Motte and Bailey Arguments

From Quora’s Would you consider the phrase Toxic Masculinity to be toxic?

Caleb Beers, slightly more boring than the average person
Answered Jul 5, 2018

The phrase “toxic masculinity” is, itself, toxic, because it’s a motte and bailey doctrine.

If you’re too lazy to click that link, I’ll explain it here: a motte and bailey doctrine is where you make a lot of outlandish arguments that nobody would agree with, and then, when challenged, retreat and say “No no no I’m only saying [insert airtight definition that doesn’t really imply their point here].” The fallacy takes its name from a medieval castle called a “motte and bailey,” where you have a relatively vulnerable enclosure (bailey) with a much more defensible fallback position (motte). If someone attacks the bailey, you retreat to the motte until they leave, and then you go right back to the bailey.

Alexander identifies some more popular and contemporary identifiable examples, for instance when some feminists argue that in order to be feminist one has to support specific and controversial laws and social norms, but when challenged they retreat to the motte that feminism just means “women are people” or something similar.

“Toxic masculinity” is a typical example of this. Feminists will cite men sitting with their knees too many inches apart as an example of “toxic masculinity,” (bailey) and then when challenged on this, say something like “Oh no I’m just saying that men are under too much pressure In Our Society™” (motte). Then, if you agree to that, they’ll keep arguing that men sitting with their knees too many inches apart is toxic masculinity. It’s about hopping from one foot to the other continuously so nobody can pin down exactly where the sleight-of-hand is happening in your argument. This is a fallacy so subtle that the people using it often do not even realize what they’re doing, which makes it difficult to pin down because in their minds, they’re being totally sincere.

Christians can’t expect their enemies to worry about logical consistency or accuracy: as any modern academic or media type could tell you, words exist to gain a certain political objective (power), not to communicate an accurate, clear understanding of objective reality (truth).

“Assuming any such thing even exist, of course” they would add with a snort.

But while our enemies can afford to place a ‘zero’ value on truth, we cannot.

Therefore, we must not only be aware of the various lies and deceptions being played out, but must loathe, despise, filter out, and fling away all such sleight-of-hand nonsense from our own thinking and language.

Clear, consistent, logical thinking is what God demands, and we must provide.

This is only reasonable, as we live in a consistent, logical, deeply organized Creation, not some random mumbo-jumbo Whirl where anything can become true, if you throw enough billions of years at it.

Or if the Party demands it.

From Why do people think “toxic masculinity” means ALL masculinity is toxic? Do they bother reading an operational definition?

Caleb Beers

Oh, look, a motte and bailey argument!

There’s this thing progressives will do where they define a term in a totally disingenuous manner that has nothing to do with how it’s actually used, and then try to distract you with it. The term “toxic masculinity,” in practice, is just one more accusation that progressive men can throw at each other to virtue-signal and stroke their moral vanity. It also serves as a justification for the hysterical behavior of people who are frightened of men.

The “technical” definition, as with all progressive newspeak, is completely irrelevant because it has nothing to do with how the term is used. It’s similar to how feminists will support controversial policies and social norms and then, when challenged, back up and go “Whoa whoa whoa I’m just saying that women are people come on dude,” even though the argument they were making is not even close to that.

You ought to remember this every time a progressive points to the “technical” definition of toxic masculinity, or feminism, or racism, or whatever: the technical definitions are false because they do not relate to how the word is used in practice. The definitions are, like everything else in their lexicon, a justification. Of course, if anybody uses a term like “toxic masculinity” unironically, you can safely ignore everything they say; they have nothing to offer you. Ignore them until they demonstrate that they have their own opinions, like a real person.

Of course, they’ll shout and scream about your horrible moral failings for not accepting their bizarre abuses of language. They’ll respond to every criticism by redefining words. If you don’t accept it, then they’ll start acting like martyrs: “accept my cynical manipulation of language or you’re a horrible person!” What’s that? I can’t hear you from all the way up on that cross. It’s similar to how toddlers throw a tantrum to get what they want.

“When you point out that I’m abusing language, it’s so horrible! I’m melting! I’M MEEEELLLLTIIIIING!!”

Advertisements

An Unusual Anti-School Viewpoint

This Quora writer below isn’t a hard-righter, and didn’t focus on how the public school was designed to create Obedience.

But he did say something worth remembering, illustrating how the system perpetuates and serves itself.

It’s worth reading, I think, because it reminds us on why the public school system is still here today.

From Quora,

Why do highly intelligent people hate school?

Caleb Beers

Caleb Beers

Ooh! Here’s a chance for me to piss everyone off! I’m going to explain why the school system sucks for intelligent kids, but doing so properly will require a detailed explanation of why the school system sucks in general, so hold on to your hat because we’re gonna cover some ground. In brief, the first step to changing the “school sucks” attitude of our students is to admit that they have a point.

The reason school sucks, especially for intelligent kids, is that the whole thing, particularly in the United States, is built on the assumption that you can manufacture a “good citizen,” whatever that means, the way you manufacture Ford Explorers or tin cans. And if you look at how your average high school routine, it certainly looks like a factory worker’s routine: you sit in a room doing pointless alienating things, until a whistle blows and you leave. Everyone gets roughly the same education: if you’re advanced you might get into honors courses that are ever-so-slightly more difficult, but there’s still a very restrictive idea of what is and is not age appropriate. This is because the school system, as an industry for manufacturing “citizens,” is built on the assumption that everyone is equal, that people are basically all the same, and this is how a kid who could be tackling Schopenhauer or Plato with the right instruction is forced to sit in a room with all of his co-equal coevals and listen to them struggling to read shitty “age-appropriate” young adult fiction. With the right teacher you could understand Milton, but we’re gonna make you sit here with your equals and watch them struggle with Harry Potter.

