Day By Day by The Great Chris Muir

Thursday, October 1, 2015

How Pedophilia Will Be Normailsed

Quote comments from commenters at an NRO article that rationalises pedophilia, because they are insightful:

1. Organize
2. Humanize
3. Legalize
4. Legitimize
5. Litigate
6. Repeat
Stage Two doesn't seem too unreasonable, does it? How many bloody times do we have to get rope-a-doped by the same shtick before we recognize that it's part of a much larger campaign which has been going on for generations, now?
Priests, pastors, and psychiatrists receive special training to lovingly and thoughtfully help people with terrible issues like this one who need help. Privately. There's absolutely NO reason for anybody to work through this problem publicly. There's absolutely no reason to challenge the one hysterical taboo the American people have which is fully justified.
And can we impose a permanent moratorium on atheists needling Christians on how their faith is supposed to be expressed? It's not like we go around telling atheists how they're supposed to tip their fedoras and embed cheese crumbs in their neckbeards.

Dingus Rattenberg:

Step one is chipping away at the legal and social norms associated with pedophilia. Our attention is deflected carefully away from the monstrosity of adult-child sexual attraction (calling it an "orientation," for example), and redirected toward pity for the offender. Do our laws really need to be so harsh? Is the extreme social stigma really justified? After all, look at these poor fellows. They're very sad.

Step two. Graphic tales of violence done against pedophiles or suspected pedophiles, usually by vigilantes (to shock comfortable bourgeois liberals) but also law enforcement (to shock civil libertarians), are rubbed in our noses. These cases will be easy to find, since reactionary pushback to step one is practically guaranteed. People who really hate pedophiles are nasty and evil and violent bigots will be the implied message. Meanwhile, "studies" conducted at state-sponsored universities will "find" that adult-child sexual contact really isn't all that psychologically harmful to children. Rather, our superiors will inform us, the reason children suffer post-contact depression is because of the "social stigma" attached to such relationships. We will be encouraged to be supportive and understanding "allies" of pedophilic relationships, since, after all, a simple attitude change on our parts will prevent depression and suicide.

Step three. At about this time, the real legal push to lower statutes of limitation begins. New "studies" show that children in fact benefit, in some very loosely-defined way, from early sexual contact with adults. The most progressive and forward-thinking parents in the most progressive and forward-thinking states begin lending their children for "play dates" with pedophiles, framed as mutually beneficial arrangements whereby children are therapeutically socialized into sexual maturity. Why risk letting some stranger take your child's virginity in a drunken haze, when it can all be done with the help of a vetted accomplice in the comfort of one's own home? Win-win.

Step four. Pedophiles will begin to emerge more frequently in pop culture and mass media. A record label, for instance, may promote an otherwise wild, hard-headed rapper's soulful ballad mourning society's unequal treatment of what is really the "same love." Mainline protestantism (if it still exists at this point) will ordain open pedophiles. The Catholic Church will be praised for its leading role. Cases involving the "rights" of pedophiles will have trickled up to the Supreme Court. You can fill in the rest.
Thanks to the Great Cuckservatives of the National Review Online.

UPDATE: Also see this Vox Day Post:

SJWs shift the Narrative and Thoughts on tolerance

Rejection = disbelief + opposition
Tolerance = disbelief + passivity
Submission = disbelief + support
Denialism = belief + opposition
Acceptance = belief + passivity
Celebration = belief + support


UPDATE UPDATE:  RAMZPAUL: NRO and Salon Fight Pedophobia

Tuesday, September 22, 2015

SJWs invade Cimmeria

Via the indomitable Vox Day :

And they get their butts handed to them Cimmerian Style.

First, the little man boy that is offended by other people views contrary to his special snowflake, political correct, cultural marxism:

Brave Sir Jeffery Shanks - I WILL DEFEND YOU MI'LADY!

The post that sent poor Jeffrey into hysteric, histrionics of hubris:

Social Justice Warrior Interdiction


Gentlemen: it’s our duty to report that Barbara Barrett, erstwhile Cimmerian blogger, has been caught engaging in Orwellian “social justice” bully behaviors against REH fans.
An increasingly fervent proponent of feminist thought-policing and Codes of Conduct since entering this overwhelmingly male and non-ideological field several years ago, Barrett has recently weaponized her rhetoric in an attempted ISOLATION and DISQUALIFICATION of the most revered Sword-and-Sorcery expert in pulp fandom: former Official Editor of REHupa Morgan Holmes. His crime? Associating with Hugo-nominated fantasy author and longtime social justice critic Vox Day (A Throne of Bones, The Last Witchkinget al), thus violating Barrett’s cultish SJW narrative.
Unleashing a coordinated assault against Holmes and Day in not one but two separate print a.p.a.s — REHupa (The Robert E. Howard United Press Association) and PEAPS (The Pulp Era Amateur Press Society) — Barrett followed the SJW ATTACK SEQUENCE to the letter:
  • Step #1 — Locate or Create Violation of the Narrative: ENACTED
  • Step #2 — Point-and-Shriek: ENACTED
  • Step #3 — Isolate and Swarm: ATTEMPTED (inexplicably the requisite mob of weak men needed to support her strong feminism has failed to materialize).
In service to her hoary “racism! sexism! homophobia!” attacks, Barrett fell back numerous times on the Three Rules of SJW:
Her goal with all of this is clear: ruin the reputations and livelihoods of two men, put the fear of suffering the same fate into everyone else, and then shame that cowed group of non-ideological male fans into establishing a fem-friendly code of conduct that would facilitate her becoming The Elderly Nazi Den Mother of REH Fandom, allowing her to ban WRONGFUN and BADTHINK wherever she might find it.
The Cimmerian Blog has been defunct for half a decade, but now that one of our former bloggers has been exposed as an SJW, we feel impelled to rise from our slumber to declare that we stand 100% against SJWs and their travelling freakshow of interlocking fetishes and predatory abuses.
As a now-confirmed SJW, Barbara Barrett is hereby EXPELLED from this blog. We have struck her prose from every post, and her face from every picture. Let her name be unheard and unspoken among us, erased from the memory of our august fellowship, for all time. So let it be written. So let it be done.
We publicly express our support, unequivocally and without reservation, for Sword-and-Sorcery expert Morgan Holmes, as well as for fantasy author Vox Day. Both are great and good friends of REH fandom, and of liberty.
Anyone wishing to learn more about the scourge of SJWs in our society — and how to defend yourself against their cretinous attacks — would do well to purchase Vox Day’s instant classic SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police.

Bravo Leo, bravo. It is good that warriors such as we meet in the struggle of life… or death.

In Conclusion:

No we don't need the wussies of social justice being associated with manly men as Robert E. Howard or his glorious creation CONAN.

Somebody needs to alert the non man-boobed neckbeards in Cross Plains. This shite don't fly with Texians


Posted a reply at Brave Sir Jeffrey's blog and it seems it has mysteriously not appeared there.

