Friday, August 29, 2014

Crapostolic Regression and the Satanic Magisterium

Any idiot can make history, but it takes a real genius to mess it up to this extent. To quote the maestro, "Those who live in the twilight of history imagine the day is being born, when night is approaching" (Dávila).

In other words, voters imagined it was 6:00 AM when they elected Obama, when it was actually 6:00 PM. D'oh! They thought it was the dawn of a bright new progressive day, and have therefore been taken unawares by the encroaching darkness. (Although an astonishing 40% continue to ignore the evidence of their senses, and insist the sun is rising.)

This makes it sound like we are pagans, and that history is cyclical, like a clock. Well, I say it is cyclical unless we do something about it. In other words, temporal cyclicity is the default state of man. The ancient Israelites accomplished a world-historical leap in being when they discovered linear time, or history proper.

This is probably one more reason why they are hated, for it redounds to a perennial conflict that goes a little like this: "Modern history is a dialogue between two men: one who believes in God, another who believes he is god" (Dávila).

The born again pagan who believes he is god -- in this case, Obama -- has no patience for those of us who believe in God, who believe God is beyond history, and who know that God -- with our cooperation -- lures history in the wake of his Divine Attractor.

Obama has made so many statements conveying the lunatic idea that he is -- with our cooperation, voluntary or otherwise -- Lord of History, that he blows right through tragedy and goes straight to farce. In this view, Republicans are literally Satan, AKA the Adversary who loves nothing more than erecting stumbling blocks that interfere with the felicitous hand of Progress.

But "History shows not the inefficacy of actions but the futility of intentions" (ibid.). Obama has actually been astonishingly effective in actuating his agenda, otherwise he couldn't have accumulated more debt than all past presidents combined. Ask your great grandchildren if Obama was effective. After all, they'll still be paying for it.

And it is true that the Adversary is responsible for that inconvenient disconnect between government actions and progressive intentions, but it's built into the fabric of reality.

After all, how many centuries ago did man discover that the road to hell is paved with good intentions? More to the point, when did he forget it? And when did progressives invert it and embrace the opposite: that the road to paradise is paved with progressive intentions? 2008? 1965? 1932? 1912?

No. Just Genesis 3 again: "ye shall be as gods," yada yada. This is literally the attractor at the other end of cosmic history - the "satanic attractor," as it were.

When we say "lead us not into temptation," this is precisely what we are referring to, because this cosmic lure is experienced subjectively as "temptation" -- just as the divine lure at the other end is experienced as grace, or intoxicating beauty, or the erotic tension toward truth.

Note that this latter requires -- and facilitates -- being "empty of self," whereas the other end requires and engenders being full of it. Obama is particularly full of it, i.e., himself, to the point of toxic overflow.

Which is a recipe for the greatest possible fall one can imagine. After all, if one is close to the ground, a fall hardly hurts at all -- just enough to send a corrective message. But the higher one pretends to be, the further the distance to the ground. One can only imagine the abyss between a self-styled godling and the terrable firma below.

When Obama proclaimed Ye did not build that!, he was again uttering an inverted Christian truth, but also a straight up demonic one.

As to the former, any decent or even polite individual knows that countless human beings have contributed to his success and happiness, beginning with the love of parents, the wisdom of teachers, and the general kindness of strangers along the way. Only a narcissistic dick would deny this.

As to the satanic inversion, it is entirely accurate to say to Obama: you didn't build that! Why? Because Obama would be impossible and unthinkable in the absence of the progressive hands that have borne him aloft his entire life -- not to mention a progressive state to employ an otherwise unemployable man. I mean, would you hire His Weightlessness for anything? Could you even trust him not to lie to your face and rip you off?

A curious paradox of progressives is that they love them some affirmative action, but the moment you point out that someone is a beneficiary of the racial spoils system -- in this case Obama -- they get all defensive, as if it's an insult. Which it is. But that's not my fault. I didn't come up with the idea of state-mandated racial discrimination, or permanent reparations.

