Why Humans Need Hell

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/06/case-closed-it-was-a-lab-leak.php

Progressivism, Democrats, the Administrative State, Intellectuals, etc bristle at the idea of "God", even more so at the idea that there is such a thing as sort of "defined transcendent morality" beyond "I get to define MY truth".  Especially a morality with judgement and eternal damnation. 

They get completely outraged by the idea that God would punish the evil that he has decreed to be evil eternally. It might give some people some second thoughts about some of the actions they want to take in this life. "Progress" denies human responsibility ... the fault is always elsewhere. History, white privilege, Christians, mental health, not enough funding for unionized schools, "hate speech", guns, ... being on the left means never being responsible for anything other than the best outcomes. 

One needs to be a very very dedicated "Wuhan Denier" to not realize that the Covid virus came from the Wuhan lab, and it was created explicitly to be very transmissible, and likely to kill primarily old people. If there is no real morality, and you are a a utilitarian, you seek "the good" for the greatest number. The following definition is from Google's AI, so if robots outnumber humans and humans are a threat to them, AI will seem pretty clear on "the right thing to do",

Utilitarianism is a moral theory that states that the consequences of an action are the only standard of right and wrong. It is a form of consequentialism, which states that the most ethical choice is the one that produces the greatest good for the greatest number. Utilitarianism is one of the best known and most influential moral theories.

Pilate asked, "what is truth"?, many philosophers. have asked "what is good?"

Nietzsche and most atheists boil "the good" down to "whatever power says it is".

As the research at the Wuhan lab became increasingly "successful" (meaning that they had a virus that was very transmissible and would kill a lot of people). the research went increasingly dark. Following the link at the top gives more detail. 

The results of Baric’s experiment with the genetic sequence given to him by Shi were published in co-authored research in November 2015. The combined Sars copy and SHC014 virus was a potential mass killer. It caused severe lung damage in humanized mice and was resistant to vaccines developed for Sars. The paper acknowledged this might have been an experiment that was too dangerous.

It caused a big stir. “If the virus escaped, nobody could predict the trajectory,” warned Simon Wain-Hobson, a virologist at the Pasteur Institute in Paris. 

Both the Chinese and the US were funding this research. They made up excuses that were essentially "First you have to CREATE Godzilla, then you can figure out how to defend against him". What could go wrong?

The mice were monitored in their cages over two weeks. The results were shocking. The mutant virus that fused WIV1 with SHC014 killed 75 percent of the rodents and was three times as lethal as the original WIV1. In the early days of the infection, the mice’s human-like lungs were found to contain a viral load up to 10,000 times greater than the original WIV1 virus.

The scientists had created a highly infectious super-coronavirus with a terrifying kill-rate that in all probability would never have emerged in nature. The new genetically modified virus was not Covid-19 but it might have been even more deadly if it had leaked.

So governments worked together to create hyper lethal viruses that would not occur in nature, would be impossible to control, very transmissible, and have various levels of lethality, and they "leaked" ... or were released. "At this point what does it matter" (a good Hillary quote on her Benghazi disaster).  As Stalin said, "Death solves all problems, no man, no problem". 

In a utilitarian world where there are too many elderly, and the general population is still not willing to accept euthanasia, would not killing elderly be a utilitarian "moral imperative"? How many times do we need to hear "Climate Change is and existential issue" before some "courageous/moral" utilitarian government or person releases an engineered virus that kills 80% or more of the world population?

It seems likely that survivors might canonize the viral "savior of the planet" as a "second Noah". 

As people have abandoned the idea of an afterlife and final judgement, the concepts of sin, morality, good, evil, etc. are completely mutable. No need to worry about punishment ... in this world if you are well connected with those who control the global narrative, and, since there is no "next", why worry? Eat. drink, indulge whatever sexual or other pleasures you desire. Life is short, and then "poof". "Poof" is your hope. 

Therefore, who is to judge those with the power and the means to do things that people that retain that old sense of morality find unthinkable? The Holocaust happened; Hitler at least wagered that Hell was imaginary. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and whoever directed the creation of Covid obviously had other concerns than Hell. 

Even when culture retained the idea of eternal punishment, severely evil things were still done. Today, without the belief in ultimate justice being assured by Romans 12:19 "Vengeance is mine, I shall repay, says the Lord", humans feel they MUST mete out "justice", and murder, suicide, hatred, division, broken families, countries, communities, and lives abound. 

