Vox Popoli

Swedish Sangarites suffer exposure:

Sweden launched a probe on Wednesday to understand how eugenics, a theory on improving the human race used by Nazi Germany to justify the Holocaust, became broadly accepted in the Nordic state in the early 20th century.

Sweden is now known for its strong social welfare system and outspoken advocacy for human rights, but in the past it has experimented with social engineering. This led to abuses such as the forcible sterilization of around 60,000 women in 1936-76.

I shall eagerly await the explanation of how the government actions of this feminist, socialist nation will be blamed on right-wing ideology. Both socialism and feminism always pave the road to the grave, for the individual as well as the society, in one way or another.

ChiRho is curious:

What do you mean that Genesis is a Jewish text?

Genesis is part of the Torah, the Jewish Law. One could as sensibly accuse a Jew of not being a Jew for not subscribing to a 100-percent literal interpretation of Genesis as accusing a Christian of not being a Christian for the same reason.

The reasonable man would not do either.

Since humans are clearly capable of using metaphor, it seems most strange to argue that an omnipotent God is not, especially given how Jesus often taught in parables. If one’s response to hearing the parable of the talents is to run out and start digging up the ground in search of them, then one has missed the point entirely.

I am not arguing that all of Genesis is metaphor or myth, I am simply stating that parts of it appear to be such and there is no divine command for the Christian to reject that possibility whereas there is precisely such a command with regards to the birth, death, resurrection and lordship of Jesus Christ.

Kathleen is unclear on the definition of Christianity:

Are we to believe a self-proclaimed Christian believer when he insists that he don’t have a dog in this hunt? Call it protective dissonance or just plain ole head-in-the-sand denial, but doesn’t Christianity kinda obligate its followers to open wide and and say “Ah” to the whole ‘I’m-God-and-I-created-the-universe-all-by-myself’ story?

No, Christians must “believe with their heart and confess with their tongue that Jesus Christ is Lord.” Those who follow the way are obligated to “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment.” The popular notion that subscribing to a specific interpretation of Genesis is required to be a Christian is a little ironic; it is, after all, a Jewish text and I don’t believe anyone has ever suggested that a Jew’s Jewishness depends on his belief in a 24-hour first day.

Satan and all his demons presumably know the precise truth of the origin of the species, and quite possibly of the origin of the Earth as well. They even believe in God as well as His Son.

They are not, however, Christians.

Understanding, wisdom and knowledge are all good things. Wisdom is considered one of the greatest gifts of God. But God desires love and obedience above all. Anyone who is a parent should understand this easily.

And fresh from demonstrating her ignorance of religion, Kathleen demonstrates that she knows nothing about philosophy as well:

Really? So you couldn’t figure out –all by yourself — that murder is unethical, right?

Feministe: “Rape isn’t bad because it’s harmful to people — it’s bad because it pollutes God’s house.”

Looks like she skewered your notion that ‘rape is bad because I have this holy book, see, and it says that rape is a sin cuz it besmircheth the temple of my make-believe skygod.’ Hard to miss, unless you’re projecting ‘cower and whisper’, no?

As more than a few commenters have already pointed out, this doesn’t even begin to address the point I made. To say “rape is bad because it’s harmful” assumes two things:

1) That rape is actually harmful. This is debatable at best, since rape does not inherently require much more physical harm than sexual intercourse. Any potential psychological damage can easily be dismissed as a social artifact of the sort once attached to extramarital sex, which proper social conditioning could and should eliminate. A harm-based argument against rape is rather like arguing against digital copyright violation; the purported harm is nebulous and ill-defined. Rape/copy all you like, at the end of the day, the owner still has the goods.

2) That harming another individual is inherently wrong. There is no shortage of ethical systems which directly reject this, from the “do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law” of Aleister Crowley and its subsequent revision by W. Somerset Maugham, to the Will to Power of Friedrich Nietzsche, the murderously existential nihilism of Jean-Paul Sartre and the lethal collective imperative of Marx and all his many intellectual descendants. This is a particularly stupid assumption, given that one of the most powerful extant strains of political philosophy denies that the individual has any rights at all and celebrates his negation in the name of social justice and/or revolution.

