Tuesday, May 03, 2011

Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Obama

In a comment yesterday, ge linked to a review of Fukuyama's The Origins of Political Order at Slate. Although there is nothing wrong with the review, it highlights the truism that a review is always as much if not more about the reviewer than the object under scrutiny.

In a serious review of a serious author, one mind is bringing itself to bear upon another, in a process that is simultaneously passive and active. In order to enter the author's world, we must passively allow him to enter our head and make his presentation.

But in the end, this is no more possible than, say, listening to a new song while forgetting what one knows about music, most of which is implicit, not explicit. In general, our implicit knowledge surpasses our explicit knowledge, certainly in significance if not "amount" (i.e., quality vs. quantity).

Through implicit awareness, we are able to instantaneously and transrationally intuit potential meaning and significance, i.e., those avenues that are worth the trouble of exploring in order to gain explicit knowledge. Any kind of cognitive endeavor is characterized by this complementarity of implicit/explict (or tacit/focal, in Polanyi's terms), whether scientific, philosophical, or religious.

It is a dangerous error to regard oneself as a rationalistic "blank slate," for the human mind is filled with preconceptions, the most important of which antedate our personal existence. Some of these are genetic, others cultural and linguistic, others what we call "archetypal," still others "principial" or metaphysical. For the average person, his deepest assumptions are buried beneath the conscious mind, and never clearly articulated.

The most bitter political struggles are generally taking place at one of these much deeper dimensions, e.g., the war -- and it is a war, only generally without guns -- between conservative individualism and leftist collectivism. For as we have been discussing, "individualism" is an extraordinarily rare, subtle and infinitely significant cosmic fact.

From our perspective, just as the left assumes the existence of wealth that needs only to be "distributed" "fairly" after the fact, they also assume the existence of the individual, as if there are not very specific historical, cultural, familial, religious, and other factors that give rise to it.

This latter assumption leads to any number of psychopathologies, both individually and culturally (and to even conjoin the words "cultural" and "pathology" is a no-no on the left unless dealing with conservative Americans). One especially glaring example is the destruction leftist policies have wrought upon the black family over the past half century.

This is inevitable, because if one actually believes that a family is just "anything," then one will exercise no caution whatsoever in messing with its delicate environment.

Indeed, leftists will exercise considerably more caution in dealing with tree slugs or sea turtles than human beings. Leftists never conduct "environmental impact studies" to determine what their laws will do to the human soul. They are much more concerned with second hand smoke than with third rate Marxist professors blowing smoke at our young adolts.

But this only goes back to one of their implicit assumptions: that there is no soul to be impacted. Rather, the left's unending social engineering assumes that they can shape and fundamentally change the human being through public policy. What we call the immortal soul they call "putty in our hands."

For example, if human beings are "greedy," the left proposes to simply punish this anonymous group with higher taxes in order to create a vast state to make them more "generous." At best, this merely transforms private greed into public greed, except that, ironically, we have less power to fight public greed than we do private greed.

The democracy of the free market ultimately mitigates the latter, but there are parasites lodged so deeply in the leftist state that they are virtually "eternal" and beyond our reach. Is there no way to rid ourselves of the Education Department, deference to the UN, agricultural subsidies, foreign aid for Palestinians who seek the destruction of our way of life, funding for state-controlled media propagandists, abortion mills hiding behind "family planning," etc?

The welfare state is like Islam. Once the latter conquers a territory, it is supposed to be forever subdued and part of the Dar al-Islam. And once the left conquers a portion of our liberty, there is no going back.

This is the great danger of the regression to socialized medicine, which renders our physical well-being -- our most intimate private property -- an extension of the Dar al-Obama. This is a cosmic monstrosity that has no right to exist. It is entirely outside the limited constitutional government -- the liberal republic -- established by our founders.

Remember, there was a time, not too long ago, that no wealth existed. This would be prior to the agricultural revolution. The latter brought with it wealth, i.e., surplus, but no understanding of how wealth is created.

There was also a time that no individuals existed. Man evolves first as a social being; this must indeed be the case, for the individual can only evolve in the dialectical matrix of communion with others, beginning with the (m)Other.