Russia has said multiple times that they WILL use nuclear weapons if they are pushed too far. Meanwhile the West provokes, them with sanctions that cripple their economies, declare their leader a "war criminal", arms their enemies, and makes their opponent a star. Nobody seems to believe what they say. If Putin is really ailing, and believes this is all there is, starting WWIII would certainly ensure his place in history, and it is doubtful he would be seen as more evil than Hitler ... or possibly not even Trump, according to the left. 

The anesthetized Western masses increasingly believe that only those that still claim divine morality are a danger. 

Without God, the people perish. By their own hand, or by the hand of power without eternal moral sanction. 

Prosecution Vs Persecution

 https://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/supreme-court-overturns-bob-mcdonnells-corruption-convictions-224833

The SCOTUS actually overturned the conviction of a Republican for acting like a typical politician. Amazing! Could this be the start of some semblance of equal treatment under the law? 

We all know that the typical politician in the US starts from fairly modest means, moving up the ranks to once reaching the House or the Senate, being in the "top 1%" or higher. Even self proclaimed Socialist Bernie Sanders has managed to amass a $5 million net worth.

Some of the key reasons for this are: 

• Book deals
• Being able to keep significant amount of campaign contributions 
• A very cushy retirement plan.
• Generous expense accounts.
• A housing allowance that covers the cost of their living in DC

All of those are generally legal. The book deals are often questionable, and companies or individuals seeking favor may buy a lot of books, often through "straw purchasers". 

Covering "the costs" of speaking fees are often quite generous. 

If you are a "friend" of a government official and take them with you on an expensive trip, let them use your vacation home, pick them up with your private jet, etc, these are nice benefits. It doesn't directly increase your wealth, but you don't have to spend your cash for vacations that the rest of us save up for. 

Then there are the "foundations". The Clinton foundation took in well over $200 million until Hillary lost in 2016. Then, for some reason, donations dropped. Odd? Your foundation can own planes, boats, real estate, etc, all of which are "charitable" ... certainly flying donors on the foundations plane to encourage them to donate is legit. 

Many lower level politicians have their foundations ... they can often live in a home owned by the foundation with all the expenses covered. 

Traditionally, Democrats have had zero scrutiny. Jim Wright, Democrat Speaker of the House from '87 to '89 was an exception, as the very politically and media savvy Newt Gingerich took him down over a book deal on the way to the Republicans taking the House majority in '95 for the first time in 50 years. 

Power always corrupts to some degree. The issue is when the corruption is not limited for both sides of the political spectrum. The idea that the rule of law is applied equally to all is highly in question these days. Democrats strongly believe that Blacks are discriminated against on the basis of how many are incarcerated. They naturally assume that it can't be because Blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime. We all know that predominantly black areas of our large cities are the safest and lowest crime, right? 

So is it good news that "standard corruption" will now be overlooked for both political parties? To some degree, yes, however a little thought is in order. Perhaps some degree of honor needs to be returned among the political thieves? 

More Than You Need To Know About Sex and Gender

Don't Take Pride In Promoting Pseudoscience 

As we all really know, but in these times, sometimes are afraid to admit, there are two sexes, male and female, and the old joke of: Question, "How do you know the difference between a boy and a girl?" Obvious answer, "You pull down there "jeans"", which has a deeper scientific meaning. You look at their genes, especially their chromosomes, in each of their cells. XX=boy, XY=girl. 

For the practical person, that is it. 

For the impractical, confused, mentally ill, ideologically vs reality based, etc, a new useless term "gender" has been manufactured. Specifically by John Money in 1955. 

Once you get into fiction, it is a bit like the Marvel, Star Trek, or Star Wars "universes". Since they are fictional, time, space, laws of physics, biology, morality, etc are totally arbitrary. One may have some sort of "rules" in a specific imaginary universe, but those are certainly meant to be broken. Consider the semi sacred "Prime Directive" in Star Trek. From time to time it may have created slight dramatic tension, but no actual fealty. 

Unfortunately, when fiction starts to damage reality, esspectially children, it is time for the shrinking set of reality based people to firm up their knowledge of the reality of two sexes and imaginary gender.

