All posts by Alvin Plummer

About Alvin Plummer

I'm working to build a better world, a world that blesses Christ and is blessed by Him. I hope that you're doing the same!

Evolution, Dehumanization… and the Christian Counter

Evolutionist Admits Darwin’s Connection to Racism is a good “review the basics” article, so far as the actual, dehumanizing results of Darwinist thought are concerned.

But here, I want to focus on the opposition to Darwin: Christianity and the Personal, Meaningful Cosmos of justice and mercy Christians – and not Darwinists – recognize as the Real World.

But first, the temple priesthood. You know, the best churches with the right short of people

—<Quoting from the article below>—

Unfortunately, many of the so-called liberal Christian churches that accepted evolution, such as some Methodist, Presbyterian and Episcopalian churches, influenced by their colleges and universities, went along with eugenics because, they reasoned, if evolution from molecule to man was a fact, all of the races could not be equal.[5] And as a result,

Christians played a large role in the dissemination of eugenics. … one of the largest standing committees of the American Eugenics Society [in the first three decades of the twentieth century] was the Committee on Cooperation with Clergymen.” In fact, clergy of many religious traditions joined in the cause, writing, preaching, and lecturing widely in support of eugenics.[6]

Slattery makes it clear that exceptions to this Christian embrace of eugenics occurred primarily within denominations that rejected evolution and held to the Biblical teaching that all humans are descendants of the first human couple created by God, namely Adam and Eve. He points out that anti-modernist Catholics, together

with fundamentalist Protestants, most Catholics opposed both evolution and eugenics. Eugenics was largely supported by moderate and liberal Christians who embraced science because they believed it was on the side of social progress.[7]

Furthermore, the “same people who supported some variety of eugenics often championed progressive political causes. Such figures included Helen Keller, Winston Churchill, Teddy Roosevelt, and … Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.” As Professor Slattery acknowledged,

if you accepted Darwin’s evolutionary theory in the early twentieth century, you probably also supported eugenics. Pro-science progressives embraced both, while conservatives, including the Vatican, rejected both. Very few rejected one but not the other.[8]

Slattery continues by describing what happened after World War II.

Public support of eugenics plummeted after Nazi Germany’s crimes were revealed. While many scientists continued to argue against the equality of all humans—protesting en masse, for example, against the 1950 UNESCO statement on human rights—the tide of public opinion had turned.

The world finally realized the harm that accepting evolution inevitably caused. The fact is, when “Darwin introduced his theory of “evolution by means of natural selection” in 1859… most scholars still believed in the immediate creation of all human life by God.” After Darwin, all of this changed. Now, close to 98 percent of all eminent scientists reject Christianity and most of those embrace atheism.

—<End quote>—

That “98% of all eminent scientists reject Christianity” exists mainly for two reasons:

  • The Right Sort of clergy dumped the Law, God’s Authority, and the Authority of Scripture long ago. As the Sadducees insisted, the authority of men is dominant outside the temple precincts, while the authority of the priest shall rule within, to conduct the right ceremonies and spout the mystical words.

and, more grimly

  • Faithless Christians ran away from reality, instead of facing the enemy: crying out for a Rapture, insisting that this world belongs to Satan rather than Christ, and quietly despising the Law and the Commandments as much – perhaps even more than – any atheist did.
    • I wonder how much of this was tied to enjoying the stolen goods of the welfare state, shifting their love and trust from an invisible God to government cheques you can see and touch.
    • “It is not God who heals, who provides salvation and salves (medicine). It is the government hospital, and the government doctor, who saves your lives without cost!”
  • As they don’t really believe that God actually commanded them to occupy the land and expand His Kingdom, these faithless cowards are quite willing to turn leadership positions in society to those who hate God. “Less stress and bother, more time to righteously preen in our cloisters and chase younger members of the congregation!”

As for those servants who would not have Him rule over them? Who would pour contempt on His laws and His words?

And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come.

But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us.

Luke 19:13-14, King James Version

You know how the parable ends.

And don’t forget: this parable isn’t focused on unbelievers, be they Muslims or Jews or Atheists. The evil servants claim to be good citizens of the Heavenly Kingdom, servants of God.

Shun the rebellious servants of God.

  • They live for safety, pleasure, and honour today… and have no future.
  • Not themselves… and not their non-existent children either.

Stick with the loyal and obedient servants of God.

  • They pay the price — financial, career, socially — today… for a good future.
  • Themselves… and their children, physical and spiritual, too!

Motte & Bailey Arguments

A nice overview of the “Motte & Bailey” argument is here, at Lamb’s Reign. To quote in part:

—<Quote begins>—

When it comes to the motte & bailey fallacy, it’s when someone is making a very hard to defend claim (bailey), and then when challenged they resort to vague generalities or platitudes which are much more commonly agreeable (motte). From their high perch atop the motte they can act like this easier to defend statement is what they were arguing for the whole time. It’s an evasive maneuver that shields them from having to defend the dubious statements which were being made in the bailey. Sort of like a reverse strawman.