I'm getting way sidetracked here. My original point was how differently we engage reality, based upon our implicit preconceptions. I notice this every day, on a moment-to-moment basis, as random things are simultaneously illuminated by, and attractive to, my preconceptions.

But "preconceptions" sounds too clinical. In reality we are talking about a "soul attraction" that exerts its force -- and it is an ontologically real force -- in two directions. This is what a Raccoon calls the essential erotics of being, a phrase which I have playgiarized from Christopher Bollas.

When you get right down to it, human being -- the beingness of our humanness -- consists of a kind of rhythm and economy of attraction. We are attracted to certain things; and certain things attract us.

Likewise with repulsion, which has its higher and lower modes of operation. For example, vomiting is a primitive defense mechanism for ridding our body of a foreign invader.

But so too is the queasiness we feel in the presence of certain malevolent souls and ideas. If you should ever lose contact with this critical soul-defense, you will surely become lost and disOriented in the cosmos. If certain people and ideas do not make you want to vomit, then you probably can't be helped. Even Jesus himself occasionally spews, cf. Rev 3:16.

I am fully aware of the fact that I cause indigestion in our trolls. The question is, why? And why do they enjoy making themselves sick? As to the first, it is because I challenge all of their deepest assumptions about the ways and whys of the cosmos.

I will be the first to acknowledge that the left has this adverse effect on me. But I certainly don't seek it out. I don't have to, because it is everywhere. Rather, I try to avoid it.

Conversely, people have to make a special point of coming to visit me in the slackatoreum. I know of no one else who shares my specific world view. If I did, it wouldn't be so lonely here in Upper Tonga. Indeed, even the people I most admire would undoubtedly want to keep me at arm's length, to put it mildly.

Regarding my delicate digestion, I could only stomach about thirty seconds of Obama's vulgarly self-aggrandizing statement on Sunday night. And it wasn't just the pettiness and gracelessness that I found disturbing.

My aesthetic sensibilities were also wounded by his attempt to reach beyond the limitations of his eighth-grade level of prose. Where is Bill Ayers when you need him? Probably professional courtesy. He didn't want to get involved in dissing a fellow terrorist.

a bright September day was darkened... The images of 9/11 are seared into our national memory... a cloudless September sky... The empty seat at the dinner table... a gaping hole in our hearts.... the American people came together... We reaffirmed our ties to each other... we were united as one American family...

Oh, c'mon. Here's what happened in the real world: an evil psychopath with religious delusions took out two of our buildings with 3000 human beings inside. Do this and we will destroy you. We will dispatch men of granite from the future who will reach down into your festering sinkhole of history and pull you out by the gonads. We will tear your evil ideology from the earth, root and branch. If you want to live like a stinking animal, hey, move to some desolate corner of Pakistan and go nuts. But don't even think about imposing this on the rest of us, because we will put a sunroof in your skull faster than a jihadi can hide behind his whore, and pass the rest of you through whatever sea creatures happen to find you floating by.

Jeez, I keep getting sidetracked. Let's get back to the subject at hand. Yesterday I was reading the March 2011 Hillsdale Imprimus and came across the following statement by the eminent economist Gary Becker:

"I am struck by the similarity between the [Catholic] church's view of the relationship between the family and the economy and the view of economists -- arrived at by totally independent means. Economic and spiritual concerns appear to point in the same direction."

What direction might this be? Well, first of all it is a direction. And only an evolutionary cosmos guided by an attractor can have a direction.

Obviously, the Darwinian world can have no real direction, nor can any materialistic metaphysic in general. And since progressivism is ultimately rooted in Marxian materialism, it cannot have a proper direction either.

Which should not surprise us, since progressivism is the very codification of principles that erode progress -- principles such as private property, the rule of law (e.g., the Constitution), the sanctity of the traditional family, religious ethics, self-discipline, delayed gratification, etc. -- or what the Raccoon refers to as "vertical capital."

In short, horizontal capital is predicated on vertical capital, more on which as we go along. At the moment I'm swamped with work, and must get to it.


julie said...

There was also a time that no individuals existed. Man evolves first as a social being; this must indeed be the case, for the individual can only evolve in the dialectical matrix of communion with others, beginning with the (m)Other.