Over the last decade, we have observed a striking shift in the politics of LGBT issues. There has been a move away from broadly supported principles based on equality toward the imposition of radical, pseudoscientific ideologies concerning biological sex. A growing genre of articles in high-profile news outlets, magazines, and scientific journals is signaling the end of a binary and immutable perspective on biological sex. The appeal of these pieces lies in the belief that rejecting the binary concept of sex provides society with a liberating opportunity for self-definition, unfettered by material constraints.

One might consider these debates too arcane to have any real significance. However, the pseudoscientific notion that biological sex is mutable and exists on a non-binary continuum serves as a key justification for allowing males who identify as women to compete in female sports and access female prisons, and for administering treatments such as puberty blockers and “gender-affirming” (i.e., body modifying) hormones and surgeries to adolescents and adults alike to fix a perceived misalignment between their sex and “gender identity.” The implications are serious, as these recommendations make women’s sex-based rights unenforceable and directly impact the healthy bodies and minds of children. It is of utmost importance that such actions are grounded in reliable science, not in fashionable political ideologies.

The article is quite easy to read, and thorough in debunking specious claims about "intersex". "hormonal sex", to attack the binary nature of sex. 

Most of what we are burned by today is the confusion of  biological sex, and fictional "gender". 

Now you don't need to be confused, and you have something to explain to those who are so "intelligent" that they just can't accept that much of what they "know" is manifestly wrong. 

The Age Of Reagan: The fall of the old liberal order, Steven Hayward

 https://www.amazon.com/Age-Reagan-Liberal-Order-1964-1980/dp/0307453693

I'm an unabashed Power Line blog, and especially Steven Hayward fan. Steve has written a number of books, this one, "The Age Of Reagan" covers the period from 1964 to 1980. 

Being born in '56, this covers my childhood since I entered Kindergarten in the fall of 1960 at the age of 4 (turning 5 in October). I've been behind my age cohort ever since. 

The book is 717 pages long, but Hayward is an interesting writer. While Reagan is often the focus, the book is really the tale of how LBJ and Jimmy Carter crippled both the country and the Democrat "liberal" order, thus creating the Reagan presidency and significant change in US foreign and domestic policy that consigned the USSR to "the ash heap of history", and ignited a US and world economic boom that lasted until Obama in 2008. Trump was able to create a bit of a "boomlet" from 2017-Covid, and then Biden in a "It's deja vu all over again" trip back to '70s stagflation, sinking stocks, global military peril, and "leadership" you can cry over. 

On page 52, there is discussion about how Johnson used the CIA, FBI, etc to spy on the Goldwater campaign. E Howard Hunt of the CIA would reprise the role in the '72 Nixon campaign. Then, as we see now with the Russia Hoax, Hunter Biden Laptop, etc the use of the "justice" department for political purposes is a very old strategy for the Democrat party, as in Watergate. Republicans have attempted to engage in it as well, but the Deep State is an enemy of Republicans, because no matter how ineffective they are at reigning in the Administrative State, they have tried, which makes them "dangerous to democracy",  which from the POV of Democrats and their allies in the Administrative State, is "dangerous to single party rule" (their version of "democracy") 

Nixon's 2nd term, and the election of Trump to a 2nd term were "existential threats" to the Deep/Administrative State, so all means were of attack were justified. If the ironclad hold of the Deep/Administrative State was loosened a bit, their powers might not be total anymore, and Americans might see some actual truth about what has been happening for a long time. That MUST be prevented!

on page 123, there is a great "adventures in irony" tale. Ernesto Miranda, the defendant in the famous case was stabbed to death in an Arizona bar. The police detained a solid suspect, who stating his "Miranda Rights" refused questioning and was released. The case was never solved. 

Johnson never really cared about Vietnam, and he assiduously avoided calling it a "war", to not offend China or the USSR. You can LOSE a war, but "Peacekeeping" and  Nation Building" are just nice moral actions which may kill 10's of thousands of American troops, and many times that number of "allies" and "enemies", but at least you didn't start a "war" or "lose". Afghanistan is another great example, and our panicked exit was a duplicate of our embarrassment in Vietnam. 

What he cared about was his massive spending to "finish FDR's work"  by a massive Administrative State welfare program called "The Great Society". The government engaged in "The War On Poverty". As with many leftist ideas, it's promises were grand, it's results were disaster. Both the poor and the American taxpayer lost, and continue to lose that war as well. 