Friday, September 18, 2015

Christians in the Talmud

Christians in the Talmud

 by The Thinking Housewife

THE TALMUD, the sacred text of  Judaism, is comprised of rabbinic commentaries that were written over a period of hundreds of years and contain the oral traditions that have shaped Judaism since shortly after the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D.
Americans, including many Jews, are generally unfamiliar with the Talmud’s content. While it is widely acceptable to criticize the intolerance of the Quran, the Talmud is off bounds for mainstream commentary. Thus many do not know just how intolerant the revered text of the official religion of the state of Israel is.
Benjamin Freedman was a successful Jewish businessman and Zionist activist who lived from 1890 to 1984. Later in his adult life, he became an outspoken critic of the Judaic mentality and eventually converted to Catholicism. He is said to have devoted much of his fortune to researching and publicizing the history of Judaism.
“The Talmud today virtually exercises totalitarian dictatorship over the lives of so-called or self-styled ‘Jews,’ whether they are aware of that fact or not,” he wrote in his 1954 work “Facts are Facts,” which is an extended letter to another Jewish convert. “Their spiritual leaders make no attempt to conceal the control they exercise over the lives of so-called or self-styled ‘Jews’. They extend their authority far beyond the legitimate limits of spiritual matters. Their authority has no equal outside religion.”
Not only does the Talmud, which includes more than 60 volumes of commentaries, regulate the thinking and daily lives of Jews, he wrote, it inculcates in them hostility toward gentiles, or non-Jews.
Using the translation from the Hebrew by the Latvian priest and eminent scholar, the Rev. I.B. Pranaitis, Master of Theology and Professor of the Hebrew Language at the Imperial Ecclesiastical Academy of the Roman Catholic Church in Old St. Petersburg, Russia, Freedman proved his point by listing summarized Talmudic references for some of the specific laws regarding Christians, and gentiles in general. I list them below. They conform with many other translations of the Talmud. Please feel free to correct any of these summaries if you can prove they are faulty. Again, some of these references refer to all non-Jews, not just Christians.
Hilkhoth Maakhaloth — Christians are idolators, must not associate.
Abhodah Zarah (22a) — Do not associate with gentiles, they shed blood.
Iore Dea (153, 2). — Must not associate with Christians, shed blood.
Abhodah Zarah (25b). — Beware of Christians when walking abroad with them.
Orach Chaiim (20, 2). — Christians disguise themselves to kill Jews.
Abhodah Zarah (15b) — Suggest Christians have sex relations with animals.
Abhodah Zarah (22a) — Suspect Christians of intercourse with animals.
Schabbath (145b) — Christians unclean because they eat accordingly
Abhodah Zarah (22b) — Christians unclean because they not at Mount Sinai.
Iore Dea (198, 48). — Clean female Jews contaminated meeting Christians.
Kerithuth (6b p. 78) — Jews called men, Christians not called men.
Makkoth (7b) — Innocent of murder if intent was to kill Christian.
Orach Chaiim(225, 10) — Christians and animals grouped for comparisons.
Midrasch Talpioth 225 — Christians created to minister to Jews always.
Orach Chaiim 57, 6a — Christians to be pitied more than sick pigs.
Zohar II (64b) — Christian idolators likened to cows and asses.
Kethuboth (110b). — Psalmist compares Christians to unclean beasts.
Sanhedrin (74b). Tos. — Sexual intercourse of Christian like that of beast.
Kethuboth (3b) — The seed of Christian is valued as seed of beast.
Kidduschim (68a) — Christians like the people of an ass.
Eben Haezar (44,8) — Marriages between Christian and Jews null.
Zohar (II, 64b) — Christian birth rate must be diminished materially.
Zohar (I, 28b) — Christian idolators children of Eve’s serpent.
Zohar (I, 131a) — Idolatrous people (Christians) befoul the world.
Emek Haschanach(17a) — Non-Jews’ souls come from death and death’s shadow.
Zohar (I, 46b, 47a) — Souls of gentiles have unclean divine origins.
Rosch Haschanach(17a) — Non-Jews souls go down to hell.
Iore Dea (337, 1). — Replace dead Christians like lost cow or ass.
Iebhammoth (61a) — Jews called men, but not Christians called men.
Abhodah Zarah (14b) T — Forbidden to sell religious works to Christians
Abhodah Zarah (78) — Christian churches are places of idolatry.
Iore Dea (142, 10) — Must keep far away physically from churches.
Iore Dea (142, 15) — Must not listen to church music or look at idols
Iore Dea (143, 1) — Must not rebuild homes destroyed near churches.
Hilkoth Abh. Zar (10b) — Jews must not resell broken chalices to Christians.
Chullin (91b) — Jews possess dignity even an angel cannot share.
Sanhedrin, 58b — To strike Israelite like slapping face of God.
Chagigah, 15b — A Jew considered good in spite of sins he commits.
Gittin (62a) — Jew stay away from Christian homes on holidays.
Choschen Ham. (26,1) — Jew must not sue before a Christian judge or laws.
Choschen Ham (34,19) — Christian or servant cannot become witnesses.
Iore Dea (112, 1). — Avoid eating with Christians, breeds familiarity.