The underlying problem here is that the school system is not really meant to cultivate the intellect. The goal of a school system is to make children into the kind of people who fit well into the environing society, i.e. socialization. The issue here is that the kind of “socialization” imposed by public schools would have been relevant half a century ago, if every kid there were destined to be a factory worker. The public school system is horribly outdated for socializing anyone in the modern world, it’s arguable as to whether it can even be salvaged, and it never worked for the really bright kids, by which I mean three sigma above average. If you do a little Googling on the subject of test scores between homeschooled kids and traditionally schooled ones and restrict it to academic sources, you’ll find that people who are taught in a more traditional manner, face-to-face by a (parent or) tutor, seems to do well academically. What a surprise!

This is where a lot of conservatives will go on a rant about the school system brainwashing kids into a state-held ideology, and while I won’t deny that public education has an ideological slant, I think that Hanlon’s razor applies here. The school system is pervaded by certain ideologies, yes, but it is also an institution full of sinecures, teachers and administrators, who have a nice secure salary with benefits and create little, if any, value. If you had a position in a system that made you nearly impossible to fire by means of a teacher’s union, and you had guarantees about your salary and benefits and all the rest, would you want to give it up? If you were a school administrator with an easy middle-class job as a government bureaucrat, would you want to give it up? If you were a politician who got elected by spouting sanctimonious rhetoric about Our Precious Educational System, would you want to say something that would lose votes?

(Because I know some public school teacher is going to pop up and start complaining about that last paragraph: yeah, yeah, public school teachers and administrators can piss and moan about how difficult their jobs are (who doesn’t?) but that doesn’t mean that society really needs them, at least not in their current form. Nor does it mean your job is difficult. Would you rather work in a factory or coal mine? No? Then shut the hell up.)

There are some institutions that exist, not because they create a lot of value or have some great social utility, but purely because the environing society is accustomed to their presence and getting rid of them takes too much effort. The school system exists because it’s already there, having acquired enough sociopolitical clout to perpetuate itself. We need the present school system so everyone can go to school for twelve years, and we need everyone to keep going to school for twelve years because otherwise it would wreck the school system. Our precious school system! The sacrosanct institutions of learning that protect Our Democracy™!… From any positive change whatsoever.

To circle back around to the main point, how does this affect intelligent kids? It makes them miserable, that’s how. In Our Democracy™, we have this idea that everyone is equal and that any differences between people are purely the result of some social inequality, so if you remove the social inequality, everyone will have exactly the same needs. This egalitarian pretense makes life hell for anyone outside of the norm, on either end of the distribution. Kids on the far right side of the IQ distribution need, not a more advanced version of the same instruction, but radically different instruction, but we can’t admit this to ourselves because it’s too painful. What, my child doesn’t have access to the best education because they’re not good enough!? But you can’t tell someone, “Your child would not benefit from it because it’s not appropriate for them,” because that will cause a shit-storm.

And so the school system marches on, grinding the average kids into an apathetic pulp, spitting the special needs kids into institutions that take care of them, and turning the highly intelligent ones into bitter misanthropes who cannot fulfill their potential because they’ve seen how society is and don’t care much for benefiting it. That’s Our Democracy™!

If this answer struck a chord with you, I have a Patreon. The link is in my profile. Donate.

I tend to focus on why the evil system was created, and not how it preserves its own power today. Caleb helps to fix my failing, even though the only real solution — defunding the public school system — isn’t going to happen until the top 20% of the population pull out their kids.

I think that day is actually coming: but it’s still at least two decades away.

Our Loving Masters

The Genocider

Take Geore Bernard Shaw, for instance. Quoted below from the progressively-minded George Bernard Shaw Was so Enamored with Socialism He Advocated Genocide to Advance It:


Blindly accepting Communist propaganda, Shaw argued that the dictator was forced to organize mass executions to keep the country safe from “exploiters and speculators.” Mass murders were also necessary to maintain a competent workforce. As Shaw wrote in 1933, the “unfortunate Commissar” must shoot his own workers “so that he might the more impressively ask the rest of the staff whether they yet grasped the fact that orders are meant to be executed.”

But killing the disobedient and inefficient was only the first step in building a better society. Shaw also advocated for a far-reaching eugenics program. “[I]f we desire a certain type of civilization and culture,” he wrote, “we must exterminate the sort of people who do not fit into it.” This included a whole range of “defectives.”

In a 1931 newsreel, he excitedly echoed Nazi sentiment, stating,

If you can’t justify your existence, if you’re not pulling your weight … then clearly, we cannot use the organizations of society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us and it can’t be of very much use to you.

But his murderous impulses didn’t stop there. A considerable number of people, Shaw argued in 1948, will never toe the line and are therefore no use to the rest of society. “[T]he ungovernables, the ferocious, the conscienceless, the idiots, the self-centered myops and morons, what of them?” he asked rhetorically. “Do not punish them. Kill, kill, kill, kill, kill them.”


But no matter. Shaw hated Christianity, loved collectivism (both Red and Black), despised sexual restraint, and longed for Masters with absolute power.

Therefore, he will always and forever be beloved by Our Masters.

Nonetheless, Shaw was also a steadfast critic of capitalism and “Victorian” social values. His fiery denunciations of wealth inequality and traditional sexual morality resonate well with modern progressives. For them, an individual’s adherence to socialist orthodoxy is enough to absolve him of almost any crime.

