Monday, April 30, 2007

Freedom's Just Another Word For Nothing Left to Tax (4.26.09)

First of all, I have no idea what that title means. And yet, it still made me chuckle, suggesting that there can be punchlines in the absence of a joke... In fact, we have heard from Petey, the Wise, the Compassionate, the Merthiful, CFCBUH, that enlightenment is somewhat like this: you finally "get" the joke that never existed to begin with. That's the joke. Get it? It's a guffah-ha! experience.

Speaking of which, there were some very funny and illuminating comments on yesterday's post, not all of them unintentional. One of them was from Mr. Bardo, who expressed the sentiment that my post reflected proof of my "projectile nature" in suggesting that he was in any way angry at me:

"No. The strongest emotion I've felt towards you is annoyance, the kind of irritation one feels when conversing with a fundamentalist, where you know that no true dialogue is possible. Usually you lack a dynamic, open quality of thought, as if the world is exactly how YOU think it is.... So yeah, you annoy me, but you don't anger me. Is that adequate clarification?"

First of all, this suggests that Jonny has a co-dependent relationship with me, and that he is addicted to being my "enabler" -- otherwise, he would simply leave me and find a healthier relationship with a blogger who is not an abusive and genocidal madman.

But leaving that asnide, if what he says is true, then the situation is even worse than I had thought, because Jonny characterized me as a hateful, acid-spewing, demonic, and genocidal egomaniac, and yet, now says he feels no hostility toward me. First of all, let us stipulate that either I am or am not as he describes me. If I am, then it would be appropriate for any normal person to feel anger toward me. Indeed, they would be abnormal if they did not.

But if I am not as he so describes, then he is clearly engaged in projection, because otherwise there is no way to account for all that acid-spewing, genocidal hatred that exists in the space between us. After all, it came from somewhere -- specifically, either from his mind or from mine.

In Bion's terminology, there is clearly an "h link" between Jonny and I, but he denies it, which is something that passive-aggressive leftists and new ageists do, but only habitually. This is rooted in the commonplace observation that anger is converted to paranoia in the unconscious mind. For a child, when they get very angry at the parent, they unconsciously imagine that the parent will retaliate. The parent becomes monstrously frightening in the exact degree to which the child is angry.

Thus, for example, the more angry the deranged left gets at President Bush, the more their fears of him become detached from reality. They imagine that he is spying on them, or that he is constantly questioning their patriotism, or that he invaded Iraq in order to somehow enrich his wealthy friends, or that he is stealing elections, or "raping the planet," or that he is a "Christian fascist" who is going to take over the country, etc., etc.

Similarly, Jonny's grotesque distortion of me can only be the result of an unconscious process of which he is unaware. This is why the repetitious advice of the troll who calls himself Interlocutor is not just silly and misguided but dangerous:

"My basic beef with Bob is his allowance and accomodation of hate into the spiritual life, against the advice of all teachers. He will not desist from this view.... Recant, Bob. State for all of your raccoons: 'Hate is a wrong movement; it has no place in the spiritual life.'"

Here is another person who projects his anger into me, and then insists that I "recant," which, trancelighted, means that he wishes for me to magically "cleanse" him of his hatred. I can do this, but he will have to come to my office and pay me for the service. It's called psychotherapy. Together we will work through his transference reaction to me, until such a time as he can "own" his hostility. Once he does so, he will not be less healthy and spiritually balanced, but more healthy and integrated. It is foolish to think that spiritual development involves denial of basic human emotions.

Rather, as always, it depends upon the use to which the emotion is put (there is also a vertical "subtilization" of emotions that occurs with spiritual growth, but that is the topic of another post). It is good to feel anger toward what is bad or evil. In fact, without such feelings, you would be completely paralyzed in this world, unable to make the simplest decision in life.

For as Bion said, if you cannot suffer pain, you cannot suffer pleasure. In other words, denial is not a subtle defense mechanism, as if you could surgically remove one small part of yourself that you don't like. It is more like a "dumb bomb" that causes a lot of collateral damage, taking out a range of feelings that inform you about the moral dimension of the world. This is why all Coons will have noticed that these peace-and-love new age types always come across as so two-dimensional, phony and sanctimonious, whereas, say, Jesus comes across as a fully three-dimensional person with his unapologetic righteous anger and other emotions fully in tact, to say the least.