Back to that question of when it all started. When we say "Genesis 3," we are of course referring to the vertical, i.e., the Time before time. But even as recently as "two hundred years ago it was possible to trust in the future without being totally stupid" (ibid.).

Why? Because it was inseparable from faith in God and trust in providence. But the distance between, say, 1776 and 1789 is virtually infinite, for the American revolution was as different from the French as Obama is from Washington or Hamilton or Lincoln.

I always try to remember that WE are living in the future promised and created by liberals. We are the splendid future of that terrible past! Yeah, this is it. Whoopee.

But "Falsifying the past is how the left has sought to elaborate the future," so they have to keep making the past worse and worse in order to justify their underperforming present and grease the skids to an even better future. This they do with race, with sex, with economics, with America, with everything, until the past is just a demented ghost that haunts the progressive psyche and runs around academia screaming at itself in the windows.

But there is always night history and day history. Day history is journalism, the cable tempest of the moment, the diversionary two-minute hate. There is also a nightwomb of history, analogous to those paleolithic caves which primitive man thought of as the womb of nature. Because of it, "Everything in history begins before we think it begins, and ends after we think it ends" (ibid.). What is the cause, and what is the effect?

We see, for example, the dreadful effect of Obama. But he is not his own cause. Rather, he is the lefthound embodiment of a kind of perverse apostolic succession reaching beyond the horizon of writehand daytome history, all the way back to that fine morning in the Garden. And to recall the immortal words of Otter: You fucked up, America. You trusted him.


Anonymous Cousin Dupree said...

Great title, Bob! That'll really bring 'em in.

8/29/2014 10:12:00 AM  
Blogger julie said...

In this view, Republicans are literally Satan, AKA the Adversary who loves nothing more than erecting stumbling blocks that interfere with the felicitous hand of Progress.

It makes one wonder what the world would be like, if only so much of the modern world weren't obsessed with trying to hurl the fruits of success into the burning maw of envy and misplaced guilt.

8/29/2014 10:15:00 AM  
Blogger julie said...

Dupree, Bob must have one of the world's most interesting internet search lists in his stat counter...

8/29/2014 10:17:00 AM  
Anonymous Cousin Dupree said...

--is cosmos antagonizing right wing
--though shalt not killtouchstone research lab
--I want know about my caste Dang!
--show pomographic image

So no, not really.

8/29/2014 10:25:00 AM  
Blogger julie said...

The porn searcher must have been incredibly disappointed.

8/29/2014 10:29:00 AM  
Anonymous Cousin Dupree said...

POMOgraphic, so it's even more disappointing.

8/29/2014 10:33:00 AM  
Blogger Leslie said...


8/29/2014 11:08:00 AM  
Blogger julie said...

Obama would be impossible and unthinkable in the absence of the progressive hands that have borne him aloft his entire life -- not to mention a progressive state to employ an otherwise unemployable man.

Yes. In topsy turvy world, Obama is unmockable. Leftists see absolutely nothing about him whatsoever that they can turn into a humorous comedy sketch.




Come to think of it, this is literally the first time I've thought about SNL in years. No wonder.

8/29/2014 12:27:00 PM  
Blogger EbonyRaptor said...

"Because Obama would be impossible and unthinkable in the absence of the progressive hands that have borne him aloft his entire life -- not to mention a ... "

not to mention a complicit 4th Estate.

Harken back to yesteryear when the investigative reporting of Woodward and Bernstein lit the fuse to bring down a president. They were the toast of the left and journalistic world and doubtless the inspiration of many of the so-called journalists of today. At the time I thought they were motivated to find the truth. Now I believe their motivation was ideological and their progeny no less so.

How else can Obama be explained? Virtually no paper trail, no investigations into myriad questionable episodes in his history. Certainly a Manchurian Candidate of one type or another.

But ... move along, nothing to see here.

8/29/2014 12:42:00 PM  
Anonymous neal said...