From George Bernard Shaw Was so Enamored with Socialism He Advocated Genocide to Advance It,by Tyler Curtis

Mr. Curtis is mistaken. Shaw backs criminal oppression and mass murder and large-scale theft and the sterile sodomic society, and therefore he is beloved by Our Masters.

The Faker

Imagine a world in which individuals based their opinions on reason. Now, it is all but a certainty that human beings will at times fail to use logic in their thinking and arrive at conclusions that don’t make any sense. However, reason is a tool that, when applied correctly to a problem, forces individuals to accept its outcome. This is best explained by a simple example: it is impossible to believe that 2+2 is anything but 4. In writing this, I could attempt to persuade you that the correct solution is actually 5, but reason and logic force both of us to acknowledge the factual accuracy of four as the sum.

Unfortunately, human beings have created institutions and social networks that will ignore facts for us. These anti-factual and anti-reason organizations can broadly be called religion.

Replacing Religion: How Secularism Has Failed and How It Can Succeed by Kilian Korth

As we all know, 2 + 2 = 4… until the Politically Correct decide that it actually equals 5.

Just like men aren’t women…. until the Establishment says that it does.

And that things can’t make themselves, no matter how many billions of years you toss at hem… until the Right Sort says that it does.

But no matter: so long as such proclamations are framed in an anti-religious narrative, we can be confident that Korth will agree.

Because, after all, we all know that supernatural religions (as opposed to naturalistic religions, such as Darwinism and Marxism) is the main opponent to the Eternal Visionary Rule of Our Noble Atheistic Masters. Religion — most definitely and especially including Christianity — is the fundamental source of all evil in this world.

And once the central core of all evil has been disposed of – see Shaw for details — then the Wonderful World of the Future will surely arise!

Most atheists believe religion contains nothing of value. Indeed, one of the most popular atheist pioneers of our time, Richard Dawkins, has dismissed religion as nothing more than a “mind virus.” While I am in awe of many of Dawkins’ achievements,

Replacing Religion: How Secularism Has Failed and How It Can Succeed by Kilian Korth

He of the obsolete concept of the selfish gene and memetic theory? I love the 1980s too, but I have no intention of staying there!

While I am in awe of many of Dawkins’ achievements, he and most other prominent atheists and secularists miss what actually is of value in religion. Though I would agree with the assertion that religion is the greatest evil to ever befall humanity,

Replacing Religion: How Secularism Has Failed and How It Can Succeed by Kilian Korth

And we all know how to deal with diseased, worthless Christian filth, now don’t we?

Shaw certainly did.

Though I would agree with the assertion that religion is the greatest evil to ever befall humanity, there are also kernels of value in religious thinking and practice. And these kernels are what keep people in the thralls of faith.

Replacing Religion: How Secularism Has Failed and How It Can Succeed by Kilian Korth

Not logic, not truth, not compassion, not a respect for mercy, not a thirst for justice.

You know: the things Christ has, and Shaw (or Darwin, or Stalin, or Dawkins, and the rest of the Loving Masters) take pride in flinging in the garbage can.

Christians should remember what Our Masters are blind to: evil does not reside in a particular ideology, a particular race, a certain nationality, a unique religion.

Evil reside in the heart of every sinful man. Even Christian hearts, so long as they live as sinners on this earth.

But of course, Shaw, Korth, and the rest of Our Loving Masters have no time for an Eternal Law Applied to ALL, or the Protection of the Innocent, or the idea of Mighty Men being subjected to a Higher Power – a Power that raises up, and casts down, just as He pleases.

They had their murderous and vicious power and pleasures, back in the 20th century. Let them rot there.

For a secular movement to truly succeed worldwide, atheists and those opposed to religion must acknowledge the real value inherent in some religious traditions. The transcendental experience of religion has profound effects on human beings. I too was doubtful of that fact, until I discovered meditation and psychedelics. Indeed the first time I took magic mushrooms, had I been religious I would have been entirely convinced that I had interacted with God himself. Secularism must embrace these experiences and work to provide a framework for people to find meaning outside of ancient holy books. If not, religion will never be defeated.

Replacing Religion: How Secularism Has Failed and How It Can Succeed by Kilian Korth

Korth insists that religion is interchangeable with mystical experiences, attainable via drugs. “The value of religion is in its ability to please me with mystical emotions.”

It’s all about ME!

Not truth.

Not law.

Not service to others.

Not humility before the Lord.

Me. ME. ME!

Muslims are a lot wiser than this… which is why they will still be around centuries from now, even as these secularists are so much dust.

(And we all know why he is retreating into mysticism: the atheist high point has passed, and now, discredited, is in sharp decline. And so, the Flight into Fantasy.)

And perhaps we have now arrived at the greatest crime of religion overall: indoctrination.

Replacing Religion: How Secularism Has Failed and How It Can Succeed by Kilian Korth

A.k.a. Fathers teaching their children, instead of Certified Atheistic Professionals.

“Who owns all things?”

“The State!”

“In whose name?”

“The People!”

“And who directs the State?”

“The Right Sort!”

I choose to worship a different God, than that Korth does. I am simply unwilling to fear men – even atheistic men – rather than fear God.

I’m sure that Shaw has a cure in mind, for people like me.

Unsurprisingly, that abortion is not seen as a crime, while homeschooling is. But Secularism was always a parasitic ideology, stealing Christian children for itself.

Or nowadays, relying on Christians to voluntarily donate their children to the atheistic, pointedly anti-Christian secularist schooling system.