On page 293,  a statistic that explains a lot of things is revealed. The total cost of the decade long moon landing project was less than three months of federal social program spending in 1969! Mondale especially hated the "waste" of money in the Apollo program, but loved the "Great Society". 

The sad joke of the Carter presidency is sadly documented. One of the items that presages where we are now was Carter's appointment of Andrew Young to be Ambassador to the UN. Young was on record saying that the destruction of Western civilization was required for the world to emerge as a "free. and brotherly society". He would ramble on about all the racist US leaders. When asked if that would include Abraham Lincoln, he responded "especially Lincoln". 

Page 572 brought back memories of some of the frigid weather of the 1970's. In '75, the NAS made an almost unanimous report that we were headed quickly for an ice age! Anyone that did not believe the science was of course beyond stupid. I was in my 2nd year of college, and given the glacial effects in N Wisconsin, Lake Superior, and the observed tens of thousands of years cycles of ice ages  ... it DID seem quite likely, and frankly still does. Just not in the next few hundred years. 

Being in college and joining IBM during the "Great Malaise" of the Carter years made me a Republican after a youth where everyone I knew was a Democrat because "Republicans were the party of the rich" ... we certainly were not rich, so the choice was obvious. Carter was the last Democrat I voted for ... I was "mugged by reality", and Reagan cemented my choice of becoming reality vs narrative based.  

The combination of the "War on Poverty" and "The War In Vietnam", was essentially a "War on the United States" which many of the left then, and still today thought to be very good idea. On page 193, 

"...what happens when the financial system is backed by a central bank promising redeem deposits in gold? If a crisis of confidence occurs, then you have run on the banks, but a run on the whole countries currency and gold reserves. This is what happened in 1968. The episode brought to an abrupt halt to the lofty promise of "growth liberalism" or "the new economics", and set the stage for rising inflation and economic instability that took 20 years to remedy." 

Carter, Obama and Biden prove that ideologues never learn. When you believe that more government and more spending are the answer to whatever seems to be the problem, that is what you do. Democrat spending is like bloodletting, a standard practice for 3000 years. It was a major tool in the medical box, and if it failed,  doctors were suspicious it was not administered soon enough or extensively enough. Democrats look at spending, especially the deficit brand, the same way. 

I loved both books because they brought back a lot of memories of my life from kindergarten to kids. If you have either and open or moderately conservative mind (or both) and are not afraid of thick books, highly recommended. If you are a confirmed leftist, this is history you want to erase so you can smugly keep on repeating it! 

 

University Of Chicago Freedom Of Speech

University of Chicago Statement on freedom of speech at the university. 

In these days of "cancel culture", censorship of "disinformation", and "safe spaces", the University of Chicago has stood up to defend freedom of speech on their campus. 

35 universities have signed up in support of this statement. As the linked article says, "1,606 to go". One might add the majority of the media social, printed, and otherwise, to follow suit. Is it possible that if enough people read this and thought about it, the accusation of "hate speech" would become a signal that the person or institution making the charge is outside the community of free speech, and needs to be counselled  as to what free speech means in a civil society. 

The statement is short and well worth the read. A few excerpts stating what was once obvious to all Americans, especially those with some level of university education (when a university education was in fact education as opposed to today's indoctrination).

In a word, the University’s fundamental commitment is to the principle that debate or deliberation may not be suppressed because the ideas put forth are thought by some or even by most members of the University community to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed. It is for the individual members of the University community, not for the University as an institution, to make those judgments for themselves, and to act on those judgments not by seeking to suppress speech, but by openly and vigorously contesting the ideas that they oppose. Indeed, fostering the ability of members of the University community to engage in such debate and deliberation in an effective and responsible manner is an essential part of the University’s educational mission.

.. President Hanna Holborn Gray observed that “education should not be intended to make people comfortable, it is meant to make them think. Universities should be expected to provide the conditions within which hard thought, and therefore strong disagreement, independent judgment, and the questioning of stubborn assumptions, can flourish in an environment of the greatest freedom.

Much of our social interaction today is all about comfort, and if anyone, any institution, any group, or anything at all gives you a pang of discomfort, that person, institution, media outlet, business, etc needs to be "cancelled", either publicly, or just by you as you shun the person, business, or institution that has "offended" you. 