Brother, if you are an evil-doer, who, for whatever reason, opposes the Good -- or even if you are just a garden-variety fink -- a Coon will smite you where you stand with a flaming sword that is sharp and true. And, if you are a basically decent person who retains an uncorrupted soul, you will some day say thank you, sir, may I have another?!

Now, the peripathetic vagrabond Sir Te, who must camp out at our blog until he finds employment and gets a blog of his own, says that he has spent a virtual lunchtime studying philosophy, and yet, never stumbled across the idea that a classical liberal believes that knowledge of truth constitutes the mind's freedom. Perhaps it is because this superb wisdom is not to be found in the pages of the Hitchhiker's Guide to My Cousin's Converted Garage, or in the Tao te Schmendrick (we kid -- I am sure you are a harmless nebbish).

Perhaps no rabbi or classical liberal ever expressed it thus, but it is simply the B'ob extrapolating what they said in order to demonstrate the common assumption underlying classical liberalism. Yes, that's probably it.

Because the question is, "what is freedom for?" I happen to know what it is for, and I am a classical liberal. Therefore, past classical liberals must agree with me in essence, even if they never explicitly expressed it in the same way. For the eternal Coon Wisdom is One, although the sages call it by many names.

You will notice right off the moonbat that I do not waste a moment -- well, just this one -- debating whether or not free will exists (or where it came from, for that matter) for it self-evidently does. Even -- or, shall we say, especially -- someone who argues that free will does not exist must, in order to be consistent, believe that he is not free to believe what he believes, but is compelled to do so. Therefore we can ignore him, and not even waste the energy it would take to smite him with our rod of iron.

It is no coincidence that the same people who have undermined the concept of free will have carried on a brazen assault on the quintessentially human capacity to know truth (you can call them whatever you want -- I call them "leftists"). For although truth is defined as that which we are compelled to believe, if we do not arrive at it freely, then it cannot be truth.

For this reason, truth cannot be reduced to mere reason, for reason can only operate in a mechanistic way on the materials it is given. And this is precisely why there is such a riot of diverse opinions among the so-called "wise" of our day and age, for they are like children playing with one of the means of truth but unacquainted with -- indeed, even hostile to -- its transcendent Source.

I am currently reading a very good book entitled Light From the East: Theology, Science, and the Eastern Orthodox Tradition, and it is amazing to me how early this truth was known by Christian men -- but only because they were Christian men who knew the secret equation, A + J = R, or Athens + Jerusalem = Reality. (By the way, I cannot yet unreservedly raccoomend the book, but only because I just started it.)

There are some Christians who deplore the early fathers' mixing of scripture and Greek thought, but this is a very narrow-minded and ultimately dysfunctional view. First of all, it places an unnatural antagonism between religion and science or philosophy, when there can be no such antagonism.

Rather, properly understood, theology easily accommodates -- and will always accommodate -- any partial truth disclosed by science. Since science is simply the exploration and mapping of God's creation, this is something that should go without saying, but unfortunately, it doesn't. But the founders of Christianity were well aware of the fact. They had a great appreciation of science and pagan philosophy ("Athens"), while at the same time recognizing their limitations and the superiority of revelation, or God's Word. They were hardly "anti-intellectuals," but "hyper-" -- or shall we say "trans-" -- intellectuals. These were men of uncommon genius (thank God). At risk of tarring them with a featherweight term, they were the true integralists.

To cite just one example, Nesteruk writes that Clement of Alexandria "is considered the founder of Christian theology as understood in its modern setting as knowledge about God." His fundamental innovation was "the transfer of the language and methods of philosophy to the realm of faith." Among other things, he recognized truth "as something that embraces all, that includes all particular kinds of truth. Truth is one, and it is God's truth."

Truth is something which is "hidden" within philosophy, but philosophy alone can never disclose the full truth of which it is a mere vehicle. There is often a sad longing for truth in Greek philosophy -- even an intimation of its full revelation -- but it simply lacked the means to fully disclose it. That had to await the full embodiment of truth, in such a way that the divine and human worlds recovered their primordial oneness.

As Clement put it, Greek and Hellenic philosophy tore off "a fragment of truth from the theology of the ever-living Word," but a person who brings the fragments together and makes them one "will without peril, be assurred, contemplate the perfect Word, the truth."