Had Christians taken ownership of their children, and were serious about raising them under the will of God, they would have won the Western Cultural War decades ago. “But who cares about winning, when we can dump our children before the feet of those who despise us, and get more free time to pleasure ourselves today?”

If one is to truly believe in Christianity or Islam, then no questions about the nature of the universe remain.

Replacing Religion: How Secularism Has Failed and How It Can Succeed by Kilian Korth

Let’s carefully ignore the vast number of Christians who kick-started the scientific enterprise.

And let’s not talk about websites such as Uncommon Descent and Creation-Evolution Headlines.

But Secularism was always based on lies.

Andi t’s always more useful to stick to the talking points, than notice what’s happening in front of your nose.

In the past, humanity had the horrific experience of witnessing and suffering under communist regimes. Religious individuals will often point to the crimes of communism as done in the name of atheism or secularism. However, communism simply replaced religious ideology as an inflexible, rigid and cruel doctrine.

Replacing Religion: How Secularism Has Failed and How It Can Succeed by Kilian Korth

And exactly what is wrong with an “inflexible, rigid and cruel doctrine”?

The fact that you don’t like it?

I personally despise the comprehensive dehumanization, hatred for the rule of law, and contempt for liberty that atheist have. But I’m confident that Shaw – and many influential and powerful atheists in history – have a cure for my religious convictions: “the little lead pill”.

After all, we all know that religious people Christians are the Source of All Evil. Not some flaw that resides in the heart of all men – except atheists, of course.

“No man, no problem.”

One of the facts many atheists and skeptics are loathe to confront is that many studies have found that religious people live longer.

Replacing Religion: How Secularism Has Failed and How It Can Succeed by Kilian Korth

I bet that Shaw has a cure for that unfortunate anominality.

And why not? The Actions of the People are not to be judged by disgusting Christian conceptions and prejudices, after all, but in how useful and efficient cruelty, oppression, mass theft, and mass murder can be for The Good of the Collective.

As determined by the Right Sort.

People like Korth, say.

Many will argue that the results are muddled. However, it seems likely that being involved in a community and engaging in some sort of spiritual practice that may put one into a sort of meditative state could have immensely positive life effects.

Replacing Religion: How Secularism Has Failed and How It Can Succeed by Kilian Korth

The day of mass murder – excluding the mass murder of the unborn – is largely past… to the great sorrow of the Right Sort. And they can’t get at the Muslims (or disobedient Christians… or those Orthodox Jews with their four-kids-per-couple families) who stand outside their tiny little carving knives.

So, facing a fading future, it’s time for the drugs and the mysticism.

To combat the ill effects of religion while maintaining the positive ones,

Replacing Religion: How Secularism Has Failed and How It Can Succeed by Kilian Korth

The desire to steal is inherit in atheism. And Socialism, itself a pathetic mockery-copy of Christianity. Or Islam itself, which is best described as a Christian heresy.

ThankGod, I need nothing from atheism. Or the State-adoring Endarkenment. Or, for that matter, the whorish, anti-God Catholic Church which destroyed the unity of Western Christianity in the name of raising fund to build St Peter’s Cathedral, with it’s selling of salvation.

The Catholics got the mighty pile of bricks they wanted.
And God got what he wanted, too.

Same deal with the atheists, who have largely got what they wanted in the West – short of the escapade of mass murder they enjoyed in the Soviet Union, where they finally got to deal with Christian filth in the way they always wanted to.

(And took the greatest pleasure in, as well. Gotta dump those pesky Christian restrictions on sexual pleasure, as both the anti-Christian Beria and the anti-Christian Marquis de Sade would say!

“Religion – most definitely, primarily, Christianity — is the source of all evil in this world.”

And we all know how we should deal with unrepentant evil men, women, and children, now don’t we?)

Furthermore, secularism must accept and value the contemplative or religious experience. Instead of encouraging these valuable experiences through the auspices of organized religion, secularism should open itself to a spirituality unshackled by anything supernatural. Capitalist societies in the West often leave little time for contemplation, introspection, and gratitude. We are sold a materialist story, even though societies long ago discovered that material means are not the secret to happiness.

Replacing Religion: How Secularism Has Failed and How It Can Succeed by Kilian Korth

As any atheistic materialist could tell you, the material world – “energy, matter, and time” is all there is.

“I suppose that a properly drugged-out population may help with centralizing control in the hands of the Right Sort, though.”

Reason cannot fall by the wayside, as it has with phony religious replacements like social justice or communism, but the secular movement must step into an uncomfortable place and own what is of value in religious tradition: establishing a connection to the universe and the natural world around us.

Replacing Religion: How Secularism Has Failed and How It Can Succeed by Kilian Korth

And exactly why should we established such a (pharmaceutical) connection?

Because it helps secure the dominance and comfort of the Right Sort!

The fact that such a connection is as essentially meaningless as any other in a meaningless universe is beside the point. Mysticism can be used to secure power and dominance: therefore, it is useful.

There’s just no need to make the illogical jump that the connection is facilitated by a fairy in the sky.

Replacing Religion: How Secularism Has Failed and How It Can Succeed by Kilian Korth

Malice and contempt for Christians is what drives secularists. Everything else is merely a cover story.

Shaw — and the behavior of atheists, once they gain the power over Christians that they lust for — is sufficient evidence. But often enough, the mask slips when you simply let them talk long enough.

Take the hint, before you feel the lash. Or the Little Red Pill, the certain cure for “the evil filth of the world: Christians.”