For example:

Bailey claim: Adolf Hitler was a force for good with many great achievements. He revived the pride of the beleaguered German people, eliminated the factionalism that plagued the Weimar republic and beat back the Bolsheviks. America should have joined forces with Germany!

Challenge: (Comprehensive and stinging rebuttal utterly refuting the argument and proving that Adolf Hitler was indeed evil with overwhelming facts and counter arguments)

Motte response: I will always stand against Bolshevism which is morally repugnant and your pro-Bolshevist response will not deter me!

No one argued in support of the Bolshevists.

Or another:

Bailey claim: “Slavery was a side issue! The south seceded to defend states rights!”

Challenge: (Comprehensive and stinging rebuttal utterly refuting the claim that slavery was a “side issue” with regard to southern secession with overwhelming facts and counter arguments)

Motte response: “The notion that the North invaded the south because it wanted to free the slaves out of the kindness of their hearts is ridiculous.”

No one argued that the North invaded the south for virtuous reasons. That wasn’t being argued.

The first argument was ridiculous and easily rebutted. It represents the real point that the person is trying to persuade people of. When challenged, rather than concede the original point, the point is evaded rather than dealt with and instead more commonly agreeable generalities are inserted in its place.

—<Quote ends>—

Note especially this:

“The first argument was ridiculous and easily rebutted. It represents the real point that the person is trying to persuade people of.”

That first argument can be a vast range of lunatic nonsense, from “things make themselves, given billions of years” to “men can marry men, and women women” to “men are women, if they say they are.”

Motte and bailey arguments fail when pressed, which is when Our Masters turn to judicial fiat, or electoral mandates, or control of the educational, academic and media apparatus to get their way. Arguments are the cover: guns are the core.

But such arguments are useful as cover, to get a foot in the door, a crack in the wall.

Foolishness will still fail: but when backed by the carrots and sticks of the State — and a certain lack of resistance by the populace — they can be socially and legally enforced for a while, from a few years to decades.

Till the money runs out, and/or certain unexpected implications kick in.

“But so what? During my lifetime, I got what I wanted, showed off how much power and control I had, and utterly dominated all those filthy, moronic and repulsive Christians.

And that’s all that really mattered.”

Christians will inherit the earth, so we must plan for the time when the power and authority of Our Loving Masters lie broken on the ground.

And, once that era starts, it will never end.

  • The Aztec and Incan human sacrifices are never coming back.
  • The Southern Slaveowners are never coming back.
  • The Kings and Emperors of yore are never coming back.
  • The Nazis are never coming back.
  • The era of European Domination is never coming back.
  • The Commies are never coming back.
  • and the Progressives & Liberals — after the welfare state is busted into bankruptcy, the media complex shattered, and the priestly authority of the expert falls apart — are never coming back.

The only real competition worthy of the name are the Muslims: and for a century or two will actually grow: European Arabs have children, while Secular Europeans do not. But the Jihad have already lost Black Africa, and both Iran and North Africa is just beginning to drop off the scopes.

After the US is bankrupted, they will pull out their military from the Middle East, and real Christian growth in the region can kick in.

The Road to Agelessness

(An edited version of the sci-fi original)

Nope, not real-deal, laughing at bullets, mocking nuclear strikes immortality.

But agelessness? Yep.

The article mentions in passing that “It’s not known whether cells in other organs and tissues have this capability, but it remains an open avenue of investigation.” Logically, it would seem that blood and skin are the next to investigate, since they constantly regenerate new cells. Skin cells were the first tissue cells that Yamanaka used to develop iPSCs.

But what if each organ or tissue could have this capability? The body could live indefinitely, because repairs would be automatic. It would be like each part of a car having the innate ability to return to the raw material from which it was made, and then mold itself back over the damaged part. You would never have to drive to a garage for an external agent (a mechanic) to take out and replace a part. The car could have ‘eternal life’ in a sense.

How Tissues Could Last Forever, by David F. Coppedge

Seeing Christians stop worrying about the Antichrist, and start planning how to create ageless humanity, is what makes living today far more interesting than back in the supposedly better days of the past.

Jerry Lewis

Jerry Lewis spent his time and money well.

We Christians should emulate both of his virtues: his excellent professional work as a comedian onstage, and his purely compassionate work with the ill and the weak (in his case, muscular dystrophy kids).

Don’t forget the trailblazers. Remember them, and strive to do even better than they did!

Secular Monks

I am a practical philosopher. Every day, I speak with people who work in technology, finance, entrepreneurship, and venture capitalism about basic matters of human existence. My clients live in New York, San Francisco, or Los Angeles, and they are earnest, conscientious, open-minded, and thoughtful. If reason demands it or creativity suggests it, they’re willing to deviate from orthodoxy. The men tend to be secular humanists, scientific materialists, and experimenters on themselves. Now middle-aged, and despite—or perhaps because of—their great success in life, they have begun to search for they know not what. Long asleep to the good life, they have begun to wake up to what they once took for granted. How they will live henceforth is up for grabs. They are not completely lost, but they have not yet come home.