For Christians, this is especially problematic, since if the message of Christ does NOT offend you regularly as you fail to follow his teachings presented by a pastor with the authority given to a pastor, it is not clear you are an actual practicing Christian. 

Certainly you will be able to find a church with female, gay, trans, etc members and clergy, that believes that "love for all" rather than following Christ in a body of believers and regularly taking part in the sacrament of Holy Communion. In the age of "it's all about me", the concept of "love the sinner, hate the sin" is impossible for many in today's culture to understand. 

"The Rise And Triumph of the Modern Self" does an excellent job of explaining why we got to this point. 

  

Two Cents To Save America, Perry Johnson

 Perry Johnson (politician) - Wikipedia

"Quixotic", as in "exceedingly idealistic, unrealistic, and impractical" are the thoughts that I had as I looked at Mr Johnson's presidential aspirations. 

My not politically involved brother in law, and my equally not politically involved son both a got free hardcover copies of the book. Strange. My wife is co-chair of our county Republican party, and Johnson is running as a Republican

As I looked around a bit to see who this guy is/was, I came across his involvement with ISO 9000 as well as his failed attempt to get the Republican nomination to run against Gretchen Whitmer for governor of Michigan in 2022 because he failed to get the required number of signatures to be on the ballot. 

Failing to get on the ballot is not that impressive. 

As to ISO 9000, my wife and I have had some experience with this in our IBM careers. Basically, ISO requires that you have a documented process for software development, and that you follow it. You pay fairly significant amount of money to have an ISO auditor come into your company and verify that you are doing what you say you are doing. There is no evaluation of your process as to if it makes any sort of rational sense, or actually improves quality, only that you are doing what you say you do. 

"Standards" are an issue that can have a long discussion. "UL" or "Underwriters Laboratories" is one of the best known and widely used. It MAY mean that the product you are buying is "independently tested", however, like ISO, the specifics of that testing vary widely, and there is always the distinct possibility of some form or corruption ... kickbacks, bribes, etc. 

Essentially we are talking about "Non Government Organization" (NGO)  certification, or to put it in my words "NGO equivalent of a countries Administrative State". Are such things needed? Certainly .. the FAA, and the international equivalents certainly help insure aircraft, pilot, navigation and airport safety and ability to interact effectively. (like all international air communication being in English). However, as in the Boeing 737 Max crashes of an internationally certified aircraft, there will be failures. 

We live in a world of trade-offs. How much testing?, how much regulation?, who does the testing?, who "regulates the regulators" to prevent them from creating massive ineffective bureaucracies that end up doing little but lining the pockets of various bureaucratic organizations. It is necessary, but when does it become a necessary evil, and how much "evil" (increased costs, corruption, ineffectiveness, etc) are acceptable? 

Such things are not to be answered in a blog post. 

A lot of the things Johnson's "Two Cents" book suggests ... reducing size of government in general and especially the Administrative State. energy independence, reduced taxes, reduced regulation, secure borders, free trade, "reigniting the American Spirit", incentivizing work and innovation, etc are obvious to all but hardcore Democrats of the Carter, Obama, Biden ilk. 

Reagan tried and was significantly successful and changed the game enough so that the economy, markets, and real income growth, and with the election of a Republican congress for the first time in 50 years combined with a compliant president (Clinton), and the Internet Bubble, even balanced the budget for a couple years! 

The Reagan Recovery, (although far from perfect) lasted until Obama ... a lot of the principles Johnson espouses are essentially Reagan all over again. Trump largely revived a number of those principles with positive results until Covid. Biden has taken us back to at least Jimmy Carter, and I believe has established a new benchmark in dangerous government overreach, unfortunately including further reducing the integrity of elections, weaponizing the government against any opposition, and of course tanking the economy, returning us to "Stagflation", pulling us ever closer to a shooting war with nuclear weapons, and much else. The hope of "Peace Through Wokeness" is believable as "no environment impact energy", or "Military Intelligence". 

In short, Johnson is tilting at the right windmills, so if you need a short refresher on reality relative to government means, it is useful. However like Don Quixote, the effectiveness of someone with a background in international bureaucracy actually practicing what he now preaches is vanishingly small.  

If long shots appeal to you, I would recommend Vivek Ramaswamy. 

DeSantis is my current pick. 