Lesson learned: either rule yourself, Christian, or be ruled by those who despise everything you are, intensely hate everything you say, and wish to steal everything you have.

It’s long past time to get at least as serious, at least as committed, as your enemies are.

The Christian Technologist & Craftsman

Recently, Chalcedon gave a good post, tailored to the need of Christian technologists, craftsmen, and other specialists who plan to use their brains and hands and tools to expand the Kingdom of God.

Extensively quoted below, from Martin G. Selbrede’s article The Smiths of Zechariah:


It’s not without reason that R. J. Rushdoony’s comments on Zech. 1:18–21 continue to speak to our era. The passage is addressed to God’s embattled flock, surrounded on all sides by enemies (the “four horns” of verse 18) intent on scattering her. God’s people “had begun their task of reconstruction,” but “their efforts at reconstruction seemed feeble … and they were deeply discouraged … As they turned from one side to the other they saw only hostility” for “they were totally encircled by enemies. They were a handful, some 40,000 against millions.” God acknowledges to His people that “indeed, you are surrounded by power.”1

God appoints four smiths or craftsmen, viz., workers in wood, iron, and stone (rendered “carpenters” in the KJV) to fray the horns, or as Rushdoony puts it, to “dehorn every horn.” Rushdoony entitled this vision “For Every Oppressor a Destroyer,” summarizing it thus: “The powers are around you but God has already appointed the destroyers. Have no fear. Your task, therefore, awaits you.” God has appointed the means for destroying those hostile to His Kingdom.

Rushdoony prefaces his discussion of this vision by pointing out the “two great evils that have characterized human activities in culture after culture and plague us even in the Church.” These are quietism (which degenerates into a mysticism leading to a “total withdrawal from all things”) and the “kind of activism that feels a responsibility for the whole world” that amounts to playing God, requiring perpetual vigilance to prevent the world from disintegrating. Both evils involve the individual in identifying themselves as God (either in ceaseless action or in transcendent unconcern), which Rushdoony illustrates.

The activist believes “the world will not function if they do not keep up their perpetual concern, their perpetual activism. Such activism is, of course, playing at being God. It is wrong and it is foolish.” We will return to this point of Rushdoony’s shortly, but we must also note what other commentators have seen in this vision concerning the fraying of the horns, what W. S. Lewis calls the peculiar nature and peculiar instrument of God’s defense against the horns:

Not other “horns” to push against these; not other men of war to overcome these; but artificers only, men of peace.2

Lewis suggests that “the best defence at that time to God’s people” was to be “engaged in building,” and that this is the appointed means for toppling all the horns of the enemy: faithfulness. In other words, not by might nor by power but by what Rushdoony elsewhere called “the spirit-filled men.”3 The task of building, of reconstruction, ultimately voids and breaks the power of God’s enemies. The word translated “smiths,” charashim, involves skilled work done quietly:

charashim … denotes silent thought or attention; [in some forms] to contrive, devise in silence; hence applied as a noun to an artificer of any kind, and to any work which disposes to silent attention. Thus, to potters wares, Lev. 6:28; Job 2:8; and in many other places. So also to plowing, Deut. 22:10; Prov. 20:4, which requires constant attention to make “the right-lined furrow.” Let it be remembered that in ancient times such works were more esteemed than the useless ones we have learned to admire.4

[…]

1. Quotations taken from the second chapter of Dr. R. J. Rushdoony’s commentary on Zechariah, forthcoming.

2. Spence, H. D. M. and Joseph S. Exell, ed., The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1950), vol. 14, chapter on Zechariah by W. J. Deane and W. S. Lewis, p. 9.

3. Rushdoony, Rousas John, Exodus (Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 2004), pp. 457–461.   

4. Clarke, Adam, Bible Commentary (New York, NY: Abingdom Press, n.d.), vol. 4, p. 771.


“For Every Oppressor a Destroyer.”

I like the sound of that.

Every Christian should.

Not other “horns” to push against these; not other men of war to overcome these; but artificers only, men of peace.

We are not Muslims, and we are not Secularists.

We are Christians.

So let us fight – and win – as Christians, Servants of the King.

Atheists Dump Darwin

PIt looks like Our Secularist Masters are starting to ditch Darwin. A few are even talking and posing like broad-minded free speech warriors – after shutting down Christian opposition to Darwin, of course. Like it matters now, as the Darwinians have already shifted science from “the search for truth, whatever it may be” into “protect my atheistic presuppositions.”

The only real change is a new band of fresh, new, reality-denying (“gender is a construct!”) anti-Christians taking over from the aging, comfortable, reality-denying (“things create themselves!”) anti-Christians.

Despite this, I am confident that the scientific endeavor will continue. Without government funding, and without media support, and outside the Academy, which will openly become nothing but the Statist-Progressive ideology re-education centres they always were implicitly.

After all, it was the Darwinians who insisted that “humans are just a pack of animals“: modern liberals have merely taken this explicitly anti-Christian viewpoint, and pushed it forward.

This lack of support and funding will hurt reality-seeking (as opposed to cowardly grant-seeking and tenure-seeking) scientists for the next generation.

I happen to believe that truth-seeking researchers — especially the toughened Christian ones, who have adopted to life outside of the sheltered and protected Inner Ring — will keep their integrity and bravery, stay optimistic, continue to work hard, and maintain standards for evidence tied to testable reality, not a self-adoring, anti-reality ideology.

Such scientists will build a great deal of strength, which will be needed to face the even tougher challenges of the future.

More knowledge + More power + More determination = Even greater challenges sent by God to test and purify and strengthen your mind and spirit!

