. Kinsey didn’t molest the kids himself, he just interviewed those who did. Good, for a second I thought something was wrong about all this. He interviewed known pedophiles, the usual suspects: parents and teachers and whatnot. Glad they cleared that up. But my conscience remained foggy, so I clicked their link to browse around some. Long story short, it’s pretty much a game of we said/they said. My personal favorite answer of theirs is “No documents were destroyed.” Oh, well OK then. There’s really no way to prove it, but there’s certainly a lot of questionable activities within the Kinsey research methodology. Some of their responses just don’t seem to make much sense. For example:
Kinsey’s colleague, Gebhard, acknowledged they were coordinating with nursery school directors and operators and parents and grandparents of these kids to obtain the so-called research. He admitted they knowingly were collaborating with these people as they molested the children, and were making use of the fruit of the poisonous tree in Kinsey’s research.
That is absolutely false. Kinsey did interview teachers and parents about the children, but in no way encouraged nor tolerated any such behavior.
What? There’s no explanation as to how Kinsey may have proven himself “intolerant” of such behavior. Personally, I’d turn them into police, confidentiality be damned. At their court hearing, I’d hope to ensure they were given a very friendly,well-endowed cellmate. But this all shows just how bizarre Kinsey’s research was to begin with: he was asking whether or not people were sexual beings at birth. Um, wha? Why? That’s more idiotic than the cocaine for monkeys study Obama’s stimulus paid for.
But I’m digressing a bit on Kinsey. The point is there was obviously something fishy going on. And not the good kind of trout/salmon fishy…the bad kind of having sex with children fishy. Evil fishy. In the Kinsey Syndrome videos I watched, there was a quote from Rene Wormser (imagine there’s a dash over the last “e” in her name, to make it seem super fancy). What I discovered is that, in her book Foundations: Their Power and Influence, she dealt not only with the Kinsey Institute, but a whole range of the grant-based organizations (RAND, Ford, Carnegie, and Rockefeller, at least). I haven’t read her book, and make no pretense of having done so. But I can Bing with the best of them! (Note: Binging is like Googling, but for people who don’t like Google). She also mentioned the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).
I’d come across the CFR just recently because a friend questioned Newt Gingrich’s membership in the organization. In researching them, I found a video. It’s from the John Birch Society. They were fighting globalism, and have been doing it since 1958. They stand for American sovereignty and Constitutional rights. They have a pretty small following these days, it seems, so maybe they did something stupid at one point (like getting run by a Klan member, I dunno) but at their inception they stated they were men of all races (and this was in 1958!). Regardless, you’re probably tired of reading by now and, if you’ve actually watched any (much less all) of the videos to which I’ve linked, then God bless ye weary soul.
The general idea, as I understand it, is that there is a movement to tear down America’s Judeo-Christian roots and create a post-modern, global communist Government. Glenn Beck talks about it quite a bit, right? George Soros is a big part of it. The unions and Trumka. Van Jones. Bill Ayers. And, of course, Barack Hussein Obama (yes, I have the balls to use his middle name). So on and so forth. Maybe they do all get together weekly to do those bizarre Skull and Bones rituals. Maybe they don’t. I don’t really care one way or the other, and neither should you. That’s the entire point of this windy post. It doesn’t matter if they all hop around naked on pogo sticks drinking chickens’ blood every other Saturday. Even if they don’t, their ideas are idiotic. There is still, quite obviously, people who think that abusing children is somehow A-OK, so long as it’s in the name of progress. There are obviously people willing to coerce abortion and put sterilizers in the water. These people have more screws loose than Frankenstein’s monster!
Maybe Obama’s just another link in the chain of purposefully ruining America, or maybe he’s just another link in the chain of accidentally ruining America. Who cares? The point is that America is being ruined. If you’re interested in conspiracy theories, then go ahead and watch all the videos I linked to. If you’re not, then don’t. Regardless, we all should realize that something terribly wrong is happening. And if you don’t, then feel free to vacate the premises.
Note to the reader: this post leads into my upcoming one Libertarians: Heart and Soul of the GOP, or Progressive Screw? You’re darned tootin’ that’s provocative! See you soon!