I'm reminded of certain genres in horror fiction that are fairly common, but this makes me wonder if they're mainly horrific to American (and to a lesser extent, Western European) minds: the idea of being drawn into the hive mind, and the concomitant loss of individuality. I wonder if this idea is as frightening to the average Easterner or tribe member? The concept is juxtaposed by another popular theme, the outsider who wants to lose their individuality in order to be part of a perceived larger whole. Though in American lore, this almost always ends up badly, and the story tends to be resolved by the protagonist deciding to reject assimilation and embrace his or her own uniqueness. If it were, say, a Muslim writing the story, wouldn't the protagonist end up, for instance, as the victim of an honor killing?

julie said...

I know of no one else who shares my specific world view. If I did, it wouldn't be so lonely here in Upper Tonga.

Now, now - if you ever met someone that much like yourself, eventually you'd realize that interacting with him would just be an exercise in onanism...

Cousin Dupree said...

Yes, just rubbing one ideology together.

julie said...

btw, I liked your version of the speech much better. Of course, Obama could never give it without looking silly; that would require more testosterone than the metrosexual in chief could ever produce.

Anonymous said...

Explain something for me -- you're some kind of Christian, right? And wasn't Jesus about turning the other cheek, loving your enemies, that kind of thing? So how does that square with this gloating over the death of an enemy, this reveling in the graphic imagining over the details of his killing ("sunroof in your skull", eg)? I don't get it, so maybe you can clarify the relationship between this kind of macho celebration of killing and killers and the path of Christ.

Cousin Dupree said...

Become one of us and find out. The Bible is not a collection of inane aphorisms, clown.

Old Fart said...

Funny how non-believers are always so quick to tell a Christian how he's supposed to act or think.


A) there's a cosmos of difference between turning the other cheek when your face gets slapped and offering up innocent lives (that aren't yours to offer) to a bloodthirsty murderer for the sake of maintaining peace.

B) Assuming for a moment that somehow, Bin Laden had a moment of revelation before he died, wherein the truth of his actions became known to him. I can assure you, any death at that point would seem to him decidedly merciful compared to the enormity of his crimes.

C) However, it is highly unlikely that such a moment of revelation ever came to him. Whatever remnant of humanity he had left, it was chained in service to something evil in its essence and antithetical to the good, the true, or the beautiful. While one might mourn the loss of his humanity, whenever that may have occurred, a good person cannot really mourn the loss of his corporeal life, any more than one would mourn the cleansing burning of a foundationally rotten and vermin infested charnel house where human sacrifices were performed.

It is not wrong to rejoice when justice is served. This is not a case of an eye for an eye, nor petty vengeance. He was not killed because we didn't like what he had to say, or because he got busy with his neighbor's whatever. He brought about the deaths of thousands of innocents, and rejoiced in that fact. This was genuine evil. Good and evil are real things, and for the good to feel anything but glad when evil is brought down both diminishes goodness and elevates evil.

Gagdad Bob said...

Besides, I do not celebrate Osama's death. I have fun with it.

Anonymous said...

No question that bin Laden was evil. But the gospels are quite clear:

Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

Bin Laden aside, it seems to me this blog is all about "saluting your brethren" while dumping on your perceived enemies. And, as Jesus says, this is perfectly normal behavior, even publicans manage it. But Christians are supposed to be better than normal, or at least trying to be.

Gagdad Bob said...

Fortunately, there are any number of blogs reflecting your particular faith tradition. We wish you well.

julie said...

Completely OT, but I'm pretty sure this is yet another sign of the apocalypse.

Also, who kisses like they're swirling a bendy straw in their mouth? If that's how it worked, drinking straws would be a lot more popular...

mushroom said...

The loving and gentle Jesus, who would no doubt have been charged with assault and battery, not to mention property destruction, in His cleansing of the Temple, pronounced woes upon those who opposed Him (Matthew 23). This same Jesus told His disciples to pawn their coats to buy swords.

In Galatians 5:12, Paul, a Christian if there ever was one, recommends castration of those who are perverting the Gospel.

A Christian will give his or her life happily in witness of the faith, but we will defend the weak, the helpless, and the innocent.

I think it's in The Screwtape Letters where the demons are discussing the English attitude toward war. He complains that the English talk dark and bellicose, but when a downed German pilot shows up at their door, they invite him in and give him cigarettes and tea.