Postscript: Did you really think that these delusional, self-destructive atheistic fools — both the “things make themselves” and “my feelings and my words shapes reality” types — were the main enemy?

Please!

These Mighty Enemies, backed by the Right Sort, are just teddy bears, toys to build up the strength and discipline needed for the real challenges coming to us in the future!

Stop whining, dump the fear, and get serious.

Fight and fail greatly, learn & teach,

Fight and fail somewhat, learn & teach,

Fught and win a bit, learn & teach,

Fight and win mostly, learn & teach,

Fight and win totally.

Praise the Lord!

And on to the next stronghold of Satan,
with a grin and a sledgehammer.

(After all, why do you think Darwin is being abandoned by the atheists?
Because the Right Sort said to do it?

NO!

Darwin is on his way out, because

  1. Committed Christians point-blank refused to give up, and refused to be intimidated into silence.
  2. The truth will come out.
  3. The refusal to kneel to lies and falsehood delivers results… eventually. After a price has been paid.

In the meantime, Peter Vlaming is my new hero.  “Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me,”  Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote in Cancer Ward.  Vlaming is the teacher in the Virginia case.  He lived Solzhenitsyn’s dictum in real time, and he refused to knuckle under to the tyranny of the progressives who dominated the school board.  And he suffered for it.  Solzhenitsyn would not have been surprised.  Indeed, he predicted this very thing, because he, of all people, knew that refusing to participate in lies would be costly.  In Live Not by Lies he wrote:

And the simplest and most accessible key to our self-neglected liberation lies right here: Personal non-participation in lies. Though lies conceal everything, though lies embrace everything, we will be obstinate in this smallest of matters: Let them embrace everything, but not with any help from me . . .

Some, at first, will lose their jobs. For young people who want to live with truth, this will, in the beginning, complicate their young lives very much, because the required recitations are stuffed with lies, and it is necessary to make a choice.

But there are no loopholes for anybody who wants to be honest: On any given day any one of us will be confronted with at least one of the above-mentioned choices even in the most secure of the technical sciences. Either truth or falsehood: Toward spiritual independence, or toward spiritual servitude.

And he who is not sufficiently courageous even to defend his soul — don’t let him be proud of his “progressive” views, and don’t let him boast that he is an academician or a people’s artist, a merited figure, or a general –let him say to himself: I am in the herd, and a coward. It’s all the same to me as long as I’m fed and warm. . . .

You say it will not be easy? But it will be easiest of all possible resources. It will not be an easy choice for a body, but it is only one for a soul. No, it is not an easy path. But there are already people, even dozens of them, who over the years have maintained all these points and live by the truth.

So you will not be the first to take this path, but will join those who have already taken it. This path will be easier and shorter for all of us if we take it by mutual efforts and in close rank. If there are thousands of us, they will not be able to do anything with us. If there are tens of thousands of us, then we would not even recognize our country.

If we are too frightened, then we should stop complaining that someone is suffocating us. We ourselves are doing it. Let us then bow down even more, let us wait, and our brothers the biologists will help to bring nearer the day when they are able to read our thoughts are worthless and hopeless.

And if we get cold feet, even taking this step, then we are worthless and hopeless, and the scorn of Pushkin should be directed to us:

“Why should cattle have the gifts of freedom?

“Their heritage from generation to generation is the belled yoke and the lash.”

From Refusing to Participate in a Lie Can be Costly; Just Ask Peter Vlaming
by
Barry Arrington

Christians are not called to be cattle.

Christians are called to be free.

And God spoke all these words, saying

“I am the Lord your God,
who brought you out of the land of Egypt,
out of the house of slavery.

You shall have no other gods before me.”

Exodus 20:1-3, English Standard Version

How Christianity Invented the Future

Just some comments on the original article, How Christianity Invented the Future by Bojidar Marinov. It’s derived from the post from my Traveller sci-fi blog, with some fictional elements deleted.

Even if you go to Wikipedia and read the article on “Future,” you will see that that article is quite short, with a few sketchy paragraphs on each of the disciplines of physics, philosophy, and religion, and half of the article devoted to side issues like art styles, and music and literary genres that have adopted the concept as foundational (like futurism and science fiction). It even lacks serious references for additional reading: no books, only a few references to marginal encyclopedias and newspaper articles. To compare, the article on “Mysticism,” for example, is about 8 times longer, very detailed and comprehensive, and has about 150 references, all to serious academic studies.

So, despite the enormous importance of the Future as a concept to our civilization (and to our storytelling), Academia doesn’t like to define it as a philosophical concept.

Can you guess why?

Now, there is a good reason why modern philosophy – especially modern secular philosophy – is incapable of even beginning to define the concept of the future. That reason is that modern philosophy has fallen victim to its foundational premise: that whatever definition or logical rule we use, it cannot refer us us back to anything supernatural, or to any other and higher reason or mind outside and above the human mind and human experience. Everything man uses to define himself and the world around himself must be based on “natural” assumptions, meaning naturalistic assumptions. All the foundations for our definitions must be grounded in man’s direct sensory experience. You know the regular atheist excuse for an argument: “If I can’t see your God, then He is either non-existent or irrelevant.” Philosophers know that such excuse is rather primitive and low-brow, and they seldom use it directly, it is still, as a philosophical presupposition, embedded deeply into the modern secular thought. So when it comes to definitions of things that require some open display of non-sensory faith, philosophers are rather timid to take up the challenge.

“I can’t touch the future: therefore, it doesn’t exist!”