Remaking history. Breaking more than gets fixed.
Whatever happened to restoration to original?
Testing the mettle. Kind of like metal. A lot of things these days seem to require original part replacements.

Harvest. Change the gas, change the oil. Maybe keep a little back. Just for transpersonal use.

Fires that do not go out. Cups that do not go empty.
That seems like a prudent fix.

8/29/2014 01:44:00 PM  
Blogger mushroom said...

Obama has actually been astonishingly effective in actuating his agenda, otherwise he couldn't have accumulated more debt than all past presidents combined.

He can only do that because Congress is such a bunch of wimps. We need a better devil.

On "you didn't build that", everything on the left is such a perversion or exaggeration of Divine truth. Communism is a great idea -- on a voluntary basis in the family and the Body of Christ. It takes, at a minimum, a village to really eff it. If you want to screw it up to the point of mass murders and all, you need to go big with a massive, all-powerful, central government.

8/29/2014 01:59:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

Neal - Whatever happened to restoration to original?

This. This is the mess that leftism has made of history, and having made it they are free to mock it as being unworthy of the future. Anything must be better than that. So, Progress!

Mushroom - speaking of villages, apparently there's a communal feminist utopian village in Brazil. They're looking for a few good men, but only on the weekends. I'm sure it's a paradise.

8/29/2014 02:53:00 PM  
Blogger Jack said...


I don't think these Brazilian ladies are quite adept at discerning simple cause and effect. To wit:

“I haven’t kissed a man for a long time. We all dream of falling in love and getting married. But we like living here and don’t want to have to leave the town to find a husband. We’d like to get to know men who would leave their own lives and come to be a part of ours. But first they need to agree to do what we say and live according to our rules.”

Um, good luck with that. I would imagine any man that would be willing meet those requirements would fail to meet their requirements.

8/29/2014 04:29:00 PM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Those who are infoolsed with envy (ie the left) have nothing but contempt for those who are successful.

Only those of the hive "deserve" success in the little minds of the left.
They are nothing but bitter, contemptuous thieves. Worse than thieves, actually, since they wanna enslave anyone who disagrees with their twisted, evil cult.

8/29/2014 04:39:00 PM  
Blogger mushroom said...

But first they need to agree to do what we say and live according to our rules.

Wait, I'm confused. How is this different than being married?

The married man guide to conversation has one page and two words: "Yes, Dear."

8/30/2014 09:22:00 PM  
Blogger NoMo said...

Bob -

The only thing I would change is the title. May I suggest perhaps, "My Best Post Ever". IMHO

Freaking brilliant. Thanks.

8/30/2014 11:14:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Troll? Why stop there? Why not psychopathic troll?

I once requested to a prominent conservative ‘psychblogger’, some posts along the lines of advice for honest, self-reliant hardworking Americans about dealing with workplace psychopaths. She then commenced a series about Obama being a psychopath. Hell, Bush is a psychopath. Cheney is a psychopath. Clinton is a psychopath. Hillary is a psychopath. Google it. Everybody’s a psychopath! It’s the new political correctness.

Your average reader has gotten so jaded with this crap, Alexa numbers for all blogs have plummeted. Blogs aren’t cool anymore. They’re insane. Trying to cultivate ideas commonly seen in comments throughout conservative blogs (like making government agencies redundant) will get you shut down as politically incorrect. Dogma rules.

Anonymous. Yeah, like there’s a mob of anonymous’ here competing for attention.

Van Harvey. I checked him out. He never mentions Jesus once on his blog. Is there even a single evangelical bone in his body? Wide breadth of autodidactic learning (and namedropping) but limited depth, modern day relevancy, or understanding or the average voter. I owned a territorial pit bull once. Made me feel safe. But then I noticed people quit coming around. Check his comments. At the end of every thread, he’s always “Right”. Then check his Alexa numbers...

Sorry about the troll-ish nature of these comments. But somebody's gotta say it. Real trolls avoid mentioning a target's blind spots.