If you can't handle paradox, find a simple religion like Islam or atheism. The truth is hard.

Samuel said...

"For example, if human beings are "greedy," the left proposes to simply punish this anonymous group with higher taxes in order to create a vast state to make them more "generous.""

You do remember your discussion of straw man arguments? This is one.

I am curious, though, what you feel about all the other countries that have socialized medicine. Does this really make them less free?

julie said...


mushroom said...

Regarding 'apoca-lips now', Julie, you have to keep in mind that for some of the boys at slashdot, that's about as good as they are going to do.

Van said...

"Jeez, I keep getting sidetracked."

Maybe, but they were some scenic views.

Van said...

Julie said "btw, I liked your version of the speech much better."


And what a surprise that the namby pamby christie trolls follow along, towed by their own metro-ness.

Van said...

Old Fart said "This was genuine evil. Good and evil are real things, and for the good to feel anything but glad when evil is brought down both diminishes goodness and elevates evil."

Huh, well whadayouknow. They do smell like roses.

julie said...

Van, "They do smell like roses."


That's somehow both wrong and hilarious.

Van said...

strawman said "I am curious, though, what you feel about all the other countries that have socialized medicine. Does this really make them less free?"


Van said...

From Julie's apoco-lips link "According to the inventor, this could be a good way for celebrities to get closer to their fans."

Now that is disturbing and wrong.

(shiver... cringe)


Naturally wv wan'ts in on the action:

I don't even want to know.

julie said...

And what a surprise that the namby pamby christie trolls follow along, towed by their own metro-ness.

I was just thinking (and really, giving the bozo more mental attention than he deserves), the real problem the troll has here is not a lack of Christianity, but the presence of masculinity.

"You're not nice," he wails. "Socialism is nice. Jesus was nice. How can you be so Macho?!"

Scandalous. Justice is scandalous. Righteousness is scandalous. Manly virtues like defending the innocent, by force when necessary, oh, the horror!!


mushroom said...

Science says, Dependent people are not necessarily passive.

People can be aggressively dependent. I'm not sure we needed a study for that.

julie said...

Yep - anyone paying attention to all the riots every time people's dependency on the state is threatened could have told them that.

JP said...

Part of the non-violence isue also tends to be how you were raised.

If you were taught that you must *always* be nice to people and *never* fight back, then you read "turn the other cheek" to mean that you have no right to self-defense and no right to ever use violence.

After all, you are supposed to be "in the world, but not of the world", right? And after all, "the world" practices violent self-defense, so, you should definitely avoid that.

However, if you are Bob, you just take it as meaning "don't over-react" rather than "if someone wants to kill you, you have a moral obligation to die rather than defend yourself with force."

My thinking would appear to be psychologically unhealthy, at least.

wv: enough

Anonymous said...

petty, juvenile, and small about sums it up.

Anonymous said...

As noted, "Raccoons" are not Christian and they do not follow Christ.

They do like portions of Christ's doctrine, but not the entire load.

The raccoons, by and large, are frightened because they lack trust. They believe that negative outcomes are possible.

Frightened people are always aggressive.

Christ was admittedly impossible to follow to the letter; it requires a faith and trust so absolute that fear can find no purchase.

Nobody can do it.

julie said...

You are welcome to see it that way.

But again, as we are so puny, such shameful and appalling examples of Christian goodwill, WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU that you keep coming back here to this den of gloating iniquity?

Speaking purely for myself, if you want to know the truth, I didn't jump and run shouting through the street when I heard the news. Hell, I didn't even drink to the Seals who did the deed, though perhaps I should remedy that tonight. I know that at this point, his death is largely symbolic, and it probably changes little to nothing in the war on terror. This news does not excite me in any way; instead, it provides a solemn sense of relief that earthly justice has been served. The state of his soul and his hereafter are not my business, though I suspect he's not enjoying himself overly much in eternity.

That said, if I am to be consigned to eternal damnation for being quietly GLAD and even laughing at "unChristian" humor over the fact that this unrepentent mass murderer who died shamefully hiding behind the skirts of a woman after orchestrating the agonizing deaths of thousands of innocents has finally been put to an end - if this is the worst of my sins - then God have mercy because I believe that it is a mitzvah that Bin Laden is dead.