Clement articulated plain Coon wisdom when he wrote, (as expressed by Nesteruk) that "the faith that is true knowledge of revelation becomes a more scientific faith when supported by philosophy, and in this way becomes gnosis." One persistent troll has criticized my approach, as if I should be engaged in some explicit political action. But before there can be any righteous and sustainable political action, it must be founded upon truth.

Furthermore, the contemporary Christian must not only be able to confidently and lucidly respond to what passes for the fashionable worldly wisdom of the day, but to confront the enemies of Christianity with superior arguments, something which is eminently possible. What is the alternative, being a clown like Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell, so people will go on thinking that such bozos are somehow representative of the intellectual depths of Christianity?

Clement pointed out something that would not be logically proven until Godel's theorems in the 20th century, that it requires an act of faith in order to employ first principles of any kind, whether "scientific" or religious. For example, if your first principle is that only empirical knowledge is possible, your first principle cannot be proven empirically. Rather, you take it on faith. Nor can natural selection prove that natural selection is responsible for the human mind, any more than DNA can prove that it holds the secret of life.

Clement concludes that "knowledge is a state of mind that results from demonstration; but faith is a grace which from what is indemonstrable conducts to what is universal and simple, something that is neither with matter, nor matter, nor under matter."

Frankly, it is one cosmos under god, but you knew that already. In any event, you will have to forgive me, not just for having written this unnecessary book, but because I'm just getting warmed up, and now His Majesty is stirring.... and then I have to get ready for my non-dei gig. To be continued, cosmic weather permitting....


georged said...

Good post. No beef against Athens but there are some who believe that Jerusalem was the more rational of the two.

Gagdad Bob said...

Of course. I think that's what I said.

dilys said...

"Hitchhiker's Guide to My Cousin's Converted Garage"! My first uncontrolled and helpless laughter of the day. Just because Bob doesn't treat everyone's little offering with reverence, doesn't read as hate. Folks, this is Entertainment! Which is one of the services we all do for each other on this dusty little planet.

Recently immersed in the ideas and domestic patterns of Russian revolutionaries, my thought is that certain characters presenting here could be a playwright's Grail: to pick one at random, a self-appointed philosopher, full to the brim with confused&derived imaginings presented as definitive, roving inhabitant of spare room(s) of siblings who regretfully capitulate to the Frost-y truth, home is the place where, when you have to go there, they have to take you in.

Where are Moss Hart and George Kaufmann when we need them? Or even J.M. Barrie?

big peter said...

In this post, Bob mentions anger but does not speak of hate. Hate is an intentional dislike and revulsion which is fed and nourished and which yields by-products that the ego finds salutory.

Hating takes effort; you have to work at it and concentrate. Anger comes of its own. There is a difference. Hate is the cultivation of anger and the power that it brings.

Bob is a hater; likes hate; has defended it as a spiritual tool in other posts repeatedly. He uses the old Testament as his authority to do so.

Bob hates Islamofascists. He will not deny this.

Bob ignores 3000 years of teachings that all specifically instruct not to hate. Why does he flout these things? Why does he do so publically on this blog?

What side is he on, anyway?

Petey, you speak. You are the part of him that knows the correct path.

Anonymous said...


Love the sinner, hate the sin. Never heard that one eh? Geez man, that was just lame.

late convert said...

Bob is a hater; likes hate; has defended it as a spiritual tool in other posts repeatedly.

Please provide links as citations to prove your allegation. Thanks ever so much.

jwm said...

So, peterhead, Why don't you tell us what there is to love about islam and islamists. What's wrong with hating Evil? What's the alternative? Disliking Evil a whole bunch but not actually hating it? Disapproving strongly of Evil? Compassionate understanding for Evil? Annoyed tolerance? Grudging acceptance?
Or maybe there isn't really any Evil at all.


Ricky Raccoon said...

Dr Bob,
Great post (again).
While reading it I was thinking I would suggest that, the next time a Troll rears his ugly or misguided rear again, that you save your strength, time, yada, and reply to the guy with just a link to today’s post and a single instruction to “Read it, your answer is here.”

But then Big Peter arrived in an instant (I confidently assume he read today’s post already) and I suddenly realized I should add one more thing to those instructions: “Read it again if you have to, or until you get it right.”

