Thursday, March 08, 2012

A Stunner!!

What follows is off-topic for the blog, but I'm the God of this blog, so I can arrange these things! ;)

Pat Robertson, of right-wing Christian fundamentalist fame, has publicly gone on record with the statement that marijuana should be legalized.

And why? Well basically, because he thinks the War On Drugs is evil. Which indeed it is.

God bless Pat Robertson!

Damn! I love it when left-right political boundaries get blurred, don't you? It always releases the heady, pungent aroma of freedom. I'm catching a whiff of it here, all right!

Ya know, if Barry Goldwater was around today, he would without-a-doubt be seconding this. (But er. . . ah. . . ahem! . . . let's not forget that Barry was a half-Jew, an atheist, and a pro-choicer! ;-)

Here is the New York Times article which broke the big news:

Pat Robertson Says Marijuana Use Should Be Legal

Hey, I haven't touched the stuff in years. But I look forward to the day when I will sit down upon a barren, windswept mountain-top and fire up a fat one in celebration! And unlike Bill Clinton, I will inhale.

By the way, the War On Drugs is a product of the same underlying moral weltanschauung which brought us feminism. They are kindred evils. You knew that, of course. . .


They Sow Pain and They Reap Accordingly

Here I shall repost an old classic of post-argumentalism. I do this now because I think the moment calls for it. Post-argumentalism is no recent development; we've known for years that we are at war with aliens who play a different game by different rules and do not share our sense of honor, morality, rationality, fair play and so on. These aliens always stack the deck, and they never play a clean game.

Oh all right, they aren't really aliens. They are undoubtedly human, but they have forfeited, through their dishonorable lying and cheating behavior, any right to be treated as such. Their invincible ignorance about themselves, their arrogant rapacity in dealing with the rest of the world, their perverse oblivion to everything outside their cognitive bubble, their privileging of their own narrative, their flat refusal to consider the back-story and political context from which their opposition emerges -- all of these things, and more, set them beyond the pale of respectful consideration.

In sum, feminists despise the spiritual autonomy of non-feminist men and women, seeking only to drive a wedge between them and to instigate violence between them, so as to validate and perpetuate the existence of feminism itself. It is painfully clear that to win any war of ideas with feminism is a quixotic notion from the start. No such victory is possible because feminism was never fighting a war of ideas in the first place. In fact, feminism is fighting the intellectual equivalent of a street fight, and if you fight a so-called war of ideas in an intellectual street fight, then you will not win any war of ideas.

Friends, we know for a fact, through long study and experience, that these are not ethical people. Not honorable people. Not empathic people. So ethical, honorable, empathic terms of engagement are wasted on them. They have licensed the world to treat them exactly as they have treated the world, and the "pain" they eventually suffer will be the crop they have sown. Let history be the judge.

Thank you. Here now is the original article from early 2008:

The Futility of Arguing With Feminists

The feminists can never be pried apart from their dogmas and their fixed ideations. We may certainly undertake to display by reasoned steps the folly of their doctrines, and indeed plenty of us have talked ourselves blue in the face - or typed ourselves into carpal tunnel syndrome - in the course of such efforts. Within our own sector, we've grown painfully wise to all of this over the years. At first we thought to convince them of the heinous error of their thinking, or if not convince them at least confute them and shame them into silence. But the contrary outcome has rewarded us. Their obstinacy grows ever more entrenched even as the baneful effect of feminist theory and its practical application becomes apparent, and "throwing facts at them" is perpetually to no avail.

By virtue of our long-standing debates with feminists and collaborationists, we've become eye-glazingly familiar with their battery of argumentative tricks.

Initially, they will bank upon their interlocutors being naive or stupid, but when they get so tangled in the meshes that no easy exit appears, they will suddenly turn into simpletons - they will play dumb; they will act innocent; they will pretend that they don't know what is going on. All right, I am willing to allow that at least some of them genuinely don't know what is going on - but plenty of them know perfectly well what they are about.

And so, feigning not to comprehend the arguments of their opponents, they will slip out of their skins like moulting serpents and slither away to a different sector of discussion - one where they think they hold at least a temporary advantage. I mean that they will change the subject, hoping the abruptness of the shift will boggle their opponent's mind and throw him off his balance.