In the meantime, friend, why don't you worry about that plank in your own eye before trying to tackle the admittedly large one in mine? Or better yet, as one of the lord's own missionaries who hasn't received a warm welcome, maybe you would be better served by shaking the dust of this blog off your sandals and moving along to someplace where the fertile soil is prepared to receive your holy wisdom.

Cousin Dupree said...

I would have left the left if only for the soul-crushing absence of humor. If you can't make fun of a dead terrorist, what can you make fun of?

julie said...

Seriously. Makes me think you need to do a post all about how many dead terrorists it takes to screw in a light bulb. If nothing else, maybe the trolls will finally get so fed up at the lack of somber, finger-wagging maturity they'll finally find something better to do...

JP said...

I don't think you are supposed to feed the trolls.

mushroom said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Van said...

aninnymouse said "petty, juvenile, and small about sums it up."

Certainly sums you both up well.

I just had a similar exchange with an old leftie girlfriend. I'll pass my reply on below. You're welcome:

It is not reveling in death to exult when a threat to life is extinguished.

It is not reveling in death to rejoice when an end has been brought to one who has brought about such horrific physical and emotional carnage as this one, and whose very life was lived for the purpose of causing ever so much more.

It is no mere catharsis of the flesh to rejoice when an existential threat is removed, but one of the spirit and an Affirmation of life. I pity those who interpose such contrived calculations between their mind and body, and even worse, consider them ethical positions to take.

“But are you any safer than you were last week?” Are you such a utilitarian that only those transactions which produce a measurable value are worth engaging in? Truly, few philosophies offer a more dismal and empty view of life than that of the materialists.

Justice done is a value in and of itself, and ridiculing or minimizing it is the most childish and cowardly action of all – a flight from the responsibilities of living.

Van said...

JP said "I don't think you are supposed to feed the trolls."

Not feeding the trolls, but feeding on them. They're like popcorn. Waste not want not.

JP said...

Here's Calvin's thoughts on the Osama issue (a realpolitic analysis):

"That particular post of mine was about the supposed leaked embassy chatter coming through Wikileaks. I am TELLING YOU OUTRIGHT that there was enormous embassy chatter worldwide about Pakistan and that it was clear that something unusual was going on in northern Pakistan. Assange either deliberately held back this stuff - or, he is a paid employee.

Nobody but NOBODY can claim they 'did not know' what the involvement of some parts of the Pakistani Secret Service was in the ENTIRE affair dating from before 9/11.

The failed bank BCCI - which funded the Bushes in Texas substantially on many occasions - 'lost' multiple billions before it collapsed in London. The US government insiders worked out that a cadre of the Pakistani political elite was behind the fraud. A plan was hatched to 'get money back' and a deal was struck to at first sell military equipment to Pakistan, receive billions in prepayments, and then renege on supply. And create 'disproportionate violence' along the way.

For which 'a segment' of the Pakistan Secret Service hit back by launching the 9/11 attacks.

Don't waste your time arguing with me. This is not now, nor has it ever been about radical Muslims versus 'The West.' It's about money and power."

Cousin Dupree said...

Finally. Anonymous revealed!

julie said...

Naw, I'm pretty sure Anonymous is that crying guy from the "leave Britney alone!" video. Although if Anon is a truther, that would explain the sympathy for the devil...

Anonymous said...

It's not just "making fun" of bin Laden, it's the near-pornographic exulting in the imagined manner of his death. Not to mention the homoerotic fixation on "men of granite from the future". You're a shrink, maybe you can tell me what this obsession with masculinity means.

Old Fart said...

Huh. I guess pornography really is in the eye of the beholder.

I bet you feel violated by the Washington monument, too...

julie said...

Gosh, Anon, I think you really missed the point of that entire passage. If the language is crude, that is simply because it is addressed toward a crude people who, unfortunately, seem to respond well only to real threats of violence. The passage, in point of fact, is not fantasy. It is a description of what just happened, and it is a message that hopefully will ring loud and clear in the jihadist world specifically in hope that this whole episode will not have to happen again. Because like it or not, in certain parts of the world our very unwillingness to be excessively aggressive is seen as an invitation to much greater aggression against us.