Cut and paste. It’s a wonderful thing.

Just a suggestion because…


hoarhey said...

I love it when Bob describes, like a laser beam, the mechanics of evil troll projection and the pathology involved in their trying to get him to stop being him.
And then, as if on cue, another I-Max projector shows up to prove his point.
What is it with these morons?

walt said...

Your response to your most recent critics reminded me of an interview with Arnold Schwarzenegger, back when he was running for Governor during the Re-Call of Gray Davis. Arnold was under attack from both the left and the right, and the interviewer asked whether it bothered him to be so roundly criticized? He replied,

"Not at all. I pick those people up with my little finger and flick them across the room, so that they land in their own baby poop!"

Anonymous said...


Hee Haw! Hee Haw! Hee Haw!

Joan of Argghh! said...

Big Peter,

I think you're overcompesating *ahem* for some other truth about yourself. No wonder you see hate everywhere.

The rest of us are groovin' on the Love Vibes, man. Loving truth, digging reason, loving beauty. Ugly things harsh our buzz; hate's a downer, dude, we really hate hate. Besides, it's all the man's fault, man. He's the one that hates our groove and wants to take away all the beauty and tell us that all the pretty colors aren't real, and that rap is music, and that we should get a job. That's harsh, man. That's like, just wrong.

Cuz what's happenin' here is good, so like, we have to run the buzz-killers out. We don't hate you, brutha, we just can't dig what you're about.

Peace and Love, man.

Bolt said...

When a person, group or culture is so blinded by an ideology that oppresses and extinguishes the flame of spirit, they are souls lost, engulfed by evil. When one turns their back on truth in the blind acceptance of evil, they embrace Thanatos and become that evil. There is no sinner to love, only evil to be confronted with the passionate guardian of clear-eyed hatred.

robinstarfish said...

The Story So Far
the gift of language
god reads the heavens aloud

River Cocytus said...

The sinner is to be loved insofar as doing such a thing reveals the grace and glory of God.

Which is to say, under normal circumstances, yes.

But there are always circumstances where evil must be resisted. He who embraces sin becomes a vessel of perdition.

Whether or not you are supposed to seek out and stop such folks depends on your calling.

But setting oneself against whom you perceive initially to be evil is always a mistake. It is best to let them reveal their intent (and allow you to check your own biases and judgments) and then to act.

This is not to say, "Open yourself to them" but rather to not act against them. Wisdom then, would be to figure out how to allow a person to reveal their intent without leaving one's self defenseless.

I would call it the Wisdom of the Gatekeeper.

Jesus is the door is he not? WWJD indeed.

The same types who find walls oppressive just for being there probably see Bob's gate, which rhymes with 'hate' and spit about sour grapes and throw rocks over the wall.

The gatekeeper is getting really, really tired of the B.S, so he dispatches DuPree with some manner of blunt implement to implement a blunt manner of pest control.

Hatred? Hardly.

Van said...

GeorgeD said "No beef against Athens but there are some who believe that Jerusalem was the more rational of the two."

Gagdad Bob said... "Of course. I think that's what I said. "

hmmm... (shifts uncomfortably... favorite cow getting gored...), I think the post has it right: "...knew the secret equation, A + J = R, or Athens + Jerusalem = Reality"

They are complementary... shift their balance one way or the other, either A plus j, or a + J, and what you get is a bevy of unbalanced Wacko's.

Dilys, the movie of "The Man Who Came to Dinner" with Monty Wooley, is one of my all time favorites of the black & whites!

line judge said...

How about that newcomer, Big Peter, hey coons? Now we all know what to expect next. It's that game show we here in this chapter know and love,


So far, we've got:

"We don't hate you, we just hate what you stand for" (shoutout to Petey!)(shoutout to Jerry Falwell)

"This isn't hate! This is love! Tough Love!" (shoutout to Grandpappy Coon)(shoutout to Bobby Brown)

"That's not hate, thats INNER-TAINT-MENT!" (Shoutout to Dilys)(shoutout to IMUS)

"We don't hate around here as a general rule. We only hate people worth hating. As a general rule. You big prick." (shoutout to JWM) (-very unlike you, dude!)(shoutout to Jessie Jackson)