Feministe’s attempted rebuttal is downright amusing, considering that as a feminist, she publicly identifies herself as an advocate of a collectivist philosophy furiously dedicated to directly harming millions of individuals by means financial, legal and physical. One would have to regard her political allegiance to be in complete violation of her asserted ethics if one were to be so cruel as to take her seriously.

Don’t look to me for outrage against the recent decision by a Pennsylvania judge to ban ID from the public school classrooms in Dover. The fact that I am an avowed evolution skeptic does not mean that I am impressed with ID or its advocates. “I don’t know and I don’t believe that you do either” sums up the totality of my position on the origin of the species. And furthermore, I am completely opposed to teaching evolution, ID or the Bible in the public schools… as well as teaching English, mathematics, geography, civics, French, home economics and gym.

It would not be possible for me to care less what is taught in the government propaganda factories. I don’t get worked up about what is taught in the North Korean schools either. If you are foolish enough to entrust the education of your children to the evil minions of the NEA and the state and federal bureaucracies, you will deserve exactly what you get.

Unfortunately, your children won’t.

Jill at Feministe just can’t help herself. She’s helplessly drawn, like an angry, bitter moth to the raging inferno:

I really didn’t want to post anything about V-x D-y ever again. I stopped reading his blog. I agreed with commenters who said that linking to him only gives him more attention. I won’t write out his whole name — that way, when he googles himself for masturbatory material, hopefully he’ll come up short. I vowed never to link to him again.

Except now….

What a frightened bunch of little girls! They want to ignore it, except they can’t, but they’re afraid that if they say anything critical, they’ll get called on the carpet and paddled. Apparently it’s a lot more fun to simply cast aspersions and make baseless assertions about how illogical and ridiculous my arguments are when they don’t have to defend their statements. And yet, if my arguments are so flawed, why do they feel the need to cower and whisper passive-aggressively about them instead of boldly confronting them in public?

Now, I don’t care if they link to this blog or not. I don’t care if they read it or not – heck, I don’t even care if people who like it read it or not. Take it or leave it as you like. But I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out the weird behavior of these particular critics.

Now, if anyone wants to take issue with anything I write, they can post comments here, or, in the case of a more lengthy critique, email it to me and upon request I’ll post right here, in its entirety – subject to reasonable space limitations, shall we say a 3,000 word maximum? That seems reasonable. Also, if it’s redundant, boring or involves something that’s been previously addressed, I reserve the right to ignore it.

Back to the Brave Sir Robinettes… their cowardice is rivaled only by the inability of their constricted little minds to even grasp that they are missing the larger portion of the picture. Thus, the incredulity with which some Pandagonians regard my recent call for George Bush’s impeachment. I can only conclude that politically speaking, they are flatlanders.

Finally, I noticed the following absurdity on Amanda’s blog: “Also, is it appropriate to throw the fact that KMFDM invented industrial and doesn’t get the cred they deserve in the face of people obsessed with Trent Reznor as if he’s god?

Being a former Wax Trax! signee myself, I think I can state with some authority that KMFDM didn’t invent industrial. Industrial evolved from the technology more than it was created by anyone, in my opinion, but if you’re going to give one well-known industrial band credit, you’d have to give it to Al and Paul from Ministry, who not only did it first, but also did it best.

I have a ridiculously large Wax Trax! CD collection, courtesy of Jim Nash – he’s the one who says “hello, teenage America” on the KMFDM album, in case you didn’t know that – and while I like KMFDM, I don’t think they’re in the same league as Ministry, Thrill Kill or the greatest cheesy video band of all time LAIBACH.