Further, the behavior of a nation toward its foes must necessarily be different from the behavior of a man toward his personal enemies. Nations must practice earthly justice if freedom is to prevail, whereas individuals may choose to martyr themselves for something higher; that is their right as free individuals. A nation that stands for freedom, however, has a duty to protect its citizens and a duty to fight enemies both foreign and domestic.

This isn't about retribution. Nor is it about brute thuggery. This is about discouraging anyone else from trying to mastermind another such attack on our soil. This is about hopefully preventing the future loss of innocent life. And yes, there is a certain manliness required to carry out that task. And manliness must be valued to appreciate it.

As I noted earlier, you clearly have a problem with masculinity. That is unfortunate. God made man in his image, after all, and part of that image is being both a defender of the innocent and a smiter of evil.

Anonymous said...

Julie, you seem to be confused about the topic under discussion, which is not the wisdom or justice of executing bin Laden, but whether it is appropriate for Christians to celebrate it as if it was the equivalent of the home team winning the pennant.

I don't have a problem with masculinity. People who think that the only valid expression of masculinity is through violence clearly do have problems, and cause problems for the rest of us. But I have to say it is vastly amusing to hear someone in the tough-guy profession of psychologist sing peans to men of granite.

Old Fart said...

Right, because it would be better if Bob was writing odes to the morally flaccid...

Cousin Dupree said...

Gosh, I thought Bob was just referencing Van Morrison's Tupelo Honey. Learn something every day....

LaFayette said...

You'd be surprised how many Van Morrison songs are about homoerotic pornography, if you know how to listen.

LaFayette said...

For example, his album A Night in San Francisco. What do you suppose that's about? Or Still On Top. Or The Bang Masters. It's pretty much his favorite subject.

Anonymous said...

What a horrible quote of Don Colacho.

Accepting that exceptions don't prove the rule, what about William F. Buckley?*

What about those who earn a living doing it (the quote), and those who pass the time doing it as opposed to reading light fiction or listening to mindless soft jazz?

And should not someone inform the Evangelicals, who actively share their fundamental beliefs with those, some might say especially those, who don't share their postulates?

*You don't know?

Gagdad Bob said...

That being the case, it shouldn't be difficult for you to find a blog that shares your postulates.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

If you take anonees form of "christianity" to it's conclusion then it would be impossible for those who fight for our lives, liberty and property to be Christians.

Naturally, these humorless pacifistic cowards always attempt to paint Christ as a milquetoast, pathetic scumbag like them.

They conveniently ignore the sword He brought, and His actions and words (not to mention Revelations, Truth, Wisdom, etc...and purty much the entire Bible and Torah).

If a Christian doesn't hate evil Ihe doesn't have even a rudimentary understanding of what Goodness or Life means.

Christ came to save us through His sacrifice.
Those of us who strive to follow Christ (or God if you will) would also strive to protect n' defend our loved ones, friends, even fellow countrymen and allies we don't know from evil, no matter what form it takes...even unto death if need be.

In truth, Christ Himself says that man can show no greter love than to lay his life down for his friends.

Pacifists have no life to lay down for if they ain't willing to fight evil to protect it, how can they even begin to comprehend the value of it?

This troll also fails to see the boundless humor that Christ has so it's no surprise that it's apalled at our humor n' joy over the defeat of an evil.

Raccoons would rather laugh with the Saints than cry with the sinners wallowing in self pity, envy and salacious smugness in it's own moral superiority.

I rather like the sunroof analogy for it allows more Light to enter. And yeah, it's funny! :^)

Anonymous said...

And a good day (eternity also) to you Sir.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

What the troll is really sayin': "Look at me! I'm a spiritual prig! C'mon! Wallow with me, my shit don't stink."

Skully, reporter at largess.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

It's pathetically funny and sad that a moonbat would bend over and offer it's cheeks to worshippers of a bloodthirsty moongod that demans fealty to it's hellish cult and death to all who oppose it's satanic (and humorless) domination.

Of course, it's highly unlikely said moonbats would ever hafta actually face these demonic animals so there is not even a smidgen of courage on their (im)moral high horse(shit).

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

For moonbats allah ack!bars are all fun n' games until someone loses a head.