"Come on in. Shut the door and sit down. Now let's explain some things to you." (shoutout to RickyR) (shoutout to Bob) (shoutout to Brigham Young)

"It walks like hate. It feels like hate. It acts like hate. It keeps me from truth like hate. But is it really hate." (shoutout to late convert) (shoutout to Greenpeace)

"You aren't seeing OUR hate, you're only FEELING your OWN hate! Here. Here's a mirror, a video camera, and a front screen projector. Or is that a rear-screen projector? Never mind. Your task is to...what's that, a pencil sketch of me? no, you? no, Bob? no, oh. Al Gore? Looks just like 'im. Hey, let's use it for target practice...where's my rifle?"
(shoutout to Hoarhey) (shoutout to Alec Baldwin)(shoutout to J Jonah Jameson)

"Hate? Here? Reminds me of a story I heard! Ha, yer gonna love this one! Yeah, it's a hate story, but it's funny!" (shoutout to walt) (shoutout to Joe Pesci)

"Ooh, you big sexy hunk! I love the way you say "hate". Oowwww! You and me, we could really make some time together, some "other" time. Hey, I got an idea. Loan me $50 before you leave, hey cutie pie? I'll pay you back next week. Love you later, K? (shoutout to Joan of Awwwe...)(shoutout to Anna Nicole's mammary, er, memory)

And finally, this just in:
"Now honey, what have I told you about using grownup words? Those words are for US to use, not for you!" (shoutout to RiverC)(shoutout to linejudge)

And at the end of the day, whaddya gonna call it?

(feels kinda good to get all that hate off yer chest, doncha know? Hey, I feel some more coming!)

Come on COONS! You know dis dance! It got de BobGodwin riddim an de BobMarley beat! One step foward, two step back!

River Cocytus said...

Judge not lest ye be judged...

wv: afsnips!

Sir Te said...

from yesterday:
decisions decisions, you claimed I was saying I was equivalent to Jesus. This is not true, I was simply pointing out one similarity between me and someone who I figured is considered by most here to be an exemplary example.

You said, "My guess is that your Sisters (Christian Saints that they are)keep your sorry ass because,
1. They pity you and,
2. You are after all, their brother.
You'd be better served to get a clue as to who REALLY is helping whom and take a hint from the religion/philosophy behind the benevolence."

You significantly mischaracterized the little information I gave about myself. In the two years since I left Academia I have lived with my sisters, of whom there are seven, a total of three months. For the majority of the time I live with several friends in various cities. It is just malicious to suggest, on no evidence whatsoever, that they pity me rather than finding their relation to me as being mutually beneficial. Religious as they are, they find great value in my ability to educate both them and their children since I have spent a considerable amount of time learning and thinking about issues which they, in their ordinary domestic lifestyles, don't have time for. All involved find it a fair trade. Is this not the essence of the market-place?

van, you said, "Nothing moral or immoral about subsistence living - so long as you don't demand that other's provide what you refuse to."

First, I don't demand that anyone provide me with anything. I have lived and survived without a home for several months so I, and those who know me, know that I can make it as a mendicant if need be. In this land of plenty waste is everywhere to be used by those who are not direct producers.

Also, how many Americans produce any of the materials that sustain their lives such as food or the structures they live in. America is now largely a service economy and like a great many I get in exchange for my services[which is mainly just me being who I am] the materials I need to subsist. Further than that, I never charge or demand anything, people are always able to give me as much or as little as they desire.

I didn't say you were a protestant but that you were expressing a sentiment that is characteristic of Protestantism.

You also said, "You can claim to be a socialist (democratic or otherwise, is of no concern), which means at root using the force of the gov't to rob people of whatever wealth they earn and accumulate (helpful hint for competent philosophers - that's where the moral issue comes into play), in order to support your pet Values and layabouts."

This is a mischaracterization. Your understanding of socialism is too narrow. Democratic socialism is in no way, other than such mechanisms that already exist in our economy[and which exist in any socio-economic system other than total laize fare], about forcing the people, via the government, to give up their wealth. Taxes would of course exist, but they already do. All decisions would still be democratic, actually more so, but it is a matter of society as a whole having ownership over that which is collective property and an interest in serving needs rather than making profit exclusively. It is not about entitlements but about what is the most effective policy for producing the most overall and individual wellness, both economically and socio-culturally.

decisions decisions said...