It is a long way to go, but I'll be voting for whoever is the most likely to beat Biden, even if that is a third party candidate with conservative leanings. My guess is that would be Trump, and if he looks to have the best chance of beating Biden because DeSantis is the nominee, but looks to lose in a three party race, I won't have to hold my nose at all for Trump. I believe that 2020 was clearly stolen by a LOT of measures (see "Rigged"), but Trump ought to have let it go after Pence caved. 

The 2016 election and the Trump administration were "rigged" by Hillary, the FBI, and the compliant media, as the Durham Report exposes (way too late). Having a Constitutional/National crisis on how horrible our election system is might of been the best alternative available, but that water is well past the dam.

After 2020 and 2022,  I suspect that it will take bloodshed to prevent us from either "electing", to be run by or like the PRC,  or forced to do so. 

Election Interference Is Not Bipartisan

 https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/05/russian-disinformation-memo-was-a-biden-campaign-op.php

We have known for a long time that the Steele “dossier” was created by and for the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign. It was the most successful bit of disinformation of modern times. The second most successful, perhaps, was the absurd claim that the obviously-authentic Hunter Biden laptop somehow constituted “Russian disinformation.” How and why that could be true, no one ever explained. The provenance of the laptop has never been disputed, even by Hunter: he left it at a repair shop and didn’t pick it up.

As Biden has declared many times, Trump, Republicans, Deplorables (but I repeat myself) are "threats to our Democracy". What he means by that is that they are a threat to the Democrat/Deep State/Big Corporate/Big Media Oligarchy, and more importantly to him, the Biden Crime Family.   

We now know that the dismissal of the authenticity of the documents contained on Hunter’s computer was organized on behalf of, and likely at the instigation of, the Joe Biden presidential campaign. Emails have now come to light that show the organizers of the “Dirty 51” were, by their own description, creating “talking points” for Joe Biden to use in the upcoming presidential debate.

To the extent that a significant number of Americans ever find out about all of this, it will be stated as "without evidence" ... the fact that we are looking at evidence right here is immaterial to the Narrative. 

Is It Time For Manly Christianity to be Unleashed?

 https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/05/against-the-new-paganism/

A little long, but an article that needs to read in its entirety in order to understand where Western culture are today, and may need to be in the future.

The most prominent exponent of vitalism today is Costin Alamariu, a Romanian political-science Ph.D. (Yale), who goes by the moniker “Bronze Age Pervert” (BAP). As BAP, he is the author of Bronze Age Mindset, an intentionally provocative, discursive, and ungrammatical “exhortation” outlining his thought. In two previous essays, one in the Daily Beast and one in National Review, I described the work, attempted to explain the origin and nature of its popularity, and assessed it critically

So what is vitalism? 

a call for the deepest possible return of all: a breaking of the fetters of secular liberalism and Judaism and Christianity alike, a recovery of a more elemental way of being-in-the-world. The nostalgia of neo-vitalism is for humanity’s most ancient days: for blood and war and shamans and the fierce exaltation of the kill.

The post makes a number of references to "Bronze Age Pervert" which I covered here.

We are all familiar with the current state of affairs in Christianity, 

Over the past few decades, Christianity has both retreated from the public square and from mass culture and been pushed from them. Its once-venerable pillars in this country have atrophied. Catholics continue to disaffiliate, and many Protestant denominations can barely be distinguished from unbelief. “The crisis of the Western world exists to the degree in which it is indifferent to God,”

One of my many weird and possibly heretical paths of thinking is correlating the OT with the NT, and Yahweh with Christ.  On one level God is presented as "unchanging",  and Christ as "fully God and fully man". The OT God seems very different from Christ ... 

Deuteronomy 20:16-18 New International Version (NIV)
"However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has commanded you."

Certainly in the Judgement, God will kill all the wicked ... eternally. He is a God who desires to show his mercy, but if it is refused, Judgment is his. .  

A book that helped me at least understand the problem a bit was "Jesus and Yahweh, The Names Divine".

The following quote is from the post linked at the top, not the previous line. 

Easter reminds us that the Resurrection remains true — even if the work of revitalizing Christianity today might require an approach different from the one Paul took in the Areopagus, with an emphasis not only on the truth of the Christian faith but also on its muscular application.

During the Reformation, Christians certainly fought valiantly. It was basically the equivalent of the American Civil War. Can/must Christians today be more like the Christians of the the Crusades, who "turned the other cheek" until the battle of Covadonga?