Abhodah Zarah (35b) — Do not drink milk from a cow milked by Christian.
Iore dea (178, 1) — Never imitate customs of Christians, even hair-comb.
Abhodah Zarah (72b) — Wine touched by Christians must be thrown away.
Iore Dea (120, 1) — Bought-dishes from Christians must be thrown away.
Abhodah Zarah (2a) — For three days before Christian festivals, avoid all.
Abhodah Zarah (78c) — Festivals of followers of Jesus regarded as idolatry.
Iore Dea (139, 1) — Avoid things used by Christians in their worship.
Abhodah Zarah (14b) — Forbidden to sell Christians articles for worship.
Iore Dea (151,1) H. — Do not sell water to Christians articles for baptisms.
Abhodah Zarah (2a, 1) — Do not trade with Christians on their feast days.
Abhodah Zarah (1,2) — Now permitted to trade with Christians on such days.
Abhodah Zarah (2aT) — Trade with Christians because they have money to pay.
Iore Dea (148, 5) — If Christian is not devout, may send him gifts.
Hilkoth Akum (IX,2) — Send gifts to Christians only if they are irreligious.
Iore Dea (81,7 Ha) — Christian wet-nurses to be avoided because dangerous.
Iore Dea (153, 1 H) — Christian nurse will lead children to heresy.
Iore Dea (155,1). — Avoid Christian doctors not well known to neighbors.
Peaschim (25a) — Avoid medical help from idolators, Christians meant.
Iore Dea (156,1) — Avoid Christian barbers unless escorted by Jews.
Abhodah Zarah (26a). — Avoid Christian midwives as dangerous when alone.
Zohar (1,25b) — Those who do good to Christians never rise when dead.
Hilkoth Akum (X,6) — Help needy Christians if it will promote peace.
Iore Dea (148, 12H) — Hide hatred for Christians at their celebrations.
Abhodah Zarah (20a) — Never praise Christians lest it be believed true.
Iore Dea (151,14) — Not allowed to praise Christians to add to glory.
Hilkoth Akum (V, 12) — Quote Scriptures to forbid mention of Christian god.
Iore Dea (146, 15) — Refer to Christian religious articles with contempt.
Iore Dea (147,5) — Deride Christian religious articles without wishes.
Hilkoth Akum (X,5) — No gifts to Christians, gifts to converts.
Iore Dea (151,11) — Gifts forbidden to Christians, encourages friendship.
Iore Dea (335,43) — Exile for that Jew who sells farm to Christian.
Iore Dea (154,2) — Forbidden to teach a trade to a Christian
Babha Bathra (54b) — Christian property belongs to first person claiming.
Choschen Ham(183,7) — Keep what Christian overpays in error.
Choschen Ham(226,1) — Jew may keep lost property of Christian found by Jew.
Babha Kama (113b) — It is permitted to deceive Christians.
Choschen Ham(183,7) — Jews must divide what they overcharge Christians.
Choschen Ham(156,5) — Jews must not take Christian customers from Jews.
Iore Dea (157,2) H — May deceive Christians that believe Christian tenets.
Abhodah Zarah (54a) –Usury may be practiced upon Christians or apostates.
Iore Dea (159,1) — Usury permitted now for any reason to Christians.
Babha Kama (113a) — Jew may lie and perjure to condemn a Christian.
Babha Kama (113b) — Name of God not profaned when lying to Christians.
Kallah (1b, p.18) — Jew may perjure himself with a clear conscience.
Schabbouth Hag. (6d). — Jews may swear falsely by use of subterfuge wording.
Zohar (1,160a). — Jews must always try to deceive Christians.
Iore Dea (158,1) — Do not cure Christians unless it makes enemies.
Orach Cahiim (330,2) — Do not assist Christian’s childbirth on Saturday.
Choschen Ham.(425,5) — Unless believes in Torah do not prevent his death.
Iore Dea (158,1) — Christians not enemies must not be saved either.
Hilkkoth Akum (X,1) — Do not save Christians in danger of death.
Choschen Ham(386,10) — A spy may be killed even before he confesses.
Abhodah Zorah (26b) — Apostates to be thrown into well, not rescued.
Choschen Ham(388,15) — Kill those who give Israelites’ money to Christians
Sanhedrin (59a) — `Prying into Jews’ “Law” to get death penalty [Translation: Gentiles who critique the Talmud are to be executed.]
Hilkhoth Akum(X,2) — Baptized Jews are to be put to death
Iore Dea(158,2)Hag. — Kill renegades who turn to Christian rituals.
Choschen Ham(425,5) — Those who do not believe in Torah are to be killed.
Hilkhoth tesch.III,8 — Christians and others deny the “Law” of the Torah.
Zohar (I,25a) — Christians are to be destroyed as idolators.
Zohar (II,19a) — Captivity of Jews end when Christian princes die.
Zohar (I,219b) — Princes of Christians are idolators, must die.
Obadiam — When Rome is destroyed, Israel will be redeemed.
Abhodah Zarah(26b) T. — “Even the best of the Goim should be killed.”
Sepher Or Israel 177b — If Jew kills Christian commits no sin.
Ialkut Simoni (245c) — Shedding blood of impious offers sacrifice to God.
Zohar (II, 43a) — Extermination of Christians necessary sacrifice.
Zohar (L,28b,39a) — High place in heaven for those who kill idolators.
Hilkhoth Akum(X,1) — Make no agreements and show no mercy to Christians
Hilkhoth Akum (X,1) — Either turn them away from their idols or kill.
Hilkhoth Akum (X,7) — Allow no idolators to remain where Jews are strong.
Choschen Ham(388,16) — All contribute to expense of killing traitor.
Pesachim (49b) — No need of prayers while beheading on Sabbath.
Schabbath (118a). — Prayers to save from punishment of coming Messiah.