And it is not just modern secular philosophers. All pagan religions follow the same pattern. Well, of course, all pagan religions are by default naturalistic, given that their “gods” are simply part of the universe itself, and therefore are under the same limitations as man in terms of definitions. How can a pagan god, limited in his very being to the position of simply another being within space and time, experience the future so that he can define it? … So pagan religions never talk about the future, it is never a concept that they either define or visualize. In fact, to a great extent, it is something they are afraid of.

[My Traveller sci-fi chat deleted – AP]

[Marinov discusses the Aeneid, a beautiful Roman work that is grounded in the fear of the future.]

Then what was the promise for the people of Rome in it, and what was the appeal of Octavian’s reign? It was not progress. It was stagnation. The more things changed before that, the worse the world had become. Octavian came with the promise that nothing will ever change again. The old golden age was gone. A new one was not coming. The only hope was that time would somehow freeze and there won’t be future. And that’s what Octavian promised to do. In fact, that was a major part of his propaganda campaign. His main adversary, Mark Anthony, served him with the main propaganda pitch by fleeing to Egypt and becoming a lover to Cleopatra; all that Octavian had to do is declare that Anthony wanted to introduce changes, and bring Egyptian customs to Rome. Right there, Anthony lost all his appeal with the people of Rome. No one wanted changes. Everyone was afraid of what the future would bring. Octavian’s promise of eternal stability and no future changes was all that the people wanted.

[An anti-future sci-fi space empire] started exactly when the Western Roman Empire fell, in AD 473.

“Coincidence? I think not!”

They hated the future and change so much that whenever anything new appeared, they made sure they destroyed it. When an inventor showed Emperor Tiberius a new metal he created out of dust – which must have been aluminum – Tiberius had him executed. The steam engine was known for two centuries in the ancient world but no attempts have been made to put it to productive use. The Chinese culture made an amazing number of discoveries very early in its history, and yet, the government and the culture never applied them to mass use, and in fact, by the early 20th century, the average Chinese lived no differently than his ancestors 20 centuries earlier. And I am sure I don’t have to explain to my listeners the Buddhist and Zen-Buddhist views on time. In short, time is an illusion for them. As is all existence, of course.

The Jews, of course, were the sore thumb. They not only believed in time, they eagerly expected the future. They counted the years to that future. Their prophets tried to examine it, and some even to fast forward to it. Some, like Simeon and Hannah, lived in the Temple waiting to see the future. But their view was still stagnant. Given that the future was focused on a specific single event: the coming of the Messiah. What after that? The Jews didn’t know.

Marinov is correct… but don’t count out the Orthodox Jews just yet. With four kids per couple, they are still a people with a plan for the future!

Christ not only delivered the redemption. He also delivered a view of the future shocking to everyone, including the Jews. On one hand, he was the fulfillment of the expectations of the Jews. On the other hand, however, he was the destruction of their expectations. From a Jewish perspective, history was supposed to end right there, at the coming of the Messiah. He was supposed to defeat His enemies and establish the Throne of David, and rule over the world. And the world was supposed to enter the same stagnant state that the Aeneid postulated about the reign of Augustus: everything would be perfect, nothing would change anymore. That’s what the disciples expected of Jesus, as is obvious from their reactions to His eschatological passages: “Are you going to restore the Kingdom now?” Or, “Who of us will be greater in the coming Kingdom?”

Jesus, however, had a different view of the future, one that would shock both Gentiles and Jews. He scandalized the Gentiles by saying all their past to which they clung so religiously was nothing. That the future was that mattered. That change is not demonic and dark, but is the only way they can enter the Kingdom of God and find purpose. That God had prepared for them – if they trusted in Him – unspeakable blessings, that the past knew nothing about. All your poets, philosophers, kings, heroes, gods and semi-gods were blind. There was no Golden Age in your past. The future is what matters.

Especially the Far Future, as any believing Christian could tell you.

All believing, victory-oriented Christians can agree: leave the Golden Age conservative whining for the pagans.

That was a war. When you read all the Roman edicts against the Christians, what is the main argument there, sometimes repeated three or four times in the same edict? That Christians did not follow the ancient ways and did not honor the past and the ancestors. They had higher expectations of something the Gentiles did not understand: the future.

The Rapture-ready masses, fearful of the future, have FAR more in common with the pagans than they think.

The scandal was much graver for the Jews, however. They were OK with a faith in the future. The scandal that Jesus brought to them was not that the future is important. It was that the event they have been waiting for was not the end of history but rather its beginning.

The Jews, in the end, were just a door God used to physically get into History.

Still, there is something about them… after all, it is God that opens the womb, and it is the Orthodox Jews — not White Americans or Black Americans or even Christian Americans — who are having the kids.

Something to consider, hmm?

Either way, the vision Jesus introduced of the future was a shocking novelty, and Christians were specifically persecuted for it. We won’t understand it unless we understand that for the pagan world, the future was demonic and was to be feared. In fact, all change was demonic and was to be feared. And here was this new religion which not only disrespected the past but it also promised cosmic and gigantic changes on earth, and its followers were actively involved to make those changes and to build that new civilization they wanted, the Kingdom of God. They were somehow sure that those changes would bring something new and better, and were so committed to bring them about that they were willing to die for the privilege. Even an avowed enemy of Christianity like Karl Marx acknowledged this unique view of history and the future. In his address to the Hague Congress in 1872, he said the following (take note of the language of “new” and “old”):

Someday the worker must seize political power in order to build up the new organization of labor; he must overthrow the old politics which sustain the old institutions, if he is not to lose Heaven on Earth, like the old Christians who neglected and despised politics.

