They Who Refused To Pay the Piper...

...Today Have No Children.

Most of the most bitter women I have ever met (Cal State Sen. Jackie Goldberg, call your office) were my sisters of the baby boom generation who are now long past their time to bear children. My brothers are merely sad, though some of them are still too adolescent to realize it.

Go read the Brothers Grimm (Hah! Irony!) tale again, and this time with the perspective of what the cost of ridding ones personal life of "rats" -- rugrats being particularly vulnerable to such a mien -- really has been.

Missed the Misanthropes Hiding Behind Malthusianism

Dennis Prager wrote a column today, Why Are Atheist Books Best Sellers?.

Among the reasons he stated, he did not mention the haters of humanity.

The radical environmental movement has provided the misanthropes the perfect place to disguise their hatred. They do it under the cover of the "moral" authority asserted by Neo-Malthusianic movements like that foisted by the Global Warming crisis mongers.

I've made the case for this connection many times. Notably here and here. I've tried to get Mr. Prager to acknowledge the threat before. But for some unfathomable reason he chooses to miss it, not discuss it in depth. He even outright evaded it as can be heard here. Notice in that clip how he shunted all of the death worship onto the shoulders of radical Islam and let the radical Left slip by unscathed.

At the core of the Judeo-Christian branch of theology is the conviction that innocent people (like children in the womb) must not be sacrificed to whatever human fear or true-believer movement demands it.

It should thus come as no surprise that because of this protective covenant with their God that observant Christians and Jews -- and their rights to be safe with their thinking -- are being targeted.

It is not hard to see that we are in the middle stages of gradually having Christianity deemed intolerable by authorities with the mind-altering intolerance that these anti-theists (with whom Mr. Prager slammed all atheists with the title of his column) are advancing. The final stage, for which they are clearly aiming, is the status of the church depicted in the Orwellian dsytopia of the novel 1984: a distant memory.

Bottom line: It should be no surprise that Malthusian misanthropes and radical environmentalists, including some of the GW true-believers, would be prevalent at the same time as the popularity of these books. Mr. Prager failed to include them.

For The Children

Every time I hear some politician try to sell some program "for the children" I am angered.

So how come, you hack, you don't ever speak up against school programs aimed at convincing children not to have children?

Programs on sex aimed at kids at earlier and earlier ages.

Programs that deny kids the period of innocence wherein sex isn't on their mind.

Programs that will get them active early when they are more at risk to sterilize themselves.

Programs aimed at normalizing sexual activities that won't bear children.

Programs aimed at normalizing couplings that won't bear children.

Programs aimed at how to find an abortionist.

You don't ever talk about these programs in the same breath that it is your "green" aim to reduce the population of your society.

You never allow anyone to tell young woman of the years of regret they may have after an abortion.

You claim to not be promoting abortions, like your lies about wishing abortions would be rare.

I aim to make it clear that nobody can deny knowing how you "greens" really hate humanity. I know you for the cowards you are. You dare not argue for your intentions in a free forum. You might get gored.

So the next time one of you rotten bastards, everybody knowing you are sneakily promoting zero children, claims that you're doing something "for the children," KNOW that I am telling a large number of people that "the sooner that liar arrives in hell, it is a certainty more children will live."

The Need to Place Political Correctness in the Crosshairs

There are many others who comment much more diligently than I upon the many instances how Western culture in general, and American culture in particular, are relentlessly under attack by the Left and its shockingly complicit Establishment media. Particularly I have been impressed with how well S.T. Karnick makes that his regular concern.

A few days ago Mr. Karnick wrote of the criticism misdirected at MLB for the drinking and driving death of Josh Hancock, a St. Louis Cardinals pitcher. In comments to it, I made a quick point about how PC's intrusion into our culture has a bloody hand in making personal disasters of this sort more rather than less common.

Mr. Karnick concurred: "Until a sufficient number of people summon up the courage to speak out against this point of view, its ugly consequences will continue to plague us."