See the previous post, “Jesus in the Talmud,” here.


Monday, August 10, 2015

The Battle Flag and the Attack on Western Culture

Too much misinformation has been generated recently about Confederate flags and monuments. A great amount of it floating about on the Internet is as palatable and useful as what my neighbor cleans up out of his horse paddock each week—although what my neighbor cleans out actually has a better and less pungent odor about it than most of the shoddy, culturally Marxist ideological agenda pieces I’ve read.
Back in mid-June, after the Charleston shootings, the frenzied hue and cry went up and any number of accusations and charges were made against historic Confederate symbols, in particular, the Confederate Battle Flag, which is not as some supposedly “informed” writers called it, “the Stars and Bars.” (The Stars and Bars is a completely different flag with a totally different design—this error is an indication of those writers’ supine ignorance).
The best way to examine these charges in a short column is point by point, briefly and succinctly.
First, the demand was made that the Battle Flag needs to come down, that images of that flag need to be banned and suppressed, because, whatever its past may have been, it has now become in the current context a “symbol of hate” and “carried by racists,” that it “symbolizes racism.”
The problem with this argument is both historical and etiological.
Historically, the Battle Flag, with its familiar Cross of St. Andrew, was and is a square ensign that was carried by Southern troops during the War Between the States. It was not the national flag of the Confederacy that flew over slavery, but, rather, was carried by soldiers, 90-plus per cent who did not own slaves (which was roughly comparable to percentages in various regiments of the Union army, which had slave holding soldiers from Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri in its ranks; indeed, General Grant’s wife, Julia Dent Grant, owned slaves).
By contrast, the American flag, the “Stars and Stripes,” not only flew over slavery for seventy-eight years, it flew over the importation, the selling and the purchase of slaves, and the breaking up of slave families. Additionally, the Stars and Stripes flew over the infamous “Trail of Tears,” at the Sand Creek massacre of innocent Native Americans, later at the Wounded Knee massacre, over the brutal internment of thousands of Nisei Japanese American citizens in concentration camps during World War II, and during the action at My Lai during the Vietnam War.
Although there are some zealots who now suggest doing away with the American flag because of these connections, I would suggest that most of the pundits on the Neoconservative Fox News and amongst the Republican governors presently clamoring for banning the Battle Flag would not join them in this demand. Yet, if we examine closely the history of both banners from the radically changing contexts that are used to attack the one, should we not focus as well on the history of other banner, as well? And, pray tell, if only a particular snap shot context is used to judge such symbols, is any symbol of America’s variegated history safe from the hands of those who may dislike or despise this or that symbol?
Second, a comparison has been made between the Battle Flag and the Nazi flag (red background, with a white circle and a black swastika centered). Again, this comparison is ridiculous and demonstrates an utter lack of historical acumen on the part of those making it: the Nazi flag was created precisely to represent the Nazi Party and its ideology. The Battle Flag was designed to represent the historic Celtic and Christian origin of many Southerners and served as a soldier’ flag.
Third, the charge has been made that we should ban Confederate symbols because they represent “treason against the Federal government.” That is, those Southerners who took up arms in 1861 to defend their states, their homes, and their families, were engaged in “rebellion” and were “traitors” under Federal law.
Again, such arguments fail miserably on all counts. Some writers have suggested that Robert E. Lee, in particular, was a “traitor,” that he violated his solemn military oath to uphold and defend the Constitution by his actions. But what those writers fail to note is that Lee had formally resigned from the US Army and his commission before undertaking his new assignment to defend his home state of Virginia, which by then had seceded and re-vindicated its original independence.
And that brings us to point four: the right of secession and whether the actions of the Southern states, December 1860-May 1861, could be justified under the US Constitution.
One of the best summaries of the prevalent Constitutional theory at that time has been made recently by black scholar, professor, and prolific author Dr. Walter Williams. I quote from one his columns:
During the 1787 Constitutional Convention, a proposal was made that would allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison rejected it, saying, ‘A union of the states containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.’
In fact, the ratification documents of Virginia, New York and Rhode Island explicitly said they held the right to resume powers delegated should the federal government become abusive of those powers. The Constitution never would have been ratified if states thought they could not regain their sovereignty — in a word, secede.
On March 2, 1861, after seven states seceded and two days before Abraham Lincoln’s inauguration, Sen. James R. Doolittle of Wisconsin proposed a constitutional amendment that read, “No state or any part thereof, heretofore admitted or hereafter admitted into the union, shall have the power to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the United States.”
Several months earlier, Reps. Daniel E. Sickles of New York, Thomas B. Florence of Pennsylvania and Otis S. Ferry of Connecticut proposed a constitutional amendment to prohibit secession. Here’s a question for the reader: Would there have been any point to offering these amendments if secession were already unconstitutional? [my emphasis added]
Let me add that an examination of the ratification processes for Georgia, South Carolina, and in my own North Carolina in the late 1780s, reveal very similar discussions: it was the independent states themselves that had created a Federal government (and not the reverse, as Abe Lincoln erroneously and incredibly suggested), and it was the various states that granted the Federal government certain very limited and specifically enumerated powers, reserving the vast remainder for themselves. As any number of the Founders indicated (cf. Elliott’s Debates and voluminous correspondence on this point), there simply would not have been any United States if the states, both north and south, had believed that they could not leave it for just cause.
Interestingly, in my many years of research I can find only one, possibly two, American presidents who openly and frankly denied the right of secession (of course, there is John Quincy Adams, but carefully). Even in March of 1861, lame duck President James Buchanan in his farewell address, while deploring secession in the strongest terms, stated frankly that, under the Constitution he had “no power to halt or interdict it.” Former President John Tyler served in the Confederate Congress, and former President Franklin Pierce, in his famous Concord, New Hampshire, address, July 4, 1863, joined Buchanan in decrying the efforts to suppress the secession of the Southern states:
“Do we not all know that the cause of our casualties is the vicious intermeddling of too many of the citizens of the Northern States with the constitutional rights of the Southern States, cooperating with the discontents of the people of those states? Do we not know that the disregard of the Constitution, and of the security that it affords to the rights of States and of individuals, has been the cause of the calamity which our country is called to undergo?”
