Quote# 120164

Rupert Murdoch is my hero. You whiney losers can badmouth him all you want, but he represents self-actualization and will to power. I want to install a statue of him on the town square of Galtsville. Reading about him reminds me of when I was 14 and discovered Rand and Nietzsche in the same month. What an intellectual high point. Ever since, I’ve been full of passionate conviction.

He’s possibly surpassed by the guys who run the NYT. Murdoch only upset a dead girl’s family. And he got in trouble for it. But the Times sponsored a trillion dollar war with something like a million casualties and displaced persons. They also threw a Presidential election by sitting on a major story. As one of my favorite characters said “The purity! The puuuuuurity of that!”

But they are human, with human flaws. Sometimes you want something more impersonal and generalized. Luckily the universe has provided us with a source of immutable truth we can always have faith in: the unregulated Free Market. The market’s verdict is clear that one upset family is negligible compared to the gains from peddling their misery.

Roger Bigod, Naked Capitalism 17 Comments [7/1/2016 3:06:15 AM]
Fundie Index: 13

Quote# 120163

As democracy winds down in the West, many of us are facing an ugly truth that first reared its head in the 1800s: that democracy itself impedes conservatism.

Mainstream conservatives will not publicly approach this realization, but the core tenet of democracy is leadership by desire, not by reality. People vote for what they wish were true.

While the ashes cool in Baltimore and the latest news frenzy keeps us distracted so we can avoid noticing the systemic problems of Western civilization, many are wondering how the situation got so bad without anyone figuring it out.

The answer is simple: we voted for it.

By “we” I mean the largest plurality which could work itself into a frenzy over an issue. This is how democracy works: the simplest and most emotional concept unites a mob, they rage and expound and demand it, and then it gets passed. Everyone assumes the situation is decided and moves on.

In any sane democracy, every single law would be voted on every year with a simple question: Is this law achieving its aims?

When you speak to the average voter, it becomes clear that they focus on anything but this question. They talk about moral categories, such as how well-intentioned the law is, or how essential it is, or how it cannot be changed because people depend on it. Never do they look at it as a cause-effect principle that intends to achieve a goal.

The conservatives you see on the television earned the name “the stupid party” because their ideas are fundamentally paradoxical. They want a reality/accountability/responsibility-based (consequentialist) society with a transcendent focus, since if you understand reality, you have no need for the emotional distractions of ideology and go right to the need for meaning. The voters do not want this because distraction is always simpler and more emotionally comforting.

The situation can be revealed in this comical law of politics from Robert Conquest:

2. Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing.

This law succumbs to an easy attack, called (sensibly) “entryism” by neoreactionaries, which is that it is easy to dress up a liberal idea as a conservative one and declare it explicitly right-wing, then use it to subvert the rest of a right-wing movement.

The left wing will forever be more popular because it offers ideas that are easier to understand, since they require no knowledge of reality and its workings, and more emotionally satisfying, since they are both distraction and “social,” or consist of gift-giving to those who identify with victimhood. Every person in their under-confident, weak and uncontrolled moments succumbs to self-pity and in remembering those, they yield to this force.

Friedrich Nietzsche wrote about this process because he saw it first-hand. In the 1800s, he drove an ambulance in one of the early wars of the forces of democracy versus the rest of us. In it, he saw the process: liberalism appeals to the best of us first because they are reacting emotionally to problems in our society, and only later do they recognize it for what it is, which is a cynical power grab by those least competent to rule.

Conservatives have balked at this dividing line so far. They hope to ride the train of liberal popularity by endorsing the great illusion that desire can decide our problems. They also fear alienating the Christian segment of the right which sees Nietzsche as an atheist and blasphemer, since they have confused the name of what is holy with what is actually holy.

Like other dividing lines — nationalism, rejection of all socialism and need for social hierarchy — this decision separates the men from the boys. Boys still want to please their mother and their friends, maybe hope one of the girls in the class will let them kiss her if they do what she wants. Men realize that original sin was correct, and that without the intervention of discipline and focus the human being is nothing more than a monkey which can talk.

As mainstream conservatism is forced to confront issues like the ongoing failure of diversity, the corruption rising from the liberal state and its institutions, and the accelerating decline of Western Civilization, more conservatives will join the “underground” fringe of conservatism and take the path that Nietzsche did. Until that point, nothing said by conservatives in public will make any sense.

Brett Stevens, Amerika.org 19 Comments [7/1/2016 3:05:56 AM]
Fundie Index: 8

Quote# 120161

Seems many are more concerned with whatever financial loss Britain will suffer in exchange for it's sovereignty from the EU.

Sad, to see so many willing to sell their nationalist birthright for a mess of collectivist pottage doled out by elitist bureaucrats.