A conversation overheard in a limo passing the Gay 90’s in Minneapolis some years ago:

Drummer – Holy cow, will you look at all those fags?
Wax Trax! VP – Um, you should probably know that Jim and Danny are… well, partners.
Drummer – Yeah, so?
Wax Trax! VP – They’re partners, you know, like….
Drummer – Business partners?

With the aforementioned apologies to Mr. Yeats.

I WILL arise and go now, and go to Innesmouth
And a small altar build there, of clay and fishbones made;
Nine dread nights will I have there, enshrouded in darkling myth,
And live alone in the lurking shade.

And I shall have some peace there, for peace comes creeping slow,
Swelling in the veils of the black tide I hear the chittering;
There midnight’s all a glimmer, and dawn an eerie glow,
And evening full as the deep ones sing.

I will arise and go now, for always night is day
I hear the Shoggoth calling with vile sounds by the shore
While I stand by the mirror, my face a pallid gray,
I hear it in my cold heart’s core.

Howard Phillips directs the Evangelical Studies Project at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. National Review’s Katherine Jean Lopez asked him for his thoughts on Dread Cthulhu and how his deityhood might play in a potential campaign for the Republican nomination for president in 2008.

KJL: Do evangelicals specifically think of worship of the Great Elder Gods as a cult? Is there something legit there?

Howard Phillips: Most evangelicals do perceive worship of the Elder Gods to be a cult and are deeply troubled by its theology. But this does not mean they would not vote for someone like Mighty Cthulhu. They admire his record and they agree with his conservatism on moral, social, and cultural issues. Given a choice between Hillary Clinton versus Cthulhu for President, evangelicals know how to bracket aside their theological differences with the Great Old One and would support him because of his positions on the social issues.

KJL: Hastur used Cthulhu’s religion against him in 6500000 BC. Wouldn’t people recoil a bit from it if it were tried again? Or is that wishful thinking?

Phillips: While many religious conservatives may have qualms with aspects of Elder God theology, they have even greater problems with religious bigotry and intolerance. Any candidate that chooses to attack his faith in a personal fashion will surely run the risk of a backlash.

KJL: Is it significant that Hillary Clinton is herself demonspawn, and Nancy Pelosi has sex with goat-headed devils — that prominent politicians have already become prominent despite being Satanists?

Phillips: Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi represent parts of the country where there is a heavy population of Satanists. That is different than running for national office where more people might have concerns and questions about Elder theology.

KJL: Do you hear positive or negative or lukewarm things about Cthulhu when you get into ’08 conversations?

Phillips: I hear positive comments about Dread Cthulhu as a being of integrity, and as a successful economic, political, and social conservative in a very blue state. I hear very lukewarm comments about the great tentacled one when it comes to his religious tradition. Evangelicals admire He Who Sleeps Beneath the Ice but find the Elder Gods to be a strange and baffling abberation of the historic Christian faith.

KJL: What would you advise Cthulhu deal with his religion when talking to groups, reporters?

Phillips: Cthulhu very much needs to do what John Kennedy did in 1960 in front of the Southern Baptists in Houston: Explain how he understands his faith and its application to his view of politics and public policy. He especially needs to articulate what a Great Elder God’s understanding of church and state is and how it applies to important issues of today. It is not at all clear that Elder Gods have views on church and state issues that are any different than the general understanding of most traditional Catholics and Protestants.

KJL: Would the religion thing play differently in the primaries? Say, could conservatives lay down their concerns because of issues they agree with him on but then the Elder God Factor play more of a negative role in the general election?

Phillips: I believe the “Elder God factor” will play a more negative role in the national, general election. But Mighty Cthlhu is a being of great cunning and a smart politician. I am sure he will address, early on, concerns about the “Elder God factor.” In fact, I suspect that speech has already been written or is being crafted even as we speak.

KJL: How important is religion in general in elections?