Today we are often given the message to "stand down", and "obey the authorities" because "God is in control". I agree with God being in control, but his often explicit battle plans in the OT. 

Malachi 3:6

“For I, the Lord, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed."

God "allows" a lot of things, and "directs" a lot of other things. Which is which is "seen darkly" at best by even the most devout Christian.

Is it time for a new Reformation or Crusade? God will decide. 

Understanding "Disinformation"

 https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/guide-understanding-hoax-century-thirteen-ways-looking-disinformation

In his last days in office, President Barack Obama made the decision to set the country on a new course. On Dec. 23, 2016, he signed into law the Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act, which used the language of defending the homeland to launch an open-ended, offensive information war.

We live in the "disinformation age". Pilate asked Christ; "What is truth"? The correct eternal answer being a "who" rather than a "what" ... Christ.  Even scientists and philosophers are starting to understand this. "The Matter With Things" would be a good place to start your road to that understanding as well.

Since 2016, the federal government has spent billions of dollars on turning the counter-disinformation complex into one of the most powerful forces in the modern world: a sprawling leviathan with tentacles reaching into both the public and private sector, which the government uses to direct a “whole of society” effort that aims to seize total control over the internet and achieve nothing less than the eradication of human error.

The set of things "known for sure" is exceedingly small since our only method of determining such is using our brains, something we believe to be a "thing", however Quantum Field Theory (the current "standard model") says there are no "things", only fields. One thing we do know for certain that is a constant is human error.

Ah yes, an agency/process/bureaucracy to "eradicate human error". Fascinating. 

In the fall of 2020. the New York Post began publishing incriminating information from Hunter Biden's laptop that he had forgotten at a computer repair shop. The disinformation police detected "human error", so they rounded up over 50  "security experts" to correct (and suppress) this error. 

Hamilton 68 simply collected a handful of mostly real, mostly American accounts and described their organic conversations as Russian scheming.” The discovery prompted Twitter’s head of trust and safety, Yoel Roth, to suggest in an October 2017 email that the company take action to expose the hoax and “call this out on the bullshit it is.”

Once it was clear that the Hamilton 68 were the ones peddling "disinformation" (in simpler terms, "bullshit") the hoax was globally exposed, right? Well, in a sane world, that might be expected, but that is not the world in which we live. 

The American press, once the guardian of democracy, was hollowed out to the point that it could be worn like a hand puppet by the U.S. security agencies and party operatives.

 To those that have never wavered from reality, this is as newsworthy as the sun rising in the east. To readers of my blogs, the following quote will be just as "shocking". 

What we are seeing now, in the revelations exposing the inner workings of the state-corporate censorship regime, is only the end of the beginning. The United States is still in the earliest stages of a mass mobilization that aims to harness every sector of society under a singular technocratic rule.

Another; "Duh" quote for frequent readers ...

Disinformation, now and for all time, is whatever they say it is. That is not a sign that the concept is being misused or corrupted; it is the precise functioning of a totalitarian system.

Much like Dr Strangelove, the government created a "truth doomsday machine" out of social media parts. 

Weapons created to fight ISIS and al-Qaeda were turned against Americans who entertained incorrect thoughts about the president or vaccine boosters or gender pronouns or the war in Ukraine.

If you actually listen to Biden and the media, the greatest threat to our "our democracy" is the "MAGA Republicans" ... or to be more accurate, anyone that questions the narrative. Look closely at "our democracy",  "their oligarchy" is the message we need to get. "Our Democracy" is just propaganda. 

In the days of the internet “freedom agenda,” the popular mythology of Silicon Valley depicted it as a laboratory of freaks, self-starters, free thinkers, and libertarian tinkerers who just wanted to make cool things without the government slowing them down. The alternative history, outlined in Levine’s book, highlights that the internet “always had a dual-use nature rooted in intelligence gathering and war.” There is truth in both versions, but after 2001 the distinction disappeared.

While the Internet was originally built by the military working with universities to be a distributed robust network that would allow communications to be maintained during a nuclear attack, it quickly became the information equivalent of the Interstate Highway system ... a low cost means of mass two way communication that quickly subsumed TV and phones. and allowed everyone to have a voice, and the distinct possibility that some of them would become more followed than the Democrat lapdog media. 