Sir te,

Ye protesteth too much!

Dougman said...

"When one turns their back on truth"

I have turned my back on Truth, not in disobedience to it, but in total acceptance of it, lest someone come from behind to lead me astray.

Oooo, a question for the advanced Bible student: Are the followers of Satan to be toyed with?

(Hint-a candle cannot be a candle without being wicked)


line judge said...

Oh, I been judged and cludged, fudged and rejudged, brother. And by weaker men than us. Flail away...

veritas et al said...

mind fucked,

You got it BAD man.
Like maggots in a dead corpse.

line judge said...

Of course I'd rather be fudged by a stronger man but I'll take what's available. ;)

line judge said...


Are you implying that Bob et al are ocuppying mega-space in my head rent free? And that I am spinning off into psychoville?
You're wrong man, dead wrong!

River Cocytus said...

This is a mischaracterization. Your understanding of socialism is too narrow. Democratic socialism is in no way, other than such mechanisms that already exist in our economy[and which exist in any socio-economic system other than total laize fare], about forcing the people, via the government, to give up their wealth. Taxes would of course exist, but they already do. All decisions would still be democratic, actually more so, but it is a matter of society as a whole having ownership over that which is collective property and an interest in serving needs rather than making profit exclusively. It is not about entitlements but about what is the most effective policy for producing the most overall and individual wellness, both economically and socio-culturally.

Though I know that Te does not respond to (and it is unlikely he reads) my comments, I want to respond to this statement.

about forcing the people, via the government, to give up their wealth

Why is this description necessary? Can you not just say 'tax' or 'tariff'? must it be sugar coated?

All decisions would still be democratic, actually more so, but it is a matter of society as a whole having ownership over that which is collective property

How can something be 'more' democratic? Do you mean 'more decisions are determined by the vote of the common people'? Knowing Paine's position (justified) about this sort of thing, plus the history of slimy populists and demagogues that dot history, being 'more democratic' is only a virtue insofar as it works against authoritarianism, whereas 'less democratic' can be a virtue as it works against mob rule and other forms of licentious populism. By this I'm alluding to anarchy and other forms of horizontal tyranny.

Collective property is a bad idea, in my view, and here's what I think is a nasty slip-

not about entitlements but about what is the most effective policy for producing the most overall and individual wellness

So does that make 'individual wellness' a form of collective 'property'? Is that not just another way of saying your body belongs to the collective?

That's what I'm hearing from that, and if that is what you meant, I think that is a key point of departure and why someone like myself would never be a Democratic Socialist.

offshore fisherman said...

Good cast, Line Judge! Musta dropped the sinker right in the middle of their lunch table. Imitation's a sure sign that you at least caught tomorrow's bait.

NoMo said...

Van, GeorgeD - Re: A+J=R. I believe Paul addressed the equation in his 1st letter to the Corinthians (sorry for the length)...

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate." (Paul quotes Isaiah 29:14) Where are the wise? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength. (I Cor 1:18-25)

Van said...

sir te said "First, I don't demand that anyone provide me with anything."

Dude, feeling a little guilty or something? Again, I did not criticize your lack of possessions - the closest I came was wondering about your available stock of books. When I said " long as you don't demand that other's provide what you refuse to." that was a reference to your politics, not the contents of your luggage.

"Also, how many Americans produce any of the materials that sustain their lives such as food or the structures they live in. America is now ..." (psst! te, your inner Marxist is showing!)

"This is a mischaracterization. Your understanding of socialism is too narrow.Democratic socialism is in no way, other than such mechanisms that already exist in our economy..."

Your understanding of Truth is too narrow. As Blind Judge said in his first ever flash of wit 'RAT-I-ON-ALL-LIES-AYSHUN!'(really should have quit while you were ahead there bj, the rest went down hill fast). Your "Democratic" credentials are sound, and indicative of the reasons that the Founders were careful to ensure that we were not set up as a Democracy, but as a representative republic whose representatives (originally only some) were democratically elected by the public. Tyranny in the form of a majority is no less a tyranny than when in the form of a minority. The Quantity of people involved in violating a persons inalienable rights, in no way legitimizes it.

"It is not about entitlements but about what is the most effective policy for producing the most overall and individual wellness, both economically and socio-culturally."