Phillips: The religious faith of candidates, especially presidential candidates have become more and more important. A Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life survey last summer indicated that an overwhelming majority of Americans, for some reason, want their presidents to be religious and a “person of faith.” This is why, late in the campaign, Senator Kerry started talking more and more about his Catholic faith. But it was too late and many perceived it as contrived.

KJL: Even with a good candidate and the power of the fear of President Hillary, if I were a Cthulhu adviser, I would not discount the power of prayer.

Phillips: Or human sacrifice. (places hand under chin and waves his fingers) La Cthulhu fhtagn!

Paul Johnson writes in the Spectator:

I have the impression that most PC advocates and enforcers in this country are women in their thirties or forties, with some education of a red-brick or white-tile nature, no longer young enough to be much interested in sex but old enough to have acquired a certain modest authority in their work, which is overwhelmingly in the state sector, and often unmarried or childless (a significant section of the rank-and-file is employed in making it difficult to adopt children, an area where PC rules are enforced with peculiar ferocity). I would also describe these women as unappealing physically, non-orgasmic, disapproving and fastidious by nature, embittered by personal misfortune or slights real or imaginary, overwhelmingly agnostic or atheist, women who in an earlier age might well have been nuns but are now fanatics for whom class warfare and hatred of Christianity form a fulfilling creed.

I’ve long thought that history is going to be very, very unkind to feminism. Now, I’m absolutely sure of it. Women are already retreating from the label, in another 50 years, they’ll flee from it as instinctively as they recoil from National Socialism or slave ownership.

Todd poses what appears to be a simple question:

What is New York named after?
(I especially like asking New Yorkers this one)

I’ll give them a hint when I see confusion. I’ll say: focus on the word “New”.

I can ask 20 people this question and sometimes I can get 1 correct answer. When I see the blank stares on their faces I’ll then ask how about “New Orleans”? 90% of the time I have to tell them the answer.

This just shows me people question very little that is in front of them.

Perhaps the sheer obviousness of the answers is making me look too hard for traps, but my understanding is that the answer is York, as in the city in the north of England. Previously, the city had been named after Amsterdam, if my memory serves me correctly. As for New Orleans, I’m assuming it’s named after the French city of Orleans.

Either I’m completely missing something or people really are that much more ignorant than even an arrogant elitist would assume.

From Drudge:

Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do searches without court approval Clinton, February 9, 1995: “The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order”

WASH POST, July 15, 1994: Extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S. citizens but also — in the delicate words of a Justice Department official — to “places where you wouldn’t find or would be unlikely to find information involving a U.S. citizen… would allow the government to use classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to observe people inside their homes, without a court order.”

Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration believes the president “has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes.”

Secret searches and wiretaps of Aldrich Ames’s office and home in June and October 1993, both without a federal warrant.

Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: “Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order.”

I’m eagerly awaiting the expected Three Monkey argument that because Clinton and Carter did it, it is therefore right for George Bush to do it. Is that seriously a foundation upon which Republicans wish to make a stand? And since I fully expect people to miss the obvious… these illegal and totalitarian measures obviously didn’t prevent Aldrich Ames’s spying or 9/11. The logical conclusion is that they won’t prevent future terrorist attacks either.

“Everybody’s doing it” is not considered an acceptable argument for children and it is certainly not an acceptable one for presidents.

Nor should it come as any surprise that the number of intercepts doesn’t involve just a few probable terrorists, and that contrary to the authorization order, domestic-to-domestic calls are being “accidentally” spied on. The NYT reports today:

But in at least one instance, someone using an international cellphone was thought to be outside the United States when in fact both people in the conversation were in the country. Officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the program remains classified, would not discuss the number of accidental intercepts, but the total is thought to represent a very small fraction of the total number of wiretaps that Mr. Bush has authorized without getting warrants. In all, officials say the program has been used to eavesdrop on as many as 500 people at any one time, with the total number of people reaching perhaps into the thousands in the last three years.

Here’s an idea: if a foreign national is suspected of being a terrorist, why not simply deport him instead of using him as an excuse to violate American liberties?