The feminists will postulate certain axiomatic platitudes, and if you acknowledge these, they will transfer the application to different issues on a different level of discourse. If you confront them with their chicanery they will wriggle out of it once more, and you will labor in vain to wring any binding statement from them - any "commitment". If you try to get a solid grip on what they are saying, you will clutch only dung and quicksilver - and this will squirt between your fingers and reunite with itself an instant later in the deceitful aspect of something solid. If, owing to the presence of impartial observers, the feminists feel obligated to concede your point, they will develop amnesia a day or so later and repeat their former arguments as if the dialogue in question had never happened. It will be as if you were climbing a hill of mud where you can never gain ground because you slide backward with every step you take.

The feminists will respond to any brief, concise, carefully constructed statement of yours by means of the five-hundred gallon treatment: dumping a bewildering mass of emotionally-based arguments, non-sequiturs, personal imputations and lightning-swift logical fallacies upon you so that you are buried ten feet deep and cannot adequately dig your way out. Your failure to do so will inspire them to declare their own victory. And if by superhuman exertion you fisk ALL of their words, exhaustively and with nuance, they will repeat the original process through infinite rounds, and with each round the mass of verbiage balloons bigger and bigger - and you will never win!

We have learned, gradually but conclusively, through hard experience infinitely repeated, to think very poorly of feminists. The vile, radical ones are bad enough - but at least they lay it on the line so you can see it plainly. Give them points for their more honest style of dishonesty! You are doubtless familiar with the time-worn bromide that "not all feminists are like that!" And that is just the point, for the fact that some feminists are "like that" makes it unnecessary for all of them to be so! The ones who seem personable and charming are the worst, for their deceitful core is buried layers deep in further refinements of deceit - like a blanket of stale, synthetic cake-frosting. Their offense is simply that of complicity - on any level whatsoever - in the feminist project. Owing to such complicity, they are living a lie.

The futility of conversing with feminists as individuals in the microcosm of daily life, scales up quite naturally into the macrocosm - or what you would call the macro-political. It is equally futile for us to converse (at least for debating purposes) with feminism as such. Feminism - as a movement and as an ideology - operates from essentially the same bag of tricks as any individual feminist you might happen to be arguing with. The goal of feminism as a movement is to force men collectively into the same condition of head-spinning befuddlement (and vulnerability to suggestion) which the lone feminist seeks to inflict on the individual non-feminist male. Brotherman, feminism is NOT YOUR FRIEND!

What then, is to be done? Rouse the sleeping dragon of non-feminist political consciousness by simply telling the world the nasty truth about feminism. Then, sit back and mark what must predictably transpire.

Watch how people mock them! Watch how people disrespect them! Watch how people permit them no quarter! Watch how people permit them no rest! Watch how people make them the butt of jokes, and incite others to do likewise! Watch how people turn their lives into a bottomless quagmire of cognitive dissonance! Watch how people inflict upon them a future of never-ending intellectual harassment! Watch how people set stumbling-blocks upon their path! Watch how people engineer the entire culture to their detriment, even as they have done to the entire male population! Watch how the world rallies against them, and puts them perpetually on the defensive!

Watch how the poison of feminism comes back upon the feminists themselves, and grievously sickens them!

It is for the best of all concerned that matters come to pass in the fashion stated above, for any other scenario would be tangibly less desirable by virtue of the chaotic and absurdist character it would possess.

We know that sweet reason and gentle persuasion are lost upon these cultic ideologues. They have relinquished their license to walk unchallenged upon planet Earth. And from henceforth, everywhere they wander they may expect to bear a burden of cynical scrutiny and impolite queries concerning their intentions and their motivations. They have called down these troubles most abundantly upon their own heads, and I for one shall spare no sympathy.

If they are wise, the feminists will learn to not call themselves feminists; they will contrive somehow to misplace that tainted term, setting it somewhere in deep storage under piles of boxes and assorted clutter where they cannot easily lay their hands upon it. This will motivate them to live honestly within the constraints of the ecumenical human condition, and eventually they will learn to get along just fine without the word feminist, and possibly to embrace some more superficial form of evil, rather than one so cancerous upon the root of life itself.