Recently, I began to notice that well-educated, bright, well-off, urban thirty-five- to forty-five-year-old heterosexual American men are tending either to remain single or to marry late in life. When they do marry, they have few children. One client of mine, a cofounder of a startup, conducted a straw poll and found that half of his two dozen male friends in this age range were unmarried, and only three had children.

Secular Monks by Andrew Taggart

After the perversity, comes the sterility.

Dorsey is a secular abbot for secular monks. He embodies the ascetic self-control of the Calvinist, the aspiration for indomitable human agency, and the secular orientation to the practical conduct of everyday life. He puts all three in the service of success.

Dorsey and other secular monks fear slavery and impurity. For these life designers and technologists, a slave is someone who falls victim to circumstance, indecisiveness, and waywardness. Freedom may be achieved through ascetic exercises whose point is to strengthen resolve and sharpen focus.

Freedom from slavery is consonant with the desire for purity. To be pure means to exist without limits, to live without being confined. Living free of circumstance, torpor, and listlessness: Such is the vision of godliness, or the good life.

Needless to say, this ascetic conception of the good life leaves no room for marriage and parenthood. A long-term commitment to a woman and children opens one to enslavement. The “new celibacy” is one of the habits of success. Family life is constant disruption. You can’t sleep soundly when your child wails all night with a cough and fever. You can’t perfect yourself when you must always consider your wife’s needs. Secular monkhood requires a strict regimen. It’s good for a man to be alone. 

Secular Monks by Andrew Taggart

For obvious reasons, these “autonomous, self-made men” are not the future.

But you gotta admit, these entrepreneurs are hard workers. So long as they don’t go down the collectivist route and move to control others “For The Sake of Society”, they can cheerfully enjoy their money and freedom.

And, after a long, wealthy life and comfortable death?

The wealth of the sterile wicked is transferred to the children of the righteous.

Human Rights as Law

In revolutionary countries you expect to find desecration: churches turned into lavatories or reformatories, their sanctuaries wrecked and defiled, their bells pulled down and melted, and their crosses tumbled to the ground by commissars, as the Young Pioneers jeer.  

Yet not all revolutions are so unsubtle. Those who intend to succeed move more carefully, smiling as they destroy. It is not true that nobody learns anything from history. Jacobin radicals—for all modern revolutions are really heirs of Robespierre and Fouché—have learned from their failures. Why annoy people into opposing you? Why risk turning nuisances into martyrs?

In modern Britain, officially a Christian kingdom whose symbol of authority is the Crown of St. Edward surmounted by a cross, Christian law and morals have been ruthlessly dethroned. But those who did it did it with a kiss rather than with a sword. They brought desecration but called it redecoration or modernization. And by the time the truck had carted the broken pieces to the landfill, it was too late to protest.

Human Dignity Redefined, by Peter Hitchens

And so it goes, when you let someone other than God define right and wrong, and become the Source of the Law.

  • Human Rights? Oh, that’s whatever the Right Sort says it means, so it’s 100% approved by Official Authority.
  • The Ten Commandments? Oh, that’s just babble from some old book, that hinders what the Right Sort from doing precisely what it pleases.

It is wise to assume that the vast majority of seminary-trained pastors will never pay any price to lead people and nations to live under the laws of God, rather than men. (You’d be surprised to discover just how many pastors quietly hate the Law of God themselves.)

We, the intelligent layman, cannot trust multi-generational institutional failures to expand the Kingdom of God. We will have to do it ourselves. The faster we get cracking on this — working to expand the Kingdom of God into the real world, and ditching the model of the powerless mystery cults, the temple services and the privilege-protecting priestly guild — the better.

If you are part of a living local congregation, rejoice!

If you are part of a spiritually dead congregation, ditch it.

More on Joseph Fouche – Wikipedia

More on Maximilien Robespierre – Wikipedia, Book: The Voice of Virtue

On the Liberal Love of Minorities

(A partial repost from the sci-fi blog)

Reading a few Spiked articles from Britain:

Minority moral posing is important to the Western white elites. I mean, really important, to the level that it smells like some kind of substitute for religion.

A strongly-held religion, that justifies their power, that is beloved precisely because it is not commonly shared by the masses, and thus confers Elite status.

But certainly, a religion “free of all that supernatural cant of some god telling us what we can or can’t do. That’s what we are for!”

A special note should be made of the envy-driven hatred the British Left reserves for successful, capitalistic, morally conservative British Indians… despite their dark skin.

When you aren’t a toy to be used, the Master’s love will turn to venom.

Black Americans, take note.