Rumors heard about ones enemy are always doubly believed. – C.S.Hyatt, true psychopath

8/31/2014 09:55:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

I almost half agree, but I'm really only writing for myself anyway, not for the sake of an Alexa number, which I assume is a blog ranking. I suppose I would be curious about a vertical or qualitative ranking, if there were such a thing. But in my world, a readership is nice -- up to a point -- but optional.

8/31/2014 10:04:00 AM  
Anonymous Petey said...

I might add that Bob's writing is a penance, and that I will let him know when the debt had been paid. Don't hold your breath.

8/31/2014 10:28:00 AM  
Blogger Van Harvey said...

Anonymous said "Is there even a single evangelical bone in his body?"

No. There's not. I was for several years so cocksure that there was no reason for believing in a God, and that all religions were systemitized ignorance for powers sake, that as I gradually discovered that I was massively wrong on that score, I'm very hesistant to turn around and proclaim what I cannot factually proclaim to be true. This time. Once bitten, twice shy, I suppose.

These two posts (on my 'Greatest Hits' page), are about as close as I get to the subject:

God - Looking outside of the box misses the contents

* As it is above...
* Charged thoughts from the depths

"At the end of every thread, he’s always “Right”."

Well, that's more of the nature of what is true, and what is false, than my being 'right'. If someone is incorrect in what they are stating or arguing, I'm going to point it out. I'm not egotistical enough to think that that has something significantly to do with me, but rather with their being in error about what is correct.

Point out my error, and I'll happily, thankfully, admit and adjust my opinion.

BTW, you provided a nice example of this yourself, of it having to do less with my being right, than with commenters being so obviously wrong, with:

"Van Harvey. I checked him out. He never mentions Jesus once on his blog."

Type "Jesus" into the search field at the top of the page, and you'll find several posts where I do actually mention Jesus in my blog. Boom, there you go. Not my fault, yours. And probably the most pertinent one of those, being Dehumanism: The Mystical World of the New Atheists

The problem isn't that I need to be right - I live for discovering where I'm ignorant and wrong - but the fact that so many of those who want to argue a point, start from a position of being demonstrably wrong.

But that's not my problem. It's yours.

8/31/2014 10:29:00 AM  
Blogger Van Harvey said...

Anonymous said "Then check his Alexa numbers..."

Part of the problem there might be that I've no idea what 'Alexa numbers' are, though my guess is that it has to do with blog's 'hit' rankings?

In which case... I don't blog for 'hit rankings', but for what I'm interested in or concerned about or thinking about at that time.

I'll google the term up, but my likely response is going to be: "meh".

8/31/2014 10:34:00 AM  
Blogger Van Harvey said...

Yeah, that's about what I thought. Meh. I blog for me, not numbers. If others find it interesting, there's a certain satisfaction and thrill there, but how many do or don't... meh.

8/31/2014 10:39:00 AM  
Blogger julie said...


Wait - did you just rip on Bob because Van is not an Evangelical, and doesn't have a popular blog?

Also, if you are a repeat visitor, it would be helpful if you'd come up with a nickname. That's assuming you're interested in an actual discussion, as opposed to stopping by to taunt people for being insufficiently popular.

8/31/2014 10:55:00 AM  
Anonymous Cousin Dupree said...

At least he's not blaming Bush for Van not having a popular evangelical blog.

8/31/2014 11:21:00 AM  
Blogger Jack said...

At least he's not blaming Bush for Van not having a popular evangelical blog.

The day is still young...

8/31/2014 11:31:00 AM  
Blogger Van Harvey said...

Julie said "Wait - did you just rip on Bob because Van is not an ___"

The tendency of proRegressives to use strawman arguments isn't because they are sloppy thinkers - it is their method of 'thinking' - avoiding reality by equivocating their way around it.

Which is why it is so easy to make the rest of us seem much more Right than we might otherwise warrant.

But it does make for some classic comedic moments.

8/31/2014 11:42:00 AM  
Blogger EbonyRaptor said...

"Blogs aren’t cool anymore."

Then why are you here?