Which is why the BS detector sounded from your first post here. You're nothing more than a stereotypical PC, 'the ends justifies the means', wackademic.

Bolt said...

It may be anathema to political correctness, but there can exist righteous, enlightened hatred. When an ideology starves millions in the villages of the Ukraine, it merits hate. When political movements leave Cambodia, Armenia or Sudan strewn with innocent bodies, they merit hate. And when a culture kills their children for ephemeral political gain, it merits hate. To love humanity is to hate all that oppresses or destroys humanity. Our advancement, scientifically, culturally and spiritually absolutely depends on the preservation of life and liberty. (Just ask the Tibetans.) If you can’t be passionate enough to hate that which destroys human life and liberty, stand back and let the adults do what is hard. You can freely anticipate your impending enlightenment, hands so clean.

jwm said...

Sir Te:
A good tutor is worth about $20.00 per hour. Most work maybe three hours per day, tops.
Do you know what makes the world go 'round? I will tell you. It is people waking up, and going out to do their very ordinary jobs. Selling insurance. Building buildings. Cooking food. Designing the boxes that hold your breakfast cereal. Changing tires. Washing windows. Fixing engines. Participation in the great game comprises this business of living. You may choose to stand on the sideline. But if you're a spectator, admit that you're not a player.
If you're looking for some meaning in life, I would suggest that you take a job as a boxboy, a busboy, a janitor, a fast-food worker. You will learn more in six months of restaurant work than you will in all of your graduate seminars rolled up into one. If you live in California take up surfing. The ocean will give you an education, trust me. (not to mention a better excuse for slack than reading Hegel)


fudged-up fisherman said...

Hey, how's this for a new moniker? I can bring in a fifth party so I can talk to and agree with myself. Even more!
How bout it Big Peter?
Yeah, sounds good to me!
(And to think I could take a step up to pathetic if I weren't OWNED by Bob)

Van said...

fudged-up fisherman said...
"(And to think I could take a step up to pathetic if I weren't OWNED by Bob)"

That is a perfect new moniker - you even fudged up your own punchline.

River Cocytus said...

(cups hand to mouth) whah, whah, whahwahwahwah.

BTW - Bolt, I don't disagree w/ ya, just bein' a bit of a devil's advocate. It is our prerogative to destroy that which threatens our nation, our civilization, and humanity itself. But, our nation comes first, I would say, as the power to take life belongs to the government - and there is no lawful world government (as of yet.)

It seems doubtful that there will be one anytime soon.

So, I agree, but I believe it must be lawful-- Otherwise it turns into murder.

Sawdust said...

labshyAmen, Bolt. Good to be back to some killer posts. I love to see these new guys come in with both guns blazin', only to be bitch-slapped into next Tuesday in one or two short paragraphs by the Bob. Sure beats the hell out of "Survivor" or "Idol". I tried to tell old what's-his-name, but was pretty sure he wouldn't take any advice from me. Oh, well, a lesson learned first-hand will last longer anyway.

Bob, speaking of Godel, have you read the most excellent "Godel, Escher, Bach" by Douglas Hosstadter? If not, and I suspect you have, you must.

Bolt said...

River cocytus,
I’m in full agreement. Short of someone threatening my family, I would never, as an individual, take a life. A clear-eyed hatred is the visceral and rational recognition of evil. It focuses your attention and guards against delusion. It doesn’t demand a murderous rampage (that’s them, not us.) It only demands open eyes, a willingness to speak and to act when possible.

GLASR said...

I refuse to be victimized today! ;~{) HA!

PS No leaks.

Ricky Raccoon said...

Line Judge said,
“Come on in. Shut the door and sit down. Now let's explain some things to you." (shoutout to RickyR) (shoutout to Bob) (shoutout to Brigham Young)”

Dear Teacher,
Bob and I (hey, Bob) wish to move our chairs closer to Joan, Riv, Van, Hoarhey, Walt, JWM, you know the gang…so that we may talk about you in private (again).

Here’s a little secret – I was talking to Bob. Thanks for butting-in.

Who’s Brigham Young?
If you explain that joke to me, I promise to laugh next time.

You know, if that’s as funny as you get, you’re really not that funny.

profiler said...