Obviously they ain't payin' attention. If only those murdered on 9/11 had turned the other cheek and we all accepted Sharia domination and converted to Islam there would be true peace from the religion of pieces.
Hey, just look at how well they all get along.

Nope, not for this ol' warmonger. I'll continue to laugh when these barbaric assouls blow themselves up and when our guys put these rabid dogs down. :^)

ge said...

-we caught the Van M quote, unlike 'But I have to say it is vastly amusing to hear someone in the tough-guy profession of psychologist sing peans to men of granite.'
isnt ol' Sing Peans dating that Scarlett Boobovitch?

ge said...

your post here bob
reminds why I never watch TV
but try and catch el Maha daily.
Politricks basically is a lowlevel demons' trollish game, spare me the minutiae but give me a touch of genius POV to feed my starving cells/ orient my course amongst the Obamanos! bumperstickler masses

ge said...

meanwhile the Limo Libs' literary lady shares her cretinous take on
golfer in chief as Top Gun

ge said...

pahdon mah garruhlosity if you will...

-someone released an 'official Government-redacted photo' yet? ie a SmileyFace with a big red gash across forehead...?

teeshirts are gonna selll regardless of image released/not


Anonymous said...

Christian dogs should not celebrate for killing Muslim lions. Period.

Mizz E said...

Mark Steyn calls out Francis Fukuyama

philmon said...

Old Fart - well said. Van - that was a freaking hilarious way to point out that it was well said. And Julie ... I heart you. You are teh awesome.

Me, I rejoice in justice being served, and in cases such as this, I really don't mind seeing it done with decisive force. Sunroofing a skull is actually pretty humane as deaths go, anyway. Any pain felt would be over as quickly, or perhaps even more quickly, than it began.

Did I break out the hats and hooters and go dancing in the street? No. Didn't chant "USA! USA!", either.

Though I did smile at a friend's comment on facebook, "Screw you, Superman. The USA has the Navy Seals."

Not because I like kicking ass for the sake of kicking ass. But I like it when bad asses gets kicked in a Bad Ass™ manner. I like a good, decisive, unmistakable victory by good over an evil entity. And I will not apologize for it.

"Love Your Enemies" is a good rule of thumb. But when a specific enemy embodies evil itself, and has as little compunction about taking out your "enemies" as he does you, the decision tree must expand to include more drastic options.

Might doesn't make right. But I'm damned glad when Right has Might. The alternative is the victory of evil.

julie said...

Thanks, Philmon :)

And yep, I think you've expressed it perfectly.

I also find it amusing that in Anon's last comment last night, he said:

"People who think that the only valid expression of masculinity is through violence clearly do have problems, and cause problems for the rest of us."

Funny mainly because I couldn't agree more, and that's why I'm glad that something was finally done about OBL. Of course, I know who the violent ones are in his fevered imaginings. I could almost pity the poor troll; it sounds like he sees persecutorial penises everywhere he looks...

Gagdad Bob said...

Spoken like a true Kleinian. Interestingly, her theories appear a tad psychotic until one encounters an individual to whom they apply. Then she is like a seer, only of the lower vertical.

julie said...

I can see how it would be hard to follow her reasoning - until, as you say, a living example waltzes in and starts complaining. Reminds me of an old Onion story: "Every time a man passes me on the street, I'm afraid he's going to grab me and drag me off to some bathroom..."

Gagdad Bob said...

I see it as more like a language with which to symbolize primitive mental states -- a way to put otherwise pre-linguistic experience into words. It's analogous to religious language, except applied to the lower vertical.

julie said...


I do grasp that. Maybe.

There's a surface quality of A's words that comes across casually as homophobia, in that he's projecting all this gayness into someone he hates and then cursing that someone for being gay (and what can I say, it's just so easy to go after the low-hanging fruit), but under that it strikes me (as a lay observer) that he has major issues with masculinity just in general. As though there's a seriously dysfunctional relationship with his father that he was never able to live down, and really all he wants is to go back to the womb.

Maybe I'm way off base, though.

julie said...

Thanks for that Klein link, btw - I'm just reading it again now that Captain Chaos is settling down enough that I can focus on it. Always good to gain a little insight into the phases the boy is going through, since he can't tell me himself.