More, during the antebellum period William Rawle’s pro-secession text on Constitutional law, A View of the Constitution of the United States (1825,) was used at West Point as the standard text on the US Constitution. And on several occasions the Supreme Court, itself, affirmed this view. In The Bank of Augusta v. Earl (1839), the Court wrote in an 8-1 decision:
“The States…are distinct separate sovereignties, except so far as they have parted with some of the attributes of sovereignty by the Constitution. They continue to be nations, with all their rights, and under all their national obligations, and with all the rights of nations in every particular; except in the surrender by each to the common purposes and object of the Union, under the Constitution. The rights of each State, when not so yielded up, remain absolute.”
A review of the Northern press at the time of the Secession conventions finds, perhaps surprisingly to those who wish to read back into the past their own statist ideas, a similar view: few newspapers took the position that the Federal government had the constitutional right to invade and suppress states that had decided to secede.
Indeed, were it not the New England states in 1814-1815 who made the first serious effort at secession during the War of 1812, to the point that they gathered in Hartford to discuss actively pursuing it? And during the pre-war period various states asserted in one form or another similar rights.
One last point regarding the accusation of “treason”: consider that after the conclusion of the War, the Southern states were put under military authority, their civil governments dissolved, and each state had to be re-admitted to the Union. Now, unless the logic I learned in university is wrong, you cannot be “re-admitted” to something unless you have been out of it. And if you were out of it, legally and constitutionally, as the Southern states maintained (and many Northern writers acknowledged), then you cannot be in any way guilty of “treason.”
The major point that opponents of Confederate symbols assert is that the panoply of those monuments, flags, plaques, and other reminders actually represent a defense of slavery. And since we as a society have supposedly advanced progressively in our understanding, it is both inappropriate and hurtful to continue to display them.
Again, there are various levels of response. Historically, despite the best efforts of the ideologically-driven Marxist historical school (e.g., Eric Foner) to make slavery the only issue underlying the War Between the States, there is abundant evidence—while not ignoring the significance of slavery—to indicate more profound economic reasons why that war occurred (cf. writers Thomas di Lorenzo, Charles Adams, David Gordon, Jeffrey Hummel, William Marvel, Thomas Fleming, et al). Indeed, it goes without saying that when hostilities began, anti-slavery was not a major reason at all in the North for prosecuting the war; indeed, it never was a major reason, as Lincoln made explicit to editor Horace Greeley of The New York Tribune a short time prior to the Emancipation Proclamation (which only applied to states in the South where the Federal government had no authority, but not to the states such as Maryland and Kentucky, where slavery existed, but were safely under Union control).
Here is what he wrote to Greeley on August 22, 1862:
“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy Slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about Slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save this Union, and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.”
The Emancipation Proclamation was a desperate political ploy by Lincoln to churn up sagging support for a war that appeared stale-mated at the time. Indeed, Old Abe had previously called for sending blacks back to Africa and the enforcement of laws that made Jim Crow look benign. He knew fully well that “freeing the slaves” had no support in the North and was not the reason for the conflict.
Professor di Lorenzo, returning afresh to original sources, focuses on the deeper, all-encompassing economic motives:
“Whatever other reasons some of the Southern states might have given for secession is irrelevant to the question of why there was a war. Secession does not necessitate war. Lincoln promised war over tax collection in his first inaugural address. When the Southern states refused to pay his beloved Morrill Tariff at the Southern ports [monies that supplied a major portion of Federal revenues], he kept his promise of ‘invasion and bloodshed’ and waged war on the Southern states.”
Indeed, late in the conflict the Confederate government authorized the formation of black units to fight for the Confederacy, with manumission to accompany such service. As many as 30,000 black men fought for the Confederacy. Would a society ideologically intent on preserving in toto the peculiar institution as the reason for war, even in such dire straits, enact such a measure?
It is, of course, easy to read back into a complex context then what appears so right and natural to us now; but it does a disservice to history, as the late Professor Eugene Genovese, perhaps the finest historian of the Old South, fully understood. Understanding the intellectual struggle in which many Southerners engaged over the issue of slavery, he cautioned readers about rash judgments based on politically correct presentist ideas of justice and right, and in several books and numerous essays defended those leaders of the Old South who were faced with difficult decisions and a nearly intractable context.
And more, he understood as too many writers fail to do today, that selecting this or that symbol of our collective history, singling it out for our smug disapprobation and condemnation, may make us feel good temporarily, but does nothing to address the deeper problems afflicting our benighted society.
As I have written elsewhere about Dylann Roof, the lone gunman responsible for the Charleston shootings: if a rabid fox comes out of the woods and bites someone, you don’t burn the woods down, you stop the fox.
In the United States today we live in a country characterized by what historian Thomas Fleming has written afflicted this nation in 1860—“a disease of the public mind,” that is, a collective madness, lacking in both reflection and prudential understanding of our history. Too many authors advance willy-nilly down the slippery slope—thus, if we ban the Battle Flag, why not destroy all those monuments to Lee and Jackson. And why stop there? Washington and Jefferson were slave holders, were they not? Obliterate and erase those names from our lexicon, tear down their monuments! Fort Hood, Fort Bragg, Fort Gordon? Change those names, for they remind us of Confederate generals! Let’s dig up Nathan Bedford Forest! Amazon sells “Gone with Wind?” Well, to quote an inane writer at the supposedly “conservative,” Rupert Murdoch-owned New York Post, ban it, too!
It is, as I say, a slippery slope, but an incline that in fact represents a not-so-hidden agenda, a cultural Marxism, that seeks to take advantage of the genuine horror at what happened in Charleston to advance its own designs which are nothing less than remaking completely what remains of the American nation. And, since it is the South that has been most resistant to such impositions and radicalization, it is the South, the historic South, which enters the cross hairs as the most tempting target. And it is the Battle Flag—true, it has been misused on occasion—which is not just the symbol of Southern pride, but becomes the target of a broad, vicious, and zealous attack on Western Christian tradition, itself. Those attacks, then, are only the opening salvo in this renewed cleansing effort, and those who collaborate with them, good intentions or not, collaborate with the destruction of our historic civilization. For that they deserve our utmost scorn and our most vigorous and steadfast opposition.

Wednesday, July 22, 2015

AMPLIFY THE SIGNAL: Meet the 41 Companies That Donate Directly to Planned Parenthood


41 corporations are listed at the link below. Start sending emails, complete with quotes from the Planned Parenthood people about selling organs from aborted infants, to the PR/Marketing departments of these corporations and asking them if they support those practices. Put all the relevant names and emails on a central site, complete with various draft emails, and then start sending emails. Recruit others to do so. Talk about your activities under the #PPGate hashtag.

Don't threaten, don't talk about boycotts, don't quote Bible verses, just try to get a statement from them concerning whether they support Planned Parenthood's sale of harvested human organs. Don't whine, suck it up... It will take weeks before getting any results. Another important thing is to regularly push encouraging graphic memes on Twitter. REBLOG THE INFORMATION BELOW ON YOU OWN BLOGS:

Meet the 41 Companies That Donate Directly to Planned Parenthood

American Cancer Society
American Express
Bank of America
Bath & Body Works
Ben & Jerry’s
Deutsche Bank
Fannie Mae
Johnson & Johnson
La Senza
Levi Strauss
Liberty Mutual
March of Dimes
Morgan Stanley
Susan G. Komen
United Way
Wells Fargo



Also Relevant Quotes for emails:

The buyers ask Nucatola, “How much of a difference can that actually make, if you know kind of what’s expected, or what we need?”
“It makes a huge difference,” Nucatola replies. “I’d say a lot of people want liver. And for that reason, most providers will do this case under ultrasound guidance, so they’ll know where they’re putting their forceps. The kind of rate-limiting step of the procedure is calvarium. Calvarium—the head—is basically the biggest part.”
Nucatola explains, “We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact.”
“And with the calvarium, in general, some people will actually try to change the presentation so that it’s not vertex,” she continues. “So if you do it starting from the breech presentation, there’s dilation that happens as the case goes on, and often, the last step, you can evacuate an intact calvarium at the end.”
Using ultrasound guidance to manipulate the fetus from vertex to breech orientation before intact extraction is the hallmark of the illegal partial-birth abortion procedure (18 U.S.C. 1531).
Nucatola also reveals that Planned Parenthood’s national office is concerned about their liability for the sale of fetal parts: “At the national office, we have a Litigation and Law Department which just really doesn’t want us to be the middle people for this issue right now,” she says. “But I will tell you that behind closed doors these conversations are happening with the affiliates.”
The sale or purchase of human fetal tissue is a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $500,000 (42 U.S.C. 289g-2).


Recently, a Planned Parenthood executive said the following:

“We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact.”

Does (Insert name of Company above) support the sale of organs from aborted infants?


To X,

I have recently read very distressing information that (company) has provided funds to Planned Parenthood. As you are undoubtedly aware by now, a scandal has been broken about Planned Parenthood selling the body parts of dead babies. Below is a copy of the dialogue from the Planned Parenthood executives as they discuss this criminal act:

//The buyers ask Nucatola, “How much of a difference can that actually make, if you know kind of what’s expected, or what we need?”
“It makes a huge difference,” Nucatola replies. “I’d say a lot of people want liver. And for that reason, most providers will do this case under ultrasound guidance, so they’ll know where they’re putting their forceps. The kind of rate-limiting step of the procedure is calvarium. Calvarium—the head—is basically the biggest part.”
Nucatola explains, “We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact.”
“And with the calvarium, in general, some people will actually try to change the presentation so that it’s not vertex,” she continues. “So if you do it starting from the breech presentation, there’s dilation that happens as the case goes on, and often, the last step, you can evacuate an intact calvarium at the end.”

Nucatola also reveals that Planned Parenthood’s national office is concerned about their liability for the sale of fetal parts: “At the national office, we have a Litigation and Law Department which just really doesn’t want us to be the middle people for this issue right now,” she says. “But I will tell you that behind closed doors these conversations are happening with the affiliates.”//

Are you aware that Planned Parenthood is committing a felony by doing this? Here are the laws specifically addressing what they do:

The sale or purchase of human fetal tissue is a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $500,000 (42 U.S.C. 289g-2).

Using ultrasound guidance to manipulate the fetus from vertex to breech orientation before intact extraction is the hallmark of the illegal partial-birth abortion procedure (18 U.S.C. 1531).
(Company) has provided funding to Planned Parenthood. Does (company) support this kind of behavior? I would appreciate a response to this disturbing information.

Tuesday, June 9, 2015

Can atheists condemn slavery as immoral? Do atheists believe that slavery is wrong?

Can atheists condemn slavery as immoral? Do atheists believe that slavery is wrong?

By Wintery Knight

Note: For a Christian response to the complaint that the Bible doesn’t condemn slavery, see this article and this article for slavery in the Old Testament, and this article for slavery in the New Testament. These are all by Christian philosopher Paul Copan. You can watch a lecture with Paul Copan on the slavery challenge here, and buy a book where he answers the challenge in more detail. There is also a good debate on whether the Bible condones slavery here, featuring David Instone-Brewer and Robert Price. My post is not a formal logical essay on this issue, it is more that I am outraged that atheists, who cannot even rationally ground objective morality, insist on criticizing the morality of the Bible. I think that atheists who are serious about finding the truth about these issues should check out those links, if they are interested in getting to the truth of these matters.
In other posts, I’ve argued that without an objective moral standard of what is right and wrong, any judgments about right and wrong are just individual opinions. So, when an atheist says slavery is wrong, what he really means is that he thinks slavery is wrong for him, in the same way that he thinks that,say, that chocolate ice cream is right for him. He isn’t saying what is wrong objectively, because on atheism there are no objective moral rules or duties. He is speaking for himself: “I wouldn’t own a slave, just like I wouldn’t eat broccoli – because it’s yucky!”. But he has no rational argument against other people owning slaves in other times and places, because their justification for owning slaves is the same as his justification for not owning slaves : personal preference and cultural conventions.
So do atheists oppose slavery? Do they believe in an objective human right to liberty? Well, there are no objective human rights of any kind on atheism. Human beings are just accidents in an accidental universe, and collections of atoms do not mysteriously accrue “rights”. There is no natural right to liberty on atheism. Now consider abortion, which is favored by most atheists. Like slavery, abortion declares an entire class of human beings as non-persons in order to justify preserving their own happiness and prosperity by means of violence. That’s exactly what slavery does, except abortion is worse than slavery, because you actually kill the person you are declaring as a non-person instead of just imprisoning them.
So how many atheists have this pro-abortion view that it is OK to declare unborn children  as non-persons so they can kill them?
Well, according to Gallup, the “non-religious” are the group most likely to support abortion. In fact, 68% favor legalized abortion, compared to only 19% who oppose it.
Take a look at the Gallup poll data from 2012:
Atheists are OK with the strong killing the weak
Most atheists are OK with the strong killing the weak
The Gallup numbers might actually be low, because “No religion” might include people who are spiritual, but not religious. But what about atheists alone?
As a group, atheists tend to be among the most radical supporters of legalized abortion. The Secular Census of 2012 found that 97% of atheists vote for abortion. There are almost no pro-life atheists. Why is it that atheists look at unborn children and think it’s OK to kill them? Well, let’s see what atheists scholars think about morality, and from that we’ll find out why they think abortion is morally permissible.
Atheist scholars think morality is nonsense
Atheist William Provine says atheists have no free will, no moral accountability and no moral significance:
Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear — and these are basically Darwin’s views. There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either.
Atheists Michael Ruse says atheists have no objective moral standards:
The position of the modern evolutionist is that humans have an awareness of morality because such an awareness of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate when someone says, ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself,’ they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. Nevertheless, such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, . . . and any deeper meaning is illusory.(Michael Ruse, “Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics,” in The Darwinian Paradigm (London: Routledge, 1989), pp. 262-269).
Atheist Richard Dawkins says atheists have no objective moral standards:
In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, or any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference… DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music. (Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (1995))
Most atheists are like this – although some affirm objective morality, without really having a rational basis for it. In general though, when atheists use moral language to condemn God, the Bible, or Christians, it’s very important to understand that it is just theater. They are trying to use words that describe realities that they do not even believe in, usually with the goal of getting you to stop judging them for their own sin. I blogged about two examples of this before – Richard Carrier and Michael Shermer.
Let’s take a closer look at Richard Dawkins’ statement that there is “no evil and no good”.
Richard Dawkins and morality
Here’s Richard Dawkins’ view of abortion:
Richard Dawkins explains morality on atheism
Richard Dawkins explains morality on atheism
But wait! He goes even further than mere abortion:
Dawkins believes in Darwinian evolution. Survival of the fittest. The strong kill the weak. Where is protection for the unborn in that narrative?
Richard Dawkins even advocates for adultery.
So, what Dawkins really believes is that morality is nonsense. But in order to get you to stop condemning abortion, adultery, infanticide and a whole host of other atheistic misbehaviors, he will try to condemn you using moral language to stop you from making moral judgments. But the goal here is to intimidate you into not judging. By his own words, he thinks that the whole notion of objective moral values and objective moral duties is just nonsense.
Who does oppose slavery?
How did slavery end?
Dinesh D’Souza explains:
Slavery was mostly eradicated from Western civilization–then called Christendom–between the fourth and the tenth century. The Greco-Roman institution of slavery gave way to serfdom. Now serfdom has its problems but at least the serf is not a “human tool” and cannot be bought and sold like property. So slavery was ended twice in Western civilization, first in the medieval era and then again in the modern era.
In the American South, Christianity proved to be the solace of the oppressed. As historian Eugene Genovese documents in Roll, Jordan, Roll, when black slaves sought to find dignity during the dark night of slavery, they didn’t turn to Marcus Aurelius or David Hume; they turned to the Bible. When they sought hope and inspiration for liberation, they found it not in Voltaire or D’Holbach but in the Book of Exodus.
The anti-slavery movements led by Wilberforce in England and abolitionists in America were dominated by Christians. These believers reasoned that since we are all created equal in the eyes of God, no one has the right to rule another without consent. This is the moral basis not only of anti-slavery but also of democracy.
And, in fact, you can see Christians pushing the culture hard against abortion today, just as we did with slavery. We also oppose frivolous divorce, and redefining marriage in a way that normalizes removing mothers and/or fathers away from their children. Defending the weak is what we do.