I believe he has you 'pegged' as a Mormon from what I can tell. Then again, it's a bit tough to decipher, the lad has too many personalities to keep track of. ;)

Ricky Raccoon said...

Not a Mormon.
But then again, one of him is bound to peg me right, eventually. There’s still hope...

walt said...

White Salamander Dept:

One Cosmos is now "officially" on the Blogroll at PJ Media.

stink bait said...

How do you keep a gagdiddian coon busy for days?

Don't bother me just now. I'm trying to figure out Line Judge.

River Cocytus said...

"sock puppets are fun!"

Didn't we learn that from Lamb Chop?

... next.

Ricky Raccoon said...

'case it was missed, Bill has a new post (April 26) at:

uss ben said...

"In fact, we have heard from Petey, the Wise, the Compassionate, the Merthiful, CFCBUH, that enlightenment is somewhat like this: you finally "get" the joke that never existed to begin with. That's the joke. Get it? It's a guffah-ha! experience."

Heh! True irony and humor (humour) can't be comprehended by the leftist or new ager (or both).

However, they can be funny, although unintentionally so.
I sense a burning envy in the humorless, because they want to "get" the joke, and join in the merryment, but they can't understand how (or they choose not to because it violates their absolutely relative "truths" they revere so much).

Have you ever noticed how sadistic the leftist "comedians/comediennes" are?
They think that vileness is funny and they can't laugh at themselves.

That's why Margeret "the angry ho" C'ho, "Bitter" Bill Mahar, Al "gosh darn it, I love me" Franken, W'ho'opi "what in the hell happened to her eyebrows?" Goldberg, et al, are never funny.

Those who can't laugh at themselves are completely devoid of humor (humour).

Van said...

For all you hateaphobic trollocs out there, Susannah has just the comment for you at the end of yesterday's thread.

jwm said...

Van, you weren't a kiddin'!
(Go see.)
Talk about trouncin' trollocs! Susanah weilds the balefire on their sorry hides.


drama queen said...

Headline: Assailant pepper-sprays and beats two reporters in leftist newpaper office.

Media to the assailant: Why did you do it?

Gunman: They're leftists. They will destroy civilization unless they are stopped.

Media: Where did you get that idea?

Gunman: Gagdad Bob's blog.

Media to Gagdad Bob: What's your take on this?

Gagdad Bob: Well, if someone wants to go do something about leftists, I have no problem with that. If someone gets hurt, I have no problem with that either. This is One Cosmos, not the Cub Scouts.

Media: So you condone what the assailant did?

Gagdad Bob: Leftists aren't equal to us. They are infrahuman. They don't deserve to breathe free air. If you don't like what we stand for, then go some place else.

cousin dupree said...

The really, really stupid commenters wait until they think I'm asleep in my murphy bed.

Skully said...

Good shootin', Susannah!

Skully said...

Aye. Night of the morons.
The frothing battiest of the bunch.

drama queen's drama coach said...

Drama queen was my worst student...ever. Even Elizabeth Edwards wasn't as bad as her.
Drama queen was so bad that she couldn't even play herself.
Imagine a retarded Cybill and you will get my drift.

walt said...

Sheesh! We're going to have to start sleeping in shifts around here!


Van said...

Drama Queen - there are bad people out there!
Q - What was bad about what Gagdad said?
DQ - he said there were bad people out there!
Q - isn't that true?
DQ - yes
so there are bad people out there, which is fine, but saying anything about the bad people is bad, because that'll cause bad people to do bad things - so you shouldn't say or do anything to identify bad people because that'll cause the bad people to do bad things?
DQ - Yes!
Q - Didn't you just say GB was doing bad things?
DQ - yes
Q - Doesn't that mean you just did the worst bad thing possible, saying that someone was bad and doing bad things?
DQ - whuh? I don't know tha...aarrgghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh (insert clip of Troll from 'The Holy Grail' being zapped into the chasm, here(African or Europeon?).)
A King's gotta know these things.

Anonymous said...

Namaste, dude.

Susannah said...

I think Drama Queen's got Bob confused with Frank J of IMAO. :)

Somehow I missed Bob's manual on "How to Physically Intimidate Leftists." Could someone point me to it?

BTW, that post was a nice little bit of love in action. I guess we should do as leftists say and not as they do (lie, defame, etc.), hm?