Now I'd like to make what I believe is a unique observation about PC. That is, I've not seen it mentioned even if its been noticed before, and I doubt it. PC's acceptance and certainly its persistence came into the forefront after much of Western thought turned in the 1960s to accept the notions of Thomas Malthus as revitalized by Paul Ehrlich et al. Merely fifteen years time after the unprecedented carnage of the Second World War, our intelligentsia seemed all too swift to accept the pessimistic notion that the number of humans on the planet was still unsustainable. In short, this is what is meant in high-minded parlance as the challenge of sustainability. (Considerable thought before WWII was moving in this direction. Indeed it appears to be a major feature in NAZI thought. In a world with diminishing resources, Hitler was moving to establish his race as the sole survivors. I plan to look into this further at a later date.)

It does not take a rocket scientist to notice the conflict between this concern and that of society's previously stated predominant concern of protecting human life in many different ways. In fact, by gum, there is assuredly a radical reversal in the way those who've risen to the top of society's institutions has gone about, ostensibly, protecting its members.

Of significant note is that which used to be called constructive criticism wound up in the cross-hairs of the heads of our institutions.

Instead of welcoming various sources of wisdom access to those who need the guidance, the PC crowd constantly concerns itself with how the feelings of the foolhardy might be hurt by those who wish to warn them. Rather than permit unrestricted passage of hard-earned lessons-learned, these "watchdogs" prefer that those whose feelings they claim to be protecting are better off with having their thinking (or unthinking) unfettered. "Let them learn the hard way where naive or ignorant or misguided choices will lead them" would seem to be their slogan.

Certainly, I don't think in history there was ever a group, so well entrenched in positions of authority, who -- wittingly or unwittingly -- were ever such an ally to predators as is our PC crowd.

Now surely there are many useful idiots in that crowd. But it is hard to imagine how they got there and how they manage to remain there unless there are significant numbers of the moneyed and influential class who believe that they are doing animal-husbandry-like work in letting the foolish kill themselves off. Kill themselves along with how many other handfuls of innocents who have the misfortune to be in their path on the way to their personal destruction.

So, for those who still retain an optimism for the potential of the human mind to meet any future shortages (be it for belief in The Creator's promise or simply from gaging how high we have risen in the face of all kinds of disasters), I bet you also have entertained the following question about how society is failing at its assigned task even as its leaders clamor for more control over our lives. Is it not a natural inclination, an imperative really, to look askance at how society has altered its approach to law enforcement?

Strict law enforcement being the principle means to protect innocents from predators was long established thinking in the West. Based significantly on the writings of Thomas Hobbes I believe, that was the be all and end all of the modern state: its raison d' ètre.

Heh, Heh. That is, that was before postmodernism turned up.

In response to my commentary about how, given the state of advances by radical Islam in the war on Terror, the currently disfavored view towards capital punishment is in need of review, reader RobC happened to opine with the ages old comment that those who harm innocents deserve only a little more consideration than that they gave their victims.

Within the confines of this essay, here is what I observe in response.

I used to know many like you, RobC. All of you have been marginalized out of hearing because Political Correctness has painted your views as beyond acceptable discussion.

Many blogs, as you suggest, will grant a hearing to your words. But more is needed to make the jump to where you will be heard in live public forums so that you may affect public policy.

My long term plan for this site (and my premier site should I get it working well again) will come up with ideas that will open up minds now trained (at best) to ignore you. I welcome suggestions and criticisms from readers to aid me in my quest. What doesn't ring bells, what has potential, and what will make good soundbites?


Also, I have had some success in the past at conceiving useful variations on how the political spectrum can be redrawn. However, that was during the Cold War so, although it still accurately reflects how power seekers game the system, it has less immediate use today in the War On Terror.

I have been brewing again a new way to redraw the political spectrum with soundbites that essentially say The Right loves life and The Left loves death. A preview can be read at comment #6 here.

More to follow.

The Nature of Evil

As part of a much longer conversation with Og the Neanderpundit, his first short story, Slayer, published Saturday, prompted a short side discussion between us about the nature of evil. I had my own notions of what constitutes evil before reading the story (that I read quickly while conversing with him) and so I didn't immediately concur with him.