That’s where he got his idea of change and optimism for the future: from the Biblical idea of Heaven on Earth. And then he rightly mocks Christians for abandoning their own idea

There was a time when Christians walked with their head up high, shaping the future. Instead of crawling on our bellies before Our Betters, begging for mercy, hoping that things will Just Stop Changing.

It’s long past time to straighten our spine, and walk upright like a man. Rather than crawl and beg like a dog.

But the reality is, before modern Christians abandoned that idea, the only bearer of a true concept of the future – or of any concept of the future at all – was Christianity. Everywhere where Christianity touched, it was met with opposition not so because people were hostile to the idea of a Savior Who gave His life for His people, but because they realized that Christianity meant death to their concept of history. It demanded a full break up with the past, a full commitment to the future, and an uncompromising belief in the benefits of change. Any change. In culture after culture, we see the same motif as we saw in the Roman edicts against Christians: “Christians abandon the heritage of the past and dishonor the ancestors.” When King Boris I moved to Christianize Bulgaria in the 9th century, that was the only objection of his nobles: This is a war against our past. And my native country wasn’t an exception. No matter where you are from, when you look back at the history of your ancestors, you will see the same pagan refrain: Your Christianity dishonors our past.

Yes, it does. It does it because it presents to you a God who is above time and has created time, and He controls past and present and future. And He commands you to abandon your past and your pagan heritage, and instead of heritage and looking back, He invites you to adopt a hope, a faith, and looking forward. Your past is worth nothing

[Sci-fi chat about a vast space empire that tried to stop the future from arriving… and failed.]

What is worth everything is the things that God has prepared for you, what no eye has seen and no ear has heard, and no human mind has conceived (Isaiah. 64:4; 1 Cor. 2:9). Christianity radically shifted the focus of men from the past to the future, and thus created a radically new mentality, one that has never existed before. And it scared the daylights out of the pagan culture. Or, rather, scared the darkness out of it. You want to know where the original idea of progressivism came? It was from Christianity. Modern Progressives have simply stolen the idea and have stripped it of its Christian roots. And, they have only done it because Christians have abandoned the idea of progress.

When Christians start looking to the Far Future with confidence, instead of a craven and cowardly fear, they will rise to be what they should have always been.

If want to know what a culture thinks of the future, see how it treats its young people. Does it trash them, bash them, and distrust them? That culture has lost its vision of the future. Does it trust them, uplift them, encourage them, arms them with purpose and vision? That culture has broken its chains with the past, has abandoned its idolatry of the ancestors, and has adopted an optimistic outlook.

It is for this reason why, when we look at the days of Christendom in Europe and North America, we see that the majority of the important figures in those centuries were men in their 20s and 30s. Luther was 34 when he nailed the 95 theses. Calvin was 21 when he broke openly with the Roman Catholic Church, and he was 27 when he fled Paris and settled in Geneva. By that time, he already had written half of his Institutes – at least the first version. The majority of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were young men that today wouldn’t even be seriously considered for political office. Men joined the military or the Navy at unbelievably young ages – some even starting at 9, and some reaching commanding ranks by the age of 16. This speaks much about these young men, but it speaks even more about the society around them which saw no issue with giving them authority over older men. Benjamin Franklin was 70-year-old at the time of the American Revolution, and he worked with young men 50 years his junior, and discussed politics with them, and issued proclamations with them, and we never ever see him even mentioning this gigantic age gap between him and his co-workers and co-conspirators. Never even a condescending word or a patronizing tone. Same thing with George Washington or some of the other older men among the revolutionaries. To compare, Lafayette was only 20 when he joined the Revolution; and yet, we see no hint of any distrust or patronizing of the Frenchman by any American Founding Father.

When you love and welcome the Future, you love, respect, strengthen, and honour the young.

When you hate and detest the Future, you do your level best to carve it up before it is born.

(Or at least poison the youth, if you can’t kill the future under cover of law.)

… it was the church that had dropped the ball. Pessimistic eschatologies – amillennialism and premillennialism were already creeping in. By the beginning of the 20th century, the church had surrendered to pessimism. And with it, the Western civilization.

And Christians learned to crawl, and beg, and fear the Future… and human Masters.

Time for a change.

Intelligent Design 3.0

(Thanks to Uncommon Descent for the tip)

The times, they are a’changing…. complete with a flourishing ID Underground.

What does this mean for Christians? Mainly, that by around 50-100 years, Darwinianism & Atheistic Materialism will be discredited.

This is a big step forward – no more dehumanizing “people are really just disposable animals” illogical cant from Our Betters, for one thing.

But really, that’s already happening: today’s SJWs still loathe Christians, but also have no time for atheists who Challenge the Narrative. Being merely anti-Christian/atheistic will not protect you.

And in truth, even before Darwin, most educated people in the West were not seven-day Creationists (as I am). Instead, they were more deistic in their thought, or a mix of the Bible and the local Spirits/Old Ways.

Summary

Merely acknowledging reality, that the universe is designed/created, is not enough.

The identity of the creator – Jesus Christ – must be acknowledged as well.

And – unlike intelligent design – the truth of Christianity cannot be deducted solely by clear thinking and careful research. Some degree of faith is needed, as well.

…and…

It is always possible to cheerfully agree with every doctrinal and historical point of the Christian Faith… and simply decide that you will not kneel, worship, and obey Jesus Christ, even though He is everything he says he is.

“Knowledge — even accurate and true knowledge — does not save.”

That being said, I strongly value good and true knowledge far, far higher than a worthless pack of murderous lies.