"Dogma rules"

And you're not dogmatic?

"Everybody’s a psychopath! It’s the new political correctness."


8/31/2014 01:23:00 PM  
Blogger Rick said...

What's the name of that last stat counter thing everyone was so excited about?

9/01/2014 07:43:00 AM  
Blogger julie said...

It's a little too quiet here today. I think some of you people aren't slacking off nearly enough.

For anyone who has a few minutes, this may be the feel good video of the day.

9/01/2014 01:44:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Names of some of the new kids in my son's school:

Ton Ton

Some of the existing names:


It's Malibu, of course. The whole city is on high alert with the cloud revelations.

9/01/2014 05:17:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

Ton Ton? Obviously named by people who care more about their pop culture interests than about their child's future. Not to mention, the ton tons didn't fare well. If you're going to name your kid after a movie character, at least make it something that wins.

9/01/2014 05:32:00 PM  
Blogger mushroom said...


9/01/2014 05:50:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Liger. It's pretty much my favorite animal.

9/01/2014 05:54:00 PM  
Blogger Jack said...

What I love is when someone names their child what they think is going to be a *totally* unique name and then it turns out there are 2 or 3 other Ton Tons in the class.

Schadenfreude at its finest.

9/01/2014 05:57:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

There are so many inspirational reasons to name your child Ton Ton:

--a Haitian mythological phrase meaning "bogey man"
--a pig from the Japanese series Naruto
-- an anti-Semitic Muppet from the Jordanian version of Sesame Street
--secret police of Haitian dictator Papa Doc Duvalier

9/01/2014 06:08:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

Wow, that's quite a pedigree. I had assumed it was the Star Wars reference, but see now that the spelling is wrong. Though it would seem like a Star Wars reference would be the least bad meaning...

9/01/2014 06:13:00 PM  
Blogger Jack said...

Perhaps this is farfetched but it seems that the current notion of naming children is really the triumph of nominalism (pun intended?).

The basic assumption is that each child is a unique particular i.e., a species unto herself. Therefore a name that is not completely unique (or thought to be) is a betrayal of the child. All references to sex, culture, history, religion must be stripped away.

Rather than the older notion of naming a child as a reminder of his part in a continuity, not only familial, but also cultural. That being human meant being a part of this larger stream of the human story (Chesterton's "Democracy of the Dead") not separate from it.

9/01/2014 06:41:00 PM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

We had a guy in bootcamp who had the fun name:
Mountain Lion Peace Johnson.
He said his parents were hippies and were very angry he joined the Navy.

The Company commander said, "Damn! Even maggot sounds better than that."

Surprisingly, he had a good head on his shoulders and had rebelled to the right.
He was saving up money to change his name.

9/01/2014 09:46:00 PM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Hi Julie,
That was an excellent video. Those guys shredded her stupid question and showed what a racist that reporter is.

9/01/2014 09:53:00 PM  
Blogger Magister said...

Yes, let's say linear history, i.e. progress from/toward God, began with Israel. But if you're not on that conveyor belt, if you rebel against it, even the idea of it, then you're in the wilderness, outside the progress of time. Time then becomes one of any number of things: aimless duration, pagan seasonal cycles, hegelian/marxian dialectic, the "new age" of a false messiah, and so forth. If you name your kid "Dolphin," it's a sure sign you're in rebellion.

I'm reading a book of essays on food culture by Piero Camporesi. Apparently Galileo was a major wine nut and had his own vineyards. He was obsessed with explaining the mechanism of fermentation, which of course had to wait another few centuries for Pasteur. Camporesi pointed out that the late 16th century was a real watershed in Europe as regards time: it had to do with a shift in thinking and sensibility, led by Galileo, away from the moon and toward the sun. The agricultural peasants were mainly a medieval/moon culture. The new culture of the sun (Galileo's) broke the emphasis on cycles and stressed manipulation, fire, light -- a new promethean humanism, which of course led many way from what was considered eternal and timeless.

9/02/2014 08:40:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home