However, that is not the same thing as saying that Og was wrong. One of the great advantages to reading Neanderpundit is how Og stresses the simpler nature of what others weave into complicated explanations.

Og subsequently published this The Nature of Evil. In it he refined the three elements of evil he was conceiving during our discussion.

Primarily, he relates all evil to the infliction, enjoyment and profit from suffering.

My initial inclination was to think that his definition seemed a bit narrow. I am inclined to see evil in those who deliberately mislead others to their own destruction. As for those who are themselves misguided and then help mislead others, what are they? Well, they become agents of evil even if they themselves don't mean to be. Those who may be called "useful idiots" fit this latter description.

In our discussion, it didn't take me long to figure out how ticked off he is with the medical establishment. And even so, that is hardly reason enough to declare his view of evil as narrow. The trick, of course, is to take the report of his vision and see how it fits in with what I see.

Now Og knows I like to take my engineering skills and use it to study how little items fit into the forest we call living. I do it to to figure out better how the forest operates.

To me it's a big jigsaw puzzle. (My Mom told me that while still in my crib, when I became bored completing puzzles with the picture side up I would complete them cardboard side up). Sometimes you see the whole picture before you're complete. Sometimes you are missing key pieces, but so what? Overall you can still comprehend most of what the picture tells you even before it's half complete.

So Og knew what he was doing, as usual. Yes, Og, I think I can fit your definition of evil into my own.

First of all, for any new readers. Though it might seem not to be the case from the following discussion, know that I am religiously agnostic. I am a searcher.

Some have said I am doing it the hard way. Others have said worse.

But if there is a God, that is between Him and me, and that seems to be all that any religion has a right to ask of its followers. Get right with Him. Sadly that seems far too often not the case. Get two people to agree and they too often — almost automatically, like it is something beyond their control — will make the third person a heretic.

What I refer to is the Concept of God. The Ideal. The Creator is First before the creation. When a man seeks out perfection he has a damn good chance to catch excellence. And we live in a whole world in which to seek excellence. It's really hard to get bored unless one limits oneself (most common) or if some outside forces attempt to limit you (next most common).

We can bowl a perfect game: but who can claim to ever bowling 12 mixers: 12 perfect strikes? "In your mind" we would tell such a claimant.

Exactly.

And if we can conceive of perfection in some matters of creation, why not all creation? Such clearly implies a Creator. And yet some don't even want to allow your children to even consider Him as a concept. If the Creator doesn't suffer from that course of events, then He really doesn't exist.

See Og. I finally got here. Sorry for the delay.

Evil as suffering. Evil is intent on inflicting suffering upon the Creator of the universe. He suffers as a parent who suffers when he or she witnesses his offspring coming to a bad end.

We are told that the first thing He told us to do, as he was taking us out of our box: "Be fruitful and multiply."

Why? Because He built all creation for us to enjoy. The more of us there are, the more opportunities for mankind to get one of us to see things the others just cannot see. We each are a potential help to each other.


What profit it men to have the Lord suffer in this way? So that men who don't know Him will turn to the scheming little demigods who will offer themselves to fill the breach. So that they will be worshipped instead of the concept of the Creator.

And why would the demigods want the Creator's creatures to suffer? Because that is the easiest way to drive the Creator's otherwise thinking creature (man) to allow themselves to be treated like cattle. People who suffer from illness want to die. The demigods can more easily cull a herd of thinking cattle if you can get the cooperation of the cattle. So let them suffer rather than spend "limited" resources on now useless eaters. What place has love and appreciation for a life well lived? Well: "Don't let her suffer: kill her. Please!"

And why would such men enjoy the suffering they are inflicting? They have do dismiss the humanity of those they are inflicting the suffering upon. They have to see themselves as higher up on the food chain. It's so much easier to do once they teach themselves to enjoy their "work" rather than wretch as would be the normal response.

It is like in battle. When the general who wants his men to fight tougher than the enemy? He wants his men to hate the enemy. So much easier to enjoy killing.

Well so it is with those who are warring against humanity. It is so much easier to get the agents who are waging that battle to enjoy the suffering they're inflicting. You of an earlier and more wholesome influence would think of such things as aberrant, as abnormal. Hell, the megalomaniacs who wage war on "overpopulation" need to make what was once abnormal and beastly become acceptable? As for allowing you your self-defense: now, that is unacceptable -- to them.

Now the medical profession has had many noble men in it. Many from the past did life-saving work with very little pay. But we've permitted the institution to become corrupted along with so many other institutions in our besieged culture. How? (Well, I've another puzzle sitting in a box that describes that. It will have to wait. )

All one needs to know about the medical establishment today is that many medical schools have eliminated the Hippocratic Oath: "First, do no harm." It is gone.

After that, how long do you think it would take for many to descend to this? "Psst. When we don't offer pain medication, and our patients really suffer, we'll have their loved ones begging us to let 'em go. Heh, heh, heh."

So Og. Here you are. Here is how your concept of evil blends in with mine. At least, that's my "short" order response.

A Keystone for Postmodernism: "Post-Normal" Science

Last week Wretchard posted "Post-Normal" Science As Proof of Global Warming.

In it he let an insider (Mike Hulme, the founding director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research) reveal in his own words the nature of that "science."

Wretchard does a nice turn on this there (and in a subsequent post).

Still, let me try to summarize why "post normal" science exists:

"Because our goals are so very important, mere facts cannot be allowed to get in our way. We must fund the right scientists only. We must get the science we pay for."

Where one finds true believers and radicals, one could logically expect some who are decidedly ruthless:

"All others must be ignored, barred, discredited and even ..., well let's not state that last part outright."

Go there and to see that I am well stating my summary. Yes my second quote is my own interpretation of course. But given the threats sent to dissidents, is it not wise to be cautious?

I've not written at length about Postmodernism yet. I've tended to refer to it here and there at my main site Pascal Fervor and in comments I've left at other sites like the Belmont Club. However, I have written long ago about casuists and sophists, and how the latter know how to make use of the former. Surely the power hungerers who exploit sophistry shamelessly have little qualms about misleading well-meaning people who time and again trip over into casuistry.


Please look into this. It quickly becomes clear to those who research Postmodernism (and I'm not talking about the architectural mode) that postmodernists takes a dim view of humanity as a whole. In short, their primary concern is global "sustainability." And that makes reducing the number of people on the face of the Earth, by hook or by crook, their chief agenda. Naturally, they are always welcoming volunteers; but they are not beyond seeing to it that more deliberate means are employed.

Misleading the wealthier humans on the earth into self-destruction has well begun: witness the huge decline in populations in the advanced world.

Making sure that the developing world — doesn't — continues. Groaning but doing nothing whilst the Mugabe's of the world do their worst is about as emblematic as it gets. Supporting violent Islam is their latest wrinkle: all the talk about making life better for little people everywhere is somehow gone and replaced with "let the local culture decide." See? Mugabe many times over.

And the Global Warming "Crisis?" To me and many like me it is the new excuse to foist command economy on the world. For those who don't know, that is what the old Soviet Union was aiming for. It is what the PRC still has but with adaptations to please a world market — eager for the products of its slave labor — to help sustain it.

Yes, the new face of World Dominion is simply a mask with Karl Marx behind it. And, in turn, Marxism always had the misanthropic Malthusian worshippers hiding behind it. This last group is ever so proud of the pile of corpses that Marxian ideology "produced" worldwide.

Anyway, nowadays haters of humanity live under the tent labeled "Postmodernist."

Whether you are conservative, classically liberal, libertarian, or even a modern liberal who has been made skeptical and wary by the unsavory behavior of Leftists, and you wish to survive in a personal sense, then it will serve you well to learn what postmodernists wish for you.

And now — as never before — you have "Post-Normal" Science as the verifiable proof of their hubris.