Freedom costs much, but pays off for generations to come.



Why would any sane population shackle themselves to a polyglot of nations with diverse cultures and liabilities? To have leaders who have no understanding in the local affairs or concerns of a people dictate and prescribe regulations on how to run their lives and economy? The American colonists suffered this same long distance ruling by King George, and it became so onerous that they revolted against him.

One could make the same argument how much they lost financially and economically from cutting themselves off the most prosperous and powerful empire of the world. But history proved America not only survived but thrived. And I am confident the British people can not only recover, but are capable of also prospering without the EU's red tape and bureaucrats telling it what to do from their desks in Brussels.
And most economists are full of baloney. if they were so smart, how come they are not billionaires betting on the market trends they foresee? Krugman and Greenspan's adherence to outdated Keynesian fiscal theory that advocates spending one's way to prosperity is fatal to the health of the US economy. Mises had it right.


So easy to say that, and then you leave us bereft of any facts from you.

But here's an fact based on both experience and history---Large groups of people thrown together by government edict and not by choice creates friction and resentment. People are the happiest when on their own volition can how to run decide when to join and leave associations. People also don't like being told by others who share no common blood, bond, or language telling them from long distance how to run their lives. The EU is not a democracy. It is social planning by unelected technocrats.

Ireland is an case example of EU dissatisfaction. The people held a referendum leave the EU decades back. They voted as a majority to leave. But their own government refused to honor their vote. That is not demcracy. But go ahead, tell me that is a fantasy story without a telling moral to why people don't like to be forced into unions.
I concede my error on the Irish referendum, but still hold to my other position that supports why the the majority of Brits voted to leave the EU, as well as understanding why several other nations are considering to also follow suit.
I don't understand what the fuss is about. A so-called "Free market" that the EU totes as a hallmark should mean any nation should be able to trade with other nations freely. Instead, I get this vibe that the EU requires a cover charge and membership subscription to do so, which amounts to nothing less that a legalized gangster protection racket where Brussels and their favorite corporations get a cut of the action to profit themselves for permitting said "Free Trade" to go on.

Exit Only, NPR 19 Comments [7/1/2016 3:04:11 AM]
Fundie Index: 4

Quote# 120159

[Comment on article about 50 Cent being arrested in St. Kitts for violating nation's law on public profanity]

The minor expletive "cRap" describes most of this antisocial, crime-perpetuating music. St. Kitts seems to understand that some "free speech" has moral consequences. I wish America had similar restrictions to discourage chronic ghetto attitudes.

Kids who grow up listening to foulness end up foul in most cases, or with just a veneer of adapting to moral society. They invariably tangle wit da PO-lice and blame everyone but themselves for the consequences. Gangsta rap claims to "reflect society" but it creates and exacerbates people's worst traits. Which came first, the rap or the crap?

Geo T, Rolling Stone 12 Comments [7/1/2016 3:03:59 AM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: TimeToTurn

Quote# 120156

Beware of the monks.?

It’s an odd sounding statement. After all, Buddhist monks are popularly known for kindness, peacefulness and generosity. But the advice comes straight from New York City Buddhist leaders, who say that panhandlers have been dressing like monks — right down to the shaved head and orange robes — as a means to con tourists out of money.?

The men reportedly hand passersby golden medallions or simply peaceful tidings before asking for donations to help build a temple in Thailand. Only, there is no temple in Thailand, and the “monks” reportedly become irate, are unrelenting in their demands and occasionally aggressive.

Fake Monk Panhandlers, Washington Post 17 Comments [7/1/2016 3:02:23 AM]
Fundie Index: 0

Quote# 120155

No, the Bible does not give two differing accounts of Judas’s death.The Bible critics say the following: “The Bible has mistakes. For
instance, one passage says that Judas hanged himself, and another
passage says that he fell and his guts burst out!” Bless their hearts,
there is nothing illogical about the narrative those
passages put forth. Is it not strange that Bible scoffers can speak the
truth and, blinded by Satan (2 Corinthians 4:3-4), still miss it
entirely? What they think is an error is actually truth in plain sight! Peter in Acts chapter 1, six weeks after Judas' death describes Judas, “falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.” If
we simply conflate Matthew’s account and Peter’s account, it makes
perfect sense. Judas hanged himself and then died. Later, the noose
broke and his body violently fell headfirst, spilling all of his guts on
the ground. There is no contradiction concerning Judas’ death. Judas died once, and
then, after death, his corpse was mangled. Judas died by hanging and
then his lifeless body fell from the noose (probably because of an
earthquake).

Joe, Christian News Network 23 Comments [7/1/2016 3:01:57 AM]
Fundie Index: 13
1 5 10 11 12 13 14 15 | top