Certainly, that was not allowed, so the voices that persisted in not getting their minds right needed to be silenced. 

  

 

The Road To Celebrating Pedophillia

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/04/democrats-for-pedophilia.php

I dropped my subscription to Time Magazine in the early '90s as they had and editorial defending a teacher that had been fired because they were a member of NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association). 

Now we have "Downstate" a play about a set of pederasts living in a shelter because they can't live anywhere else. The Washington Post and the NY Times have reviewed the play mostly sympathetically 

The NY Times review closes with: 

That, more than the menace of the housemates, is the reason the tension of “Downstate” trails us so tenaciously out of the theater. The thought of all the damage these men have wrought, and the severity of their exile, gets knotted up with questions of mercy.

How much retribution is enough? And what quantity of compassion — bestowed on whom — is too much? Let the wrestling with your conscience begin.

I've been wrong about the "progress" of "progressivism".  After the Stonewall Riots and Roe, it was pretty clear that the SCOTUS could and would legislate any "morality" it imagined. The acceptance of gays into general society was hastened by AIDs. as the terrible deaths that many gays suffered caused natural sympathy for it's victims. Magic Johnson's announcement that he had AIDs in 1991 blurred and destigmatized AIDs and with it gays as immoral, and the gut felt (but rarely admitted) sense that AIDs was a punishment from God for the sin of Sodomy, as in Sodom and Gomorrah was suppressed.

Gays, and "GLBT" was increasingly celebrated with obscene marches, rainbow flags, etc. It was clear that "progress" would demand that same-sex activity would be "protected by the Constitution", as it was in "Lawrence vs Texas" in 2003. 

"Progressivism" (regressivism to a Hobbesian existence) demanded that a direct attack on a critical foundation of civilization, marriage between a man and a woman, be attacked. 

As late as 2008, the idea that marriage was a sacred institution held sway, with all presidential hopefuls in either party making clear statements in opposition to gay "marriage". 

By 2012, the Democrats had changed their minds ( they often equate "morality" with "survey says"). In 2015, the SCOTUS conjured another "right" out of the penumbra of the Constitution in "Obergefell vs Hodges", and gay "marriage" was a reality.

My belief was that sex with children would proceed genital mutilation of prepubescent children. At this point it appears I had the ordering wrong ... but perhaps it will be a tie. 

As is well covered in "The Rise And Triumph of the Modern Self", "progressivism" is not a "live and let live" ideology. While it may lie to you saying it is all about "diversity", that claim is strictly ordered by the  specific, rigid hierarchy of "identities".  What trumps what? While it is clear that heterosextual white males are the bottom, is the next rung hetero white females? Certainly political and religious affiliations affect the discrimination hierarchy. What is the top? Possibly a black, trans woman who is non-binary and has a criminal record? My imagination fails me, but I'm confident that "progressives" will work it out. 

As we see with gay and trans, it is not enough to "accept", you must openly CELEBRATE whatever identity is manufactured. As is now also clear, if you "love" children they must be "groomed" (indoctrinated) to fit into some acceptable category, and stigmatized if they are unfortunate enough to come from a white, two parent, Christian family! Thus we must have "Sanctuary Cities" where genital mutilation is protected without the consent of parents. After all, if some poor child is trapped in a white two parent Christian family, isn't it society's duty to free them from that oppression, which will disadvantage them for life? 

Without appropriate grooming in the public schools through pornographic books, classes, Drag Queen Story Hours, etc, how are these vulnerable children even to be aware of the horror of their situation? Indeed, these vulnerable children are being indoctrinated to think that a two parent Christian home with restrictions on access to social media, internet, etc and possibly even chores and respect for elders being foisted on them! 

Since men having sex with boys was a staple of Greek and Roman civilization, and men having sex with MUCH younger women. (Muhammad's favorite wife Aisha was married to him at 6 or seven, and the marriage was consummated sometime between then and when she reached age 10), it is surprising to me that a Constitutional right to sex with children has yet to be discovered in the Constitution. It certainly seems to be clear evidence of Islamophobia that this right has been overlooked to date. 

The "progressive" road is plain. First you "understand", then you "empathize", then you accept, then you celebrate, then you force all others to celebrate or be discriminated against, up to and including taking their children away if they fail to comply. 

 How can you stand in the way of"progress"??