The Left’s Religious War Against America

Numbers from one poll showed that, “religiously unaffiliated Democrats were more than twice as likely to have attended a rally within the past 12 months compared with their religious peers” and were “significantly more likely to have contacted an elected official or to have donated to a candidate or cause” or “bought or boycotted a product for political reasons or posted political opinions online”.

They’re also far more likely to be angry over Trump than Democrats who do have religious beliefs. Studies may label them secular, but they are animated by all the convictions of a political religion.

Political participation gives their lives meaning. It offers them the opportunity to save the world. Republicans are not just political opponents, but religious foes who threaten the planet’s survival.

And what do their political beliefs tell them about the traditional great questions answered by religion?

86% believe that people’s outcomes are beyond their control. 75% believe that outcomes are caused by luck and circumstance. 94% are convinced that government should take more responsibility for people.

They believe that life is arbitrary and meaningless, except for the order imposed by government.

Government is their god and politics is their religion. Political power is their creed and their cult.

If you don’t believe in God you’ll believe in anything.

Source: The Left’s Religious War Against America

Those Who Unmake Civilization

Once you take over, once you deny common people their rights, the product of their efforts, the ability to earn and save for a better future, it doesn’t matter what words you use to justify it.

“In the name of the people” becomes functionally indistinguishable from “by divine right.” It becomes unchecked power. It becomes the ability to rule and do what you think is best, without restraint.

It becomes Auschwitz or Siberia. It becomes mass graves and immiseration. It becomes Venezuela and Zimbabwe, and people eating house pets, and starving children.

The only way to stop these things, crimes as old as time, the result of people being given unlimited power, is to give to the common people — the folks who aren’t born of “something” don’t have the right ideas or the right education or the right pedigree — the same rights as you give “the important people.” Even if you disagree with people’s way of conducting themselves. Even if you think their ideas are zany, you have to give them basic civil liberties: the right to property, the right to life, the right to due judicial process to include the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

Because when you take that way, you’re reposing power in the hands of the power hungry, who will devour the world and never be satisfied. That way lies atrocities, mass graves. More importantly, that way lies the loss of “bourgeois virtues” by the common people because what’s the point of working hard, saving, and being wise, if in the end your stuff will just be taken away and given to other people?

We’re already well down the road to that insanity. Things like progressive taxation and confusing victimhood and virtue are already an ethical blot on the face of our society, and rats gnawing at the foundations of what made the West great.

This is the goal of Democrats and RINOs. Both are enemies of freedom and the Constitution.

Source: Those Who Unmake Civilization

The Criminalization of Masculinity

Police investigators typically estimate false accusations of rape as running between forty and fifty percent of the total. Deception is, after all, the natural weapon of the sex which cannot get its way by force. Motivations for false accusations include providing an alibi, seeking revenge, obtaining sympathy and attention, gaining custody of children, extorting money from celebrities and, in the gender-neutral military, avoiding deployment to war zones. Feminists vigorously oppose any prosecution of false accusers.

Confronted with proof of widespread malfeasance, public officials typically complain that the justice system is “overworked and underfunded.” This is clearly a self-serving argument; as Baskerville points out, “if they simply stop accusing innocent men, they would no longer be overworked and underfunded.” We may expect wrongful convictions to continue for as long as officials owe their jobs to ensuring that they do. Rape accusations are “a thriving bureaucratic enterprise that can create business for itself by encouraging hysteria.”

Harassment

Refraining from casual sex does not protect a man, who may still be accused of “sexual harassment.” This expression, which first appeared in print in 1978, originally referred to the misuse of positions of authority to extort sexual favors. Of course, as Baskerville notes, such behavior has always been contrary to codes of professional conduct, and women have long been defended in such situations by male relatives: “nothing indicates the hysteria over ‘harassment’ is a necessary but excessive response to a real problem; from the start it was another ideological power grab, using sexual dynamic and government power to emasculate and feminize.”

Just avoid feminists.

Source: The Criminalization of Masculinity

10 Questions about the Compatibility of Islam with America

10. Are Islam and sharia law compatible with American culture?  The generally accepted values of modern America stress a wide range of freedoms involving speech, sexuality, and lifestyles as well as equal rights for women, minorities, and a long list of others.  None of this fits with the program of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) that affirmed sharia law as supreme, with the death penalty for those leaving Islam, punishing women who are victims of rape, allowing men to be polygamous, permitting wife-beating, and censoring speech that insults Islam.

Short answer: No. Longer answer: Islam is an enemy of civilization and our Constitution. Ban Islam. Deport ALL Moslems. Free the occupied territories.

Source: 10 Questions about the Compatibility of Islam with America

The Unmade Bed and the Fall of Civilization

I didn’t make my bed, and as I drove away from home, I remembered it and felt a pang of guilt. It’s not the end of the world, I rationalized. How many people actually take the time to make their beds, anyway? I haven’t always been good about it, it’s just that I realized I like that small spot of order in an otherwise chaotic, uncontrollable world. I might not be able to predict the course of my morning commute, but at least my bedcovers are smooth and inviting when I finally return home.

Source: The Unmade Bed and the Fall of Civilization

Progressives are engaged in a “de-civilizing process” that will end badly – Bookworm Room

Everything Progressives do is part of a de-civilizing process that will plunge us back into the cruelty and murder that make up humankind’s natural state…

I’m going to interject here something that neither Pinker nor Elias address. Or at least, Pinker, who summarizes Elias (and I haven’t read Elias myself) doesn’t mention raise two issues I think also affected violence in pre-modern times. There were two constants in the pre-modern era: youthfulness and drunkenness. People were young because they didn’t live to see old age. Few people lived past their 40s. Moreover, because urban water was not potable, people in tight medieval quarters drank only beer or wine. In other words, the medieval world was a time in which most people were young and drunk. It was like perpetually living among 18-to-25-year-old junkies.

The world started “civilizing” in earnest when coffee and tea entered Western civilization, because those drinks required boiled water. Nobody understood germ theory, but they did quickly figure out that, if you drank tea or coffee, you were imbibing a non-alcoholic beverage that did not kill. Interestingly, the coffee and tea culture took off with a bang in England which — perhaps coincidentally, perhaps not — was Ground Zero for the “civilizing process.”

Now, back to Pinker’s discussion…

I find the coffee and tea theory interesting. Read the whole post.

Source: Progressives are engaged in a “de-civilizing process” that will end badly – Bookworm Room

The 2nd Amendment is Obsolete, Says Congressman Who Wants To Nuke Omaha

Last week a congressman embarrassed himself on Twitter. He got into a debate about gun control, suggested a mandatory buyback—which is basically confiscation…

You really hate us, and then act confused why we want to keep our guns? But I don’t think unrelenting total war against everyone who has ever disagreed with you on Facebook is going to be quite as clean as you expect.

There will be no secure delivery of ammo, food, and fuel, because the guys who build that, grow that, and ship that, well, you just dropped a Hellfire on his cousin Bill because he wouldn’t turn over his SKS. Fuck you. Starve. And that’s assuming they don’t still make the delivery but the gas is tainted and food is poisoned.

Oh wait… Poison? That would be unsportsmanlike! Really? Because your guy just brought up nuclear weapons. What? You think that you’re going to declare war on half of America, with rules of engagement that would make Genghis Khan blush, and my side would keep using Marquis of Queensbury rules?

Oh hell no.

A friend of mine who is a political activist said something interesting the other day, and that was for most people on the left political violence is a knob, and they can turn the heat up and down, with things like protests, and riots, all the way up to destruction of property, and sometimes murder… But for the vast majority of folks on the right, it’s an off and on switch. And the settings are Vote or Shoot Fucking Everybody. And believe me, you really don’t want that switch to get flipped, because Civil War 2.0 would make Bosnia look like a trip to Disneyworld.

I expect that switch will be flipped before I die. That’s why I invest in precious metals like copper, brass, and lead.

Source: The 2nd Amendment is Obsolete, Says Congressman Who Wants To Nuke Omaha

An Argument on Why You Can Bang Married Liberal Women

The complete abdication of morals, virtue, morality and certainly family kind of calls into question the validity of any leftist people getting married. You’re OK with stealing people’s money. You mock and ridicule religions (where marriage hails from). You’re against nuclear families. And you love the state over individuals. What moral obligation do people have to honor the marriages of liberal people?

Indeed. OTOH, who would want to? Liberals are mentally ill and violent. Also liberal women are ugly.

Source: An Argument on Why You Can